In Aguilar v. Hernandez-Mendez, the defendant appealed an abuse prevention order that was issued against him for the benefit of his father’s girlfriend. The plaintiff and her two teenage daughters lived with the defendant’s father. The defendant lived there as well for about two years until he moved out.
The plaintiff had obtained a protective order against the defendant in Kentucky because she feared that the defendant would abuse her and their daughter. Subsequently, the defendant threatened to kill the plaintiff, and the plaintiff fled to Maine with her daughter, where she filed for a protective order. The district court granted a temporary protective order. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed for custody of their daughter. The district court found that it could not grant the plaintiff custody as Maine was not the daughter’s home state.
The plaintiff was a resident of Massachusetts seeking an abuse prevention order against her nonresident partner. The plaintiff and her partner (the defendant) met in Massachusetts and moved to Florida, where they had a child. The plaintiff took the child to Massachusetts on occasion but the defendant never returned. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant physically abused her and she fled to Massachusetts with her son. She alleged that prior to her escape, the defendant accused her of cheating, called her a whore, and threatened to kill her and the child. He block
The plaintiff and defendant were married in 1998 but entered into a separation agreement in 2007. They were living together, and were discussing work that needed to be done around the house when the defendant-husband requested that the plaintiff-wife look down at the door sweep. The wife bent down to look and subsequently could not recall anything that took place until she woke up around 3:00 am and found herself in bed with a “terrible headache” and extreme nausea.
One of the parties’ children accused petitioner of sexual assault, including improper touching of her breasts and vaginal area on multiple occasions. During an interview with Child Protective Services (CPS), the child denied any improper touching, but subsequently stated that petitioner had cautioned her against disclosing any information about the improper touching. Additionally, in a written declaration, petitioner had admitted to rubbing aloe vera on the naked body of the child.
The plaintiff and the defendant lived together and had a child. Over a period of approximately two to four years, the defendant physically abused the plaintiff. The plaintiff previously obtained an abuse prevention order against the defendant under General Laws chapter 209A. That order later expired.
In the case Joni v. Ricki, 124 Conn. App. 170 (2010), the plaintiff moved to extend a domestic violence restraining order against her ex-husband under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-15, and the trial court granted the motion based on findings that she was subject to a continuous threat of present physical pain or injury.
In Krystyna v. Janusz, 127 Conn. App. 586 (2011), the plaintiff sought a restraining order under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-15 to protect herself, her minor son, and her adult daughter from her husband, alleging a pattern of escalating alcohol-fueled threats and dangerous conduct.
This law aims to develop article 42 of the Constitution which establishes standards to prevent, remedy, and punish domestic violence. The Law stipulates the behaviors considered violative of structured harmony/unity within a family, protective measures against domestic violence, medical and physiological assistance for victims, and sanctions by the courts against the aggressor.
The plaintiff was issued a final protective order against the defendant. Subsequent to the issuance of this order, the plaintiff had filed a statement with the police that the defendant went to her work, called her work, and called her parents. Further, a witness observed the defendant at the plaintiff’s home, and he was seen driving by her home on seven occasions. The defendant was convicted of violating the protective order and complied with it thereafter. Subsequently, the plaintiff requested a five-year extension to the order and the defendant requested a hearing.
