D. S. v. R. S.
Citations
- 199 Conn. App. 11
Syllabus
The defendant appealed to this court from the judgment of the trial court granting the application for relief from abuse filed by his daughter, the plaintiff, and issuing a domestic violence restraining order against him. The trial court granted the plaintiff's ex parte application for relief from abuse on behalf of herself, her minor child and her mother, and issued a restraining order against the defendant that required him, inter alia, not to harass, follow, interfere with or stalk the plaintiff or her minor child. The court thereafter conducted a hearing on whether to extend the ex parte order, at which the plaintiff testified that the defendant's actions were affecting the child's behavior and schoolwork, and that the child did not want to be around the defendant and was afraid that the defendant was following him. The defendant testified that he went to the area across the street from the child's school bus stop two to three times a week and waved and said hello to the child. The court rendered judgment denying the continuation of the ex parte order as it pertained to the plaintiff and continuing it as to the child. In continuing the ex parte order as to the child, the court stated that, rather than using the dictionary definition of stalking, it would use the statutory (§ 53a-181d) definition set forth in the crime of stalking in the second degree, which defined stalking as to follow, lie in wait for, observe, surveil, communicate with or to send unwanted gifts to a person that results in emotional distress. On appeal, the plaintiff claimed that the trial court used the wrong definition of stalking and that it should have used the definition of stalking in Princess Q. H. v. Robert H. (150 Conn. App. 105), and erroneously relied on testimony that the plaintiff gave on behalf of the child. Held: 1. The trial court did not err in issuing the domestic violence restraining order against the defendant: although the court's reference to the definition in § 53a-181d
Judges: Bright; Devlin; Harper
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.