127 Conn. App. 586
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- May 20, 2010, Krystyna W. filed an application for relief from abuse against her husband Janusz W. under General Statutes § 46b-15 seeking protection for herself, their minor son, and adult daughter.
- May 28, 2010, a hearing was held; Krystyna testified she believed she and the children were in danger and repeated her allegations; Janusz testified he had never struck them.
- The court found a continuous threat of present and serious physical harm to Krystyna and the children and granted the restraining order for six months, including prohibitions and the requirement that Janusz attend alcohol abuse counseling.
- The order prohibited contact with Krystyna and the children and required alcohol counseling; the court noted Janusz’s intoxicated threats and violent conduct as part of the basis for the finding.
- Janusz appealed, challenging (a) the sufficiency of the factual basis for a continuous threat, (b) the authority to order alcohol counseling, and (c) the extension of protection to Krystyna’s adult daughter; the trial court’s order was upheld.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was a continuous threat of present physical pain or physical injury | W contends there was a continuous threat based on threats and conduct. | Janusz argues there was insufficient evidence of a continuous threat. | Yes; court did not abuse discretion; sufficient evidence supported the finding. |
| Whether ordering alcohol abuse counseling exceeded § 46b-15 authority | W asserts counseling was appropriate to protect the family. | Janusz contends counseling is not a remedy under the statute. | No; court acted within its broad discretion to order counseling. |
| Whether extending protection to the adult daughter exceeded § 46b-15 authority | W sought protection for the adult daughter as a dependent person. | Janusz argues daughter was not a minor and needed her own relief. | No; statute permits protection for other persons the court sees fit, including an adult daughter. |
Key Cases Cited
- Joni S. v. Ricky S., 124 Conn.App. 170 (2010) (standard for review of findings of fact in domestic relations matters; clearly erroneous test)
- Noonan v. Noonan, 122 Conn.App. 184 (2010) (abuse of discretion in domestic relations matters; credibility not reweighed by appellate court)
- Putman v. Kennedy, 279 Conn. 162 (2006) (expiration of restraining order not moot for collateral consequences)