Skip to main content

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 CourtListener

Cited 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.

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.