A recent Connecticut Law Tribune editorial that questions the constitutionality of the administrative review process in the case of a restraining order application is reckless and meritless, at best.

The editorial criticizes procedures put in place after the horrific homicide of seven-month-old Aaden Moreno in Middletown. Readers may recall that in 2015, a Middletown family court judge denied a restraining order application from Aaden's mother, which might have included protection for Aaden. Absent a risk assessment and according to court transcripts, the judge indicated that he was not convinced that there was a continuous threat of present physical pain or physical injury. After that denial, Aaden's father, who would have been subject to the order, murdered the child.

After this tragedy, the court system developed an approach whereby impartial family service officers use evidence-based tools to provide the court with written information around risk, safety and history. Risk assessment in Connecticut and nationally has become an important way to avoid harm and ensure that adequate attention is being paid to high-danger situations. In fact, in recognizing the need to improve the civil restraining order system the National Council for Juvenile and Family Court Judges in partnership with the U.S. Department of Justice Office on Violence Against Women and the National Center on Protection Orders identified that, in order to have an effective system, policies and practices must include conducting a risk assessment to determine the dangerousness and lethality in each case and account for those risks. Under Connecticut's process, both parties are provided a copy of the written form from Family Services. They are asked if they object prior to the form being submitted to the court and are afforded the opportunity to challenge the information during the hearing.

The editorial's claim that this process is constitutionally problematic is odd, not least because the editorial appears to acknowledge that its claim of unfairness would not convince the appellate courts. It is an inherent and long-standing practice in Connecticut and around the country for neutral reports to be provided to judges in family relations matters. The parties always are interviewed for the reports and can present their views. They can interrogate the reports in open court once the report has been presented. So the family service officer's report, while impartial, is not the final result. The point of the hearing is to let everyone have their say.

It is ultimately up to the judge to decide the proper weight to place on the report, which is simply one piece of information. This updated approach is a significant improvement over prior practice in which judges decided potentially high-risk cases without the benefit of validated risk/lethality assessment.

Of additional concern is the Connecticut Law Tribune's use of language in its editorial which appears to erroneously describe the court's domestic violence restraining order process. The description of an “abbreviated interviews” fails to recognize the evidence-base practice and screening tools utilized by family service officers. And the form submitted is not merely “opinion” as the Law Tribune suggests, but rather it is an evaluation whose methodology is supported by the DOJ OVW as a credible approach through its Domestic Violence Homicide Prevention Initiative.

The risk assessment is not only constitutional, but an important improvement in Connecticut's processes. It is in line with national guidance in the evaluation of requests domestic violence restraining orders. And the Law Tribune's own editorial acknowledges that the stated claim is unlikely to prevail as a matter of law. The domestic violence advocacy community is baffled as to what illumination the Law Tribune feels is necessary with regard to these important processes in our legal system—a system on which victims of domestic violence depend for their own and their children's safety and lives.

Karen Jarmoc, MA, is the chief executive officer of the Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence.