L. L. v. M. B.


*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publica- tions, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. *********************************************** L. L. v. M. B.* (AC 45141) Alvord, Seeley and Sheldon, Js. Syllabus The plaintiff appealed from the judgment of the trial court dismissing her application filed pursuant to statute (§ 46b-15) on behalf of her minor daughter for a domestic violence restraining order against the defendant. At the time of the hearing on the application, the parties were seniors attending the same high school. Evidence submitted at the hearing showed that the parties last dated for a short period when they were sophomores, two years prior. In dismissing the plaintiff’s application, the court found that the relationship between the parties did not meet the requirement for relief from abuse in accordance with § 46b-15 (a), which requires that the applicant be a family or household member as defined in the applicable statute (§ 46b-38a (2)). The court concluded that the relationship between the parties did satisfy the requirement of § 46b-38a (2) (F), namely, ‘‘persons in, or who have recently been in, a dating relationship.’’ On the plaintiff’s appeal to this court, held: 1. The defendant could not prevail on his claim that the plaintiff’s appeal should have been dismissed as moot because practical relief could not be afforded to the plaintiff: this court concluded that, if it were to determine that the trial court improperly determined that the plaintiff did not satisfy the statutory requirement of being a family or household member, relief in the form of a new hearing would be available to the plaintiff, which was sufficient to demonstrate that a successful appeal would benefit her; moreover, the defendant’s proposed grounds for a determination of mootness, that the parties would no longer be in the same school by the time the appeal was heard and that the events that led to the filing of the application would be so remote in time that there would be no continuing threat …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals