Connecticut’s legal process for protecting victims of domestic violence has evolved to a point where one particular aspect of that process impermissibly violates the constitutional rights of the alleged offender. That specific step in the process involves administrative interviews of the parties in the Family Services Office after which the court employee/interviewer submits to the court a written opinion without any prior question or challenge, including, among other things, whether the matter is “low,” “medium,” or “high” risk. Because the alleged offender’s constitutional rights have often already been disregarded as an integral part of the statutory scheme, this added administrative step arguably exacerbates that constitutional violation to an extent that is questionable at best.

By now, it is well-known that a person who is under a “continuous threat of present physical violence” may apply to the Family Court for a temporary restraining order based on a sworn affidavit. If the court believes that immediate relief from abuse is warranted, an immediate TRO will issue ex parte without any prior notice to the offender. As an integral part of the statutory scheme, the court must hold a hearing not longer than 14 days from the date when that ex parte TRO was issued. This process reflects a deliberate and careful balancing of the urgent need to protect victims of domestic violence against the offender’s essential constitutional rights to receive notice of the claims and a reasonable opportunity to be heard. Thus, for the duration of the time (usually 14 days) when the ex parte TRO is in effect, the offender will be ordered to remain away from his or her residence and refrain from any form of abuse toward the victim. Unquestionably, that process disregards the offender’s valuable constitutional rights. But in the balance, the Legislature determined that this “price” must be paid when a family or household member’s physical safety is in jeopardy.