State v. Lori T.
Citations
- 345 Conn. 44
Syllabus
Pursuant to statute (§ 53a-98 (a) (3)), a person is guilty of custodial interfer- ence in the second degree when, ''knowing that he [or she] has no legal right to do so, he [or she] holds, keeps or otherwise refuses to return a child who is less than sixteen years old to such child's lawful custodian after a request by such custodian for the return of such child.'' In accordance with federal law; see 18 U.S.C. § 2265 (d) (3) (2018), as amended by the Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization Act of 2022, Pub. L. No. 117-103, § 106, 136 Stat. 49; we decline to identify any person protected or sought to be protected under a protection order, protective order, or a restraining order that was issued or applied for, or others through whom that person's identity may be ascertained. Moreover, in accordance with our policy of protecting the privacy interests of victims of family violence, we decline to identify the victim or others through whom the victim's identity may be ascertained. See General Statutes § 54-86e. 345 Conn. 44 OCTOBER, 2022 45 State v. Lori T. Convicted of three counts of custodial interference in the second degree, the defendant appealed. The defendant's children, who were under the age of sixteen years, were at her home for visitation over a holiday weekend. F, the defendant's former husband and the children's father, had sole physical and legal custody of the children, whereas the defen- dant had visitation rights. Over the weekend, the children decided that they did not want to go home with F at the end of the long weekend. When F went to the defendant's home to pick up the children in accor- dance with the visitation schedule, the defendant told F that she wasn't sending the children out. The defendant stated that the children didn't want to come out to F and that she was going to do what the children wanted to do. Thereafter, F summoned a local police officer, who went to the defendant's home. Although the officer did not arrest the defen- dant, he
Judges: McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Kahn; Ecker; Keller
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
3 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
25 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court· 1972-06-26· cited 4,166×
- Kolender v. LawsonSupreme Court· 1983-05-02· cited 3,306×
- State v. GoldingSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1989-12-19· cited 2,736×
- Colten v. KentuckySupreme Court· 1972-06-12· cited 1,156×
- Martin v. MartinNebraska Supreme Court· 2016-07-08· cited 173×
- State v. CourchesneSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2010-06-15· cited 86×
- State v. WinotSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2010-02-16· cited 69×
- State v. MorganSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2005-08-02· cited 60×
- Stone-Krete Construction, Inc. v. EderSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2006-12-19· cited 52×
- State v. TaupierSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2018-09-11· cited 33×
- State v. CorbeilConnecticut Appellate Court· 1996-04-09· cited 30×
- Rana v. TerdjanianConnecticut Appellate Court· 2012-06-05· cited 25×
- State v. JosephsSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2018-01-30· cited 20×
- State v. PanekSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2018-01-31· cited 19×
- People v. HaynieColorado Court of Appeals· 1991-10-10· cited 17×
- State v. DoyenSupreme Court of Vermont· 1996-03-15· cited 11×
- Sisk v. SiskNorth Dakota Supreme Court· 2006-03-29· cited 10×
- State v. PetruccelliSupreme Court of Vermont· 1999-09-24· cited 10×
- State v. StephensSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2011-08-02· cited 10×
- State v. AdamsSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2017-12-19· cited 10×
Other cases named State v. Lori T.
1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.
Sourced 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.