133 Conn. App. 472
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Plaintiff sought relief from abuse against the father of her child after an incident at his home in February 2011; an ex parte order was followed by a full hearing.
- Defendant allegedly pushed plaintiff toward the front door, restrained the children, caused injuries to plaintiff's lip and jaw, and forced her to fall on the steps, with the child M escaping through a garage door.
- Court issued a restraining order for plaintiff but not for the minor children; prior protective orders against defendant were noted, and a new protective order was issued at arraignment.
- Court relied on plaintiff's credible testimony and past orders to find a 'continuous threat' under § 46b-15(a).
- Defense argued insufficiency of the evidence for continuous threat, evidentiary exclusion, and unpreserved issue about entry into defendant's home; appellate review affirmed the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was a continuous threat under § 46b-15 | Rosemarie contends the February 19, 2011 incident suffices to show ongoing threat. | Curtis argues one incident cannot prove continuous threat absent other evidence. | Court affirmed: one incident plus evidence of ongoing risk supports continuous threat. |
| Admission of evidence about plaintiff seeking consolation | Rosemarie argues evidence of consolation is admissible as context for threat. | Curtis argues such evidence is relevant to threat level. | Court affirmed exclusion; no abuse in keeping it out as it did not affect continuous threat finding. |
| Whether plaintiff's entry into defendant's home violated a prior order | Rosemarie challenges the relevance of prior order to the current finding. | Curtis asserts entry may have violated a court order and should be considered. | Court declined to consider unpreserved issue; affirmed judgment on other grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Putman v. Kennedy, 279 Conn. 162 (Conn. 2006) (expiration of a domestic violence restraining order not moot for collateral consequences)
- Gail R. v. Bubbico, 114 Conn.App. 43 (Conn. App. 2009) (standard of review in domestic relations matters; credibility given deference)