L. D. v. G. T.
Decision Date | 01 March 2022 |
Docket Number | AC 44386 |
Citation | 210 Conn.App. 864,271 A.3d 674 |
Parties | L. D. v. G. T. |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Robert A. Salerno, for the appellant (defendant).
Prescott, Elgo and Eveleigh, Js.
The defendant, G. T., appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the application of the plaintiff, L. D.,1 for relief from abuse and issuing a domestic violence order of protection pursuant to General Statutes (Rev. to 2019) § 46b-15.2 On appeal, the defendant argues, inter alia, that the court abused its discretion by precluding him from cross-examining the plaintiff during the hearing on the plaintiff's application for relief from abuse.3 We agree and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.
The following facts and procedural history are relevant to this appeal. The plaintiff and the defendant are the parents of a minor child, who, at the time of the application, was about three months old. On September 14, 2020, the plaintiff filed an application for relief from abuse on behalf of herself and the child against the defendant pursuant to § 46b-15. In her application, the plaintiff averred under oath to the following facts. From June 11, 2020, to September 10, 2020, the parties and the child were residing in the home of the defendant's parents. From September, 2019, to September, 2020, the defendant threatened her life, intimidated her with guns, blackmailed her, and tracked the location of her phone without her knowledge or consent, often showing up to her location uninvited.
The plaintiff further averred that from June 11, 2020, to September 10, 2020, when the plaintiff, the defendant, and their child were residing in the home of the defendant's parents, the defendant was forceful with their child. Specifically, according to the plaintiff, the defendant force-fed the child, yelled in the child's face while the child was sleeping, shook the child, and threw objects onto the child. Additionally, the defendant allegedly surveilled the plaintiff's actions and prevented her from turning off a baby monitor during therapy sessions. The plaintiff also claimed that the defendant threatened to find a way to take their minor child away from her and told her that, if she tried to leave with the child or protect herself from him, she would be unsuccessful because he had connections to law enforcement. The plaintiff further alleged that the defendant had sexually assaulted her on numerous occasions, and that there was a police investigation pending as a result of an incident that took place on September 4, 2020. On September 10, 2020, four days prior to filing the application for relief from abuse, the plaintiff and the child moved out of the residence of the defendant's parents and relocated to a new residence. The plaintiff's application stated that the defendant knew where the plaintiff and the child were residing.
On September 14, 2020, the court issued an ex parte domestic violence order of protection against the defendant, effective until September 21, 2020. The court set a hearing date of September 21, 2020, to determine whether to extend the order. At the time of the hearing, the Department of Children and Families (department) was investigating the defendant on the basis of allegations of physical neglect of the parties’ minor child. In addition, there was an ongoing custody action with respect to the child.
Both the defendant and the self-represented plaintiff appeared at the hearing on the plaintiff's application for relief from abuse. During the hearing, the plaintiff's testimony largely mirrored the statements she set forth in her application. After the completion of the plaintiff's testimony, counsel for the defendant sought to cross-examine the plaintiff. The court, however, stated that it was not going to permit the defendant to cross-examine the plaintiff. The following exchange occurred between the court and the defendant's counsel:
In accordance with its oral ruling, the court issued a written domestic violence order of protection against the defendant, effective for six months, to expire on March 21, 2021.4 On October 7, 2020, the defendant filed a motion for reconsideration in which he requested the court to reconsider its order of protection against him or, in the alternative, to modify the order of protection to allow contact with the minor child. On October 22, 2021, the defendant filed a motion for modification requesting that the court permit the parties to communicate for the sole purpose of arranging parenting time for the defendant, on the basis of the department's request to observe the defendant and the minor child together for purposes of resolving the open department investigation.
A hearing on the defendant's motions was held on November 6, 2020. At the commencement of the hearing, the defendant's counsel stated that there were two motions before the court—the motion for reconsideration and the motion for modification. With regard to the motion for reconsideration, the following colloquy occurred between the court and the defendant's counsel:
The court then heard testimony on the motion for modification. Contrary to the plaintiff's assertions, the defendant testified that he had never screamed at or shook the minor child. The defendant further testified that the domestic violence order of protection, precluding him from seeing his child, would affect his relationship with the child. The defendant testified that he would be willing to be supervised during visits with the child should he be permitted to see his child. Additionally, the defendant testified that the department had found that the allegations of physical neglect of the minor child against him were unsubstantiated and, as a result, closed its investigation. Finally, the defendant's counsel informed the court that the custody action concerning the minor child was ongoing.
The plaintiff also testified, in...
To continue reading
Request your trial- O'Rourke v. Dep't of Labor
-
K. D. v. D. D.
...order expired on July 5, 2022, the defendant's appeal is not moot due to adverse collateral consequences. See L. D. v. G. T ., 210 Conn. App. 864, 869 n.4, 271 A.3d 674 (2022).6 The plaintiff did not file a brief in this appeal. We, therefore, ordered that this appeal shall be considered on......