Background
H. M. sought a civil protection order against T. L. under Connecticut General Statutes § 46b-16a, alleging stalking. The parties worked at the same school and lived in faculty housing. H. M. alleged that T. L. had made comments about her body and had entered her screened porch, handled mail, and looked through a window while she was away.
After a hearing, the trial court granted a one-year no-contact protection order. It found the combined circumstances concerning but did not expressly find that there were reasonable grounds to believe T. L. would continue stalking H. M. T. L. appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Connecticut Appellate Court reversed and vacated the civil protection order. Section 46b-16a requires reasonable grounds to believe both that the respondent committed qualifying acts and that the respondent will continue those acts, or acts intended to intimidate or retaliate against the applicant.
The trial court made no express finding that T. L. would continue to stalk H. M., and its statement that the conduct was “of great concern” did not substitute for that required finding. The appellate court therefore held that the trial court abused its discretion in issuing the order.
Key Takeaways
- A stalking-based civil protection order requires a finding of both past stalking and a reasonable likelihood of continued qualifying conduct.
- A trial court must make the statutorily required future-conduct finding; generalized concern about past events is insufficient.
- Because the missing finding was dispositive, the appellate court did not reach T. L.’s other challenges.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that civil protection orders under § 46b-16a cannot rest solely on proof or concern about prior conduct. Courts must expressly address the statute’s prospective requirement before imposing relief.