*********************************************** 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. *********************************************** STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. LORI T.* (AC 40384) Prescott, Bright and Devlin, Js. Syllabus Pursuant to statute (§ 53a-98 (a) (3)), a person is guilty of custodial interfer- ence in the second degree when, knowing that she has no right to do so, she ‘‘holds, keeps or otherwise refuses to return a child . . . to such child’s lawful custodian after a request by such custodian for the return of such child.’’ Convicted, after a jury trial, of three counts of the crime of custodial interfer- ence in the second degree, the defendant appealed to this court. The defendant’s children were at her home in Glastonbury for purposes of visitation over a holiday weekend. The defendant’s former husband, F, who is the children’s father, had sole physical and legal custody of the children, but they wanted to live with the defendant and not with F. When F arrived to pick up the children in accordance with the visitation schedule, the defendant told F that she was not sending the children out to him because they did not want to come out and that she was going to do what the children wanted to do. F contacted N, a Norwalk police officer and the children’s school resource officer, and told him about the children’s refusal to return to his home in Norwalk. A few days later, N contacted the defendant by telephone and asked her why the children were not returned to F, and she told N that they did not want to come out to F and that she would not make them go with him. N then warned the defendant that she could be in trouble if she did not return the children to school. When the children were still not in school approximately one week later, N followed up with the defendant, who said that she would not return the …Original document

This content is restricted to site members only. If you are an existing user, please log in to "My Account". New users may register here 

Existing Users Log In
New User Registration
*Required field