SB 689 — AN ACT CONCERNING THE ISSUANCE OF EX PARTE RESTRAINING ORDERS.
Last action — PUBLIC HEARING 0401
-
✓Introduced
-
2In Committee
-
3Passed Senate
-
4Passed House
-
5To Executive
-
6Enacted
This bill died with 2019 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.
Bill Text
What changed in the latest version
100 added · 22 removed100 line(s) added, 22 removed.
General Assembly ProposedCommittee Bill No.
28726175 Referred to Committee on JUDICIARY Introduced by:
(JUD) AN ACT CONCERNING THE ISSUANCE OF EX PARTE RESTRAINING ORDERS.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:
Section 1.
Subsection (b) of section 46b-15 of the general statutes is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective October 1, 2019):
(b) The application form shall allow the applicant, at the applicant's option, to indicate whether the respondent holds a permit to carry a pistol or revolver, an eligibility certificate for a pistol or revolver, a long gun eligibility certificate or an ammunition certificate or possesses one or more firearms or ammunition.
The application shall be accompanied by an affidavit made under oath which includes a brief statement of the conditions from which relief is sought.
Upon receipt of the application the court shall order that a hearing on the application be held not later than fourteen days from the date of the order except that, if the application indicates that the respondent holds a permit to carry a pistol or revolver, an eligibility certificate for a pistol or revolver, a long gun eligibility certificate or an ammunition certificate or possesses one or more firearms or ammunition, and the LCO No.
6175 1 of 4 Committee Bill No.689 court orders an ex parte order, the court shall order that a hearing be held on the application not later than seven days from the date on which the ex parte order is issued.
The court, in its discretion, may make such orders as it deems appropriate for the protection of the applicant and such dependent children or other persons as the court sees fit.
In making such orders ex parte, the court, in its discretion, may consider relevant court records if the records are available to the public from a clerk of the Superior Court or on the Judicial Branch's Internet web site.
In addition, at the time of the hearing, the court, in its discretion, may also consider a report prepared by the family services unit of the Judicial Branch that may include, as available:
Any existing or prior orders of protection obtained from the protection order registry;
information on any pending criminal case or past criminal case in which the respondent was convicted of a violent crime;
any outstanding arrest warrant for the respondent;
and the respondent's level of risk based on a risk assessment tool utilized by the Court Support Services Division.
The report may also include information pertaining to any pending or disposed family matters case involving the applicant and respondent.
Any report provided by the Court Support Services Division to the court shall also be provided to the applicant and respondent.
Such orders may include temporary child custody or visitation rights, and such relief may include, but is not limited to, an order enjoining the respondent from (1) imposing any restraint upon the person or liberty of the applicant;
(2) threatening, harassing, assaulting, molesting, sexually assaulting or attacking the applicant;
or (3) entering the family dwelling or the dwelling of the applicant.
Such order may include provisions necessary to protect any animal owned or kept by the applicant including, but not limited to, an order enjoining the respondent from injuring or threatening to injure such animal.
If an applicant alleges an immediate and present physical danger to the applicant or that the respondent could pose a physical danger to the applicant prior to the opportunity for a hearing, the court may issue an ex parte order granting such relief as it deems appropriate.
If a postponement of a hearing on the application is LCO No.
6175 2 of 4 Committee Bill No.
689 requested by either party and granted, the ex parte order shall not be continued except upon agreement of the parties or by order of the court for good cause shown.
If a hearing on the application is scheduled or an ex parte order is granted and the court is closed on the scheduled hearing date, the hearing shall be held on the next day the court is open and any such ex parte order shall remain in effect until the date of such hearing.
If the applicant is under eighteen years of age, a parent, guardian or responsible adult who brings the application as next friend of the applicant may not speak on the applicant's behalf at such hearing unless there is good cause shown as to why the applicant is unable to speak on his or her own behalf, except that nothing in this subsection shall preclude such parent, guardian or responsible adult from testifying as a witness at such hearing.
As used in this subsection, "violent crime" includes:
(A) An incident resulting in physical harm, bodily injury or assault;
(B) an act of threatened violence that constitutes fear of imminent physical harm, bodily injury or assault, including, but not limited to, stalking or a pattern of threatening;
(C) verbal abuse or argument if there is a present danger and likelihood that physical violence will occur;
and (D) cruelty to animals as set forth in section 53-247.
