Eric S. v. Tiffany S., 143 Conn. App. 1

Eric S. and Tiffany S. married in 2003; they have a minor child; Eric S. filed for dissolution on May 14, 2009 and Tiffany S. sought relief from abuse under §46b-15 the same day; the restraining order was issued June 16, 2009 and extended in subsequent motions; a contempt motion was filed Feb 14, 2011 alleging violations of the order, leading to a contempt finding and $7,500 in attorney’s fees; the court denied incarceration and the defendant appealed while Eric S. cross-appealed; the judgment was affirmed on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether contempt is civil or criminal for §46b-15 violations	Eric S. argues civil contempt; coercive, purgeable punishment.	Tiffany S. contends it is quasi-criminal; could justify incarceration.	Civil contempt; sanctions limited to civil remedies, incarceration not required.
Whether incarceration could be imposed under §46b-15(g) for civil contempt	Purported coercive sanctions could include incarceration.	Statutory language broad enough for incarceration.	Incarceration not appropriate here; may be coercive only if purge possible.
Whether the court properly limited sanctions to civil-contempt remedies	Court should consider broader remedies including incarceration or criminal referral.	Sanctions must align with civil-contempt framework and purgeability.	Court properly limited to civil-contempt remedies and did not err.

Monsam v. Dearington, 82 Conn. App. 451 (2004) (distinction between civil and criminal contempt; civil contemplates purge)
State v. Fernando A., 294 Conn. 1 (2009) (distinction between criminal protective orders and civil restraining orders)
In re Jeffrey C., 261 Conn. 189 (2002) (civil vs. criminal contempt distinction; purpose of contempt)
Woodbury Knoll, LLC v. Shipman & Goodwin, LLP, 305 Conn. 750 (2012) (authority to incarcerate in civil contempt with purge option)
Martocchio v. Savoir, 130 Conn. App. 626 (2011) (civil contempt may include incarceration if purge possible)