Probably something that could have been dealt with between the 2 parties. I hope they don't have any children that have to read about this someday!

he pleaded guilty-he should resign now--go away mr. younker go away NOW

Why should he resign? This the typical "he said she said" nonsense that happens in a divorce. Adrienne is right, this could have been easily settled between the two parties.

Wow, if legal problems during a divorce can affect your job, then we'd better all look out. This wouldn't even be news if he worked for anyone else.

Sounds like he got the raw end of the deal.

He blames the insurance agent...so the agent forged the ex-wife's signature???

Quite a few wrongs here - however when you decide to be a public official your personal life and all involved in that personal life become a main part of your public life, regardless of the level of public service you are involved in. The Patch would not have reported on this story if the subject of the story was not in the public eye - hence 'news'. Unfortunately, when you are in public service, you MUST ensure that you cross all your T's and dot all of your I's because people who look for 'news' for a living will seek you out and write about it - regardless if it is in poor taste or not. In this case, truly in poor taste.

Just to be clear....are you suggesting that reporting on an elected officials criminal activity is somehow inappropriate? I'm sure the editors will have plenty to say about that, but as a citizen, I look to the press to provide exactly that type of information to the public and find it in no way "sensational" as I believe you are suggesting.

Kim Kardashian is in the 'public eye.' Mr. Younker is an elected official. Big difference.

At a past job, an off-duty police officer was charged with DUI, and the chief simply told me about it, before the report was released.
"I'd rather you hear it from me first, because you'll find out eventually," he said.
When Obama and George W. told the world about their past substance abuse, they still became president.
I think public officials have a responsibility to be open about legal matters, and those not comfortable with that need not apply. A lot can be accomplished by being up front. No one expects officials to be perfect, just to be honest.
Not all acts considered crimes are equal by any measure, and people are falsely accused. The system isn't perfect. That's why when we cover a story like this, we try to give the accused an opportunity to respond, and I commend Younker for taking the time with us.
We also ask people listed in blotter to follow up with us when their case is adjudicated and we will update with the result. This is the first publication I have ever worked for that encouraged such an action.
My question to Opinion 1 is where should we draw the line? At what point should we decide a public official's legal issue is not within good taste to cover? I can't think of a more slippery slope.
Lastly, if any of us get arrested, even for a suspended license, you can be sure you'll hear about it in our own publication: http://oaklawn.patch.com/articles/my-two-hours-in-the-oak-lawn-slammer

You're assuming his ex-wife's signature was forged but it doesn't say that was even an option. No one knows how this was handled. This is nobody's business but Mr. Younker, his ex-wife and apparently his insurance agent. This has NOTHING to do with his job. He didn't misuse public funds or go against his oath of office. You don't like him, don't vote for him. Plain and Simple.

The guy seems to be at the wrong end of the stick. Nice way to sell newspapers. In a paperless age.

So lets get this straight. Brian H. Younker admits guilt in the court of law that he secretly closed his wife's life insurance policy which he did not own, he was a beneficiary (she is not dead) and stashed the money in his own account, $3,402.00. He was later was caught because the Met Life notified the owner, Ms. Younkers thinking it was her signature that canceled the policy, and refunded the premium she paid on it $250.00 cause she didn't know her estranged husband fraudulently canceled it. But somehow it's Met Life's fault according to Brian H. Younker??? Is this a joke? This man should not be in charge of any public trust office imo. As an Orland Park resident I am angry that he is not being urged to resign by other officials. This is dishonest behavior.

Wow. Mom must not care what her kids think of their dad. That is the real crime here. She should be ashamed for letting this go this far. I feel bad for Mr. Younker and his kids. I don't know the man, but the info in this article seems pretty cut and dry. Seems to me Mom could have settled this with Dad without Dad having to be humiliated in front of his children.

Nobody is a criminal here. She jumped at the opportunity to have her ex-husband thrown in jail, and the only reason that happened is because she works for the police department. Anybody else would have been told to call their divorce attorney and get this minor business matter straightened out there. The fact that the prosecutors reduced the charges to a misdemeanor and the judge sentenced him to one year of court supervision makes me think that she could have had the charges dropped if she wanted to, but being the vindictive person she obviously is (and I don't know either of these people), she didn't. My sympathies are with their children.

Can someone other than the policyholder get a life insurance policy changed to their name?