This act shall take effect as follows and shall amend the following sections:
Section 1 October 1, 2019 46b-15(b) Statement of Purpose:
To permit the court to issue ex parte restraining orders when the respondent could pose a physical danger to the applicant prior to the opportunity for a hearing.
[Proposed deletions are enclosed in brackets.
Proposed additions are indicated by underline, except that when the entire text of a bill or resolution or a section of a bill or resolution is new, it is not underlined.] Co-Sponsors:
LOONEY, 11th Dist.Dist.;
Show all 65 changed lines (25 more)
MARONEY, 14th Dist.
SEN.
MOORE,FONFARA, 22nd1st Dist.Dist.;
FONFARA,MCCRORY, 1st2nd Dist.
BRADLEY,CASSANO, 23rd4th Dist.Dist.;
MCCRORY,LESSER, 2nd9th Dist.
KUSHNER,COHEN, 24th12th Dist.Dist.;
CASSANO,ABRAMS, 4th13th Dist.
LCO No.
6175 3 of 4 Committee Bill No.
689 SEN.
MARONEY, 14th Dist.;
HASKELL,MOORE, 26th22nd Dist.
LESSER,BRADLEY, 9th23rd Dist.Dist.;
FLEXER,KUSHNER, 29th24th Dist.
COHEN,HASKELL, 12th26th Dist.Dist.;
NEEDLEMAN,FLEXER, 33rd29th Dist.
ABRAMS,NEEDLEMAN, 13th33rd Dist.Dist.;
ANREP. ACT CONCERNING THE TOLLING OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDERS.
BeELLIOTT, it88th enactedDist. by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:
ThatS.B. the general statutes be amended to require that any period of incarceration for the respondent of a temporary restraining order be excluded from any calculation determining the period of time for which the order is in effect and that such order shall be continued upon the release from custody of the respondent.
Statement689 ofLCO Purpose:No.
To6175 provide4 thatof the4 time for which a temporary restraining order is in effect does not toll during any period for which the respondent is held in custody.
LCO No.
2872 1 of 1
Show all 65 changed rows (25 more)
Action History
-
PUBLIC HEARING 0401
-
REF. TO JOINT COMM. ON Judiciary
-
DRAFTED BY COMMITTEE
-
Vote to Draft
-
REF. TO JOINT COMM. ON Judiciary
Sponsors
- Steve Cassano · Primary
- Will Haskell · Primary
- John W. Fonfara · Primary
- Bob Duff · Primary
- Mae Flexer · Primary
- Josh Elliott · Primary
- Mary Daugherty Abrams · Primary
- Dennis A. Bradley · Primary
- Marilyn Moore · Primary
- Christine Cohen · Primary
- Norman Needleman · Primary
- Douglas McCrory · Primary
- Julie Kushner · Primary
- Martin M. Looney · Primary
- Matthew L. Lesser · Primary
- James J. Maroney · Primary
Sponsorship breakdown
Export CSV (upgrade) →16 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 171 not signed on
Sponsors (16)
- Cassano, Steve
- Haskell, Will
- John W. Fonfara Democratic
- Bob Duff Democratic
- Mae Flexer Democratic
- Elliott, Josh
- Daugherty Abrams, Mary
- Bradley, Dennis A.
- Marilyn Moore
- Christine Cohen Democratic
- Norman Needleman Democratic
- Douglas McCrory Democratic
- Julie Kushner Democratic
- Martin M. Looney Democratic
- Matthew L. Lesser Democratic
- James J. Maroney Democratic
Co-sponsors (0)
None.
Not signed on (171)
171 members have not signed on to this bill.
Show all 171 →"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.
Subjects
Frequently asked questions
- Who sponsors SB 689?
- SB 689 is sponsored by Cassano, Steve, Haskell, Will, John W. Fonfara (Democratic), Bob Duff (Democratic), Mae Flexer (Democratic), Elliott, Josh, Daugherty Abrams, Mary, Bradley, Dennis A., Marilyn Moore, Christine Cohen (Democratic), Norman Needleman (Democratic), Douglas McCrory (Democratic), Julie Kushner (Democratic), Martin M. Looney (Democratic), Matthew L. Lesser (Democratic), and James J. Maroney (Democratic).
- What is the current status of SB 689?
- This bill died with 2019 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
- Where can I track SB 689?
- Track SB 689 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.
Make your voice heard on SB 689
Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.
Stay ahead of SB 689
Last checked for changes 2 months ago · updated continuously
One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.
Track this bill →