E.T. v. C.T.
E.T. and C.T. were married until March 2010, and have two children—S.T., born in 1996, and T.T., born in 2002.[1] In September 2010, E.T. filed a request for a domestic violence prevention restraining order against C.T.[2] In a responsive declaration, C.T. denied E.T.'s allegations of recent abuse and stated that E.T. was permitting S.T. to live in Australia without his permission. At a November 2010 hearing on E.T.'s request, E.T.'s counsel acknowledged that S.T. had been living in Australia since June of 2010, but claimed that C.T. had given his written consent for S.T. to do so. In response, C.T. acknowledged that he had given his consent for S.T. to take a vacation in Australia, but insisted that he had not given his consent for S.T. to "go to school or to live" there.[3] The trial court stated that its "perception of the credibility" of the parties in connection with respect to E.T.'s request for a restraining order would be "substantially influenced by whether or not [C.T.] gave his permission for S.T. to live in Australia." The court continued the hearing on E.T.'s request for a restraining order, and directed E.T. to provide the court with evidence of C.T.'s "authorization for [S.T.] to live in Australia."
E.T. subsequently lodged with the court a document that reflected C.T.'s consent for S.T. to "travel[]" to Australia. At the continued hearing, E.T.'s counsel argued that at the November hearing, C.T. had denied having given permission for S.T. to "go to Australia." E.T.'s counsel further argued that E.T. had produced evidence demonstrating that C.T. had not been truthful in claiming that he had not given permission for S.T. to live in Australia, a fact that counsel contended "should certainly weigh against [C.T.'s] credibility." C.T. responded that he had never denied having granted permission for S.T. to travel to Australia, and stated that the dispute at the prior hearing had centered on whether he had granted permission for S.T. to live in Australia. The trial court stated that it could not "recall the finite details" of the November hearing, but added that it would draw "inferences adverse to [C.T.'s] credibility," and would grant E.T.'s request for a restraining order.
On appeal, C.T. claims that the trial court erred in granting E.T.'s request for a restraining order. C.T. argues that the court based its ruling on the mistaken belief that C.T. had denied having granted permission for S.T. to visit Australia, when, in fact, the parties' dispute at the November 2010 hearing centered on whether C.T. had granted permission for S.T. to live in Australia. C.T. also maintains that the trial court had ordered E.T. to present evidence that C.T. had granted permission for S.T. to live in Australia, and that E.T. failed to present such evidence.[4]
We agree with C.T. that the record unambiguously demonstrates that the trial court granted E.T.'s request for a restraining order based on a material misunderstanding of the facts in the case. We reverse the order granting E.T. a permanent restraining order and remand for further proceedings.
Comments on E.T. v. C.T.