Summary
This Connecticut Appellate Court decision affirms the trial court's grant of a motion to extend a civil protection order against the defendant. The defendant argued that the trial court abused its discretion due to insufficient evidence of a continuous threat of physical harm. The appellate court held that the evidence was sufficient, citing the parties' ongoing contested dissolution, joint ownership of the marital home, pending criminal charges, and the defendant's history of domestic violence. Consequently, the court concluded that extending the restraining order for an additional year fell within the trial court's broad statutory discretion.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in extending the restraining order under § 46b-15(g) by finding a continuous threat of present physical pain or injury.
Holdings
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion; the extension was affirmed because the evidence established a continuous threat of present physical pain or injury.
Key quotations
“The standard of review in family matters is well settled. An appellate court will not disturb a trial court’s orders in domestic relations cases unless the court has abused its discretion or it is found that it could not reasonably conclude as it did, based on the facts presented.” (at 9)
“§ 46b-15 expressly requires, as a precondition of extending a restraining order, that a defendant have violated the order or resided within a certain proximity of the plaintiff. The statute provides broad discretion to the court to extend the order for such additional time as it deems necessary.” (at 10)
Factual background
The parties were married over thirty years with three adult children and were in a contested dissolution. The defendant, a retired state trooper, was accused of severe physical abuse, including a February 14, 2022 assault, and faced criminal charges and a protective order. The plaintiff lived in the jointly‑owned marital home and sought an extension of the restraining order for safety.
Procedural history
The trial court issued an ex parte restraining order, later a one‑year order, and on February 14, 2024 extended it for an additional year. The defendant appealed, arguing the extension was an abuse of discretion because the evidence did not show a continuous threat of present physical pain or injury.