Lisa Whitnum–Baker v. Court of Probate et al. (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTION (125.00)

This memorandum supplements the court's decision to deny the plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief that was announced in open court on July 8, 2013 after a hearing of over two hours.   The plaintiff sought an injunction ordering that her husband James Baker, Sr., be moved from senior living quarters in Darien, Connecticut known as Atria to another senior living accommodation known as Respite Care, apparently also in Darien.

As noted by the court at the conclusion of the hearing, the plaintiff failed to establish the elements required for the granting of an injunction.   Those elements have been variously stated by Connecticut courts, but generally they are:  that the moving party (1) is likely to prevail on the merits of her claim after trial, (2) faces immediate and irreparable harm absent an injunction, and (3) the balance of hardships without an injunction weights more heavily on the moving party.  Griffin Hospital v. Commission on Hospitals and Health Care, 196 Conn. 451, 456–58 (1985);  Aqleh v. Cadlerock Joint Venture II, L.P., 299 Conn. 84, 97 (2010);  POP Radio v. News–American Marketing In–Store, Inc., 49 Conn.Sup. 566, 569 (2005) [40 Conn. L. Rptr. 332].

Specifically, the plaintiff failed to produce sufficient evidence to establish a likelihood of success on the merits of her case and failed to show that she faces immediate and irreparable harm or that she bears the greater harm without the injunction.   The evidence elicited from the witnesses shows that, contrary to the plaintiff's assertions, Mr. Baker Sr. is not being held captive or incommunicado at Atria, but has chosen to remain there, receives mail there and has the option to call or see the plaintiff as he wishes.

This case is an appeal from probate pursuant to General Statutes § 45a–186a(c) which calls for Superior Court review of Probate Court decrees and orders, limited generally to evidence in the Probate Court record.   The Superior Court sits as a probate court and its power on such an appeal is limited to that of a probate court.   Nevertheless, in this case, the court permitted plaintiff to supplement the record substantially for the purpose of allowing her to have her day in court.   The evidence adduced was not sufficient to support the injunctive relief sought.   In addition, the court finds it lacks jurisdiction under Section 45a–186a(c) to issue the requested injunction, even if the evidence had been stronger.

TAGGART D. ADAMS

JUDGE TRIAL REFEREE

7–10–13

Adams, Taggart D., J.T.R.