Connecticut bill seeks to block alimony paid to domestic abusers

State legislators called Wednesday for greater protections for domestic violence victims, including ending the practice of allowing some abusers to receive alimony.

Currently, an abuser can physically assault a victim, and then she could be ordered later in divorce court to pay him alimony.

The bill states explicitly that those “convicted of attempted murder, conspiracy to commit murder, or certain other Class A or B felonies designated as sexual or family violence against their spouse” could not receive alimony.

Superior Court judges already have discretion in these cases, but advocates say that is not enough.

“There are situations where an award of alimony should simply never be considered by the court, and this proposal removes those situations from the court’s discretion,” said Meghan Scanlon, president and chief executive officer of the Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence. “The prohibition of an alimony award is not sought to limit any power of the court, but rather to eliminate the power of those convicted of the enumerated crimes from continuing to abuse their victim by use of the legal system.”

The bill would help victims “by eliminating the fear to leave an abusive relationship for certain victims, allowing funds to remain at the disposal of the victim to support themselves and their children, and eliminating litigation abuse in these situations,” said Scanlon, who testified Wednesday in front of the judiciary committee at the state Capitol complex in Hartford.

But state Rep. Craig Fishbein, a Wallingford attorney who is the committee’s ranking House Republican, said that judges already have a long list of reasons to block alimony, including considering the duration of the marriage and the causes of the dissolution.

“Isn’t that already baked into the statute?” Fishbein asked.

Nationwide, California passed a similar law, while New Jersey blocks alimony for certain criminal convictions.

“A victim should not have to spend time and money in court negotiating something that is unconscionable for the court to award,” Scanlon said. “To do so would continually revictimize and retraumatize the victim by requiring them to demonstrate fault or the causes of the breakdown of the marriage for as long as the offender elects to abuse the legal system in that manner.”

Senate Bill 5, which covers the domestic violence provisions, includes funding for victims’ services that would be in addition to federal funding. At the federal level, the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) Fund has a volatile funding stream because it depends on fees and fines that are collected related to federal prosecutions. The fund covers cases of stalking, child abuse, human trafficking, domestic violence, and sexual violence. VOCA helped more than 100,000 crime victims in Connecticut in the 2021 federal fiscal year.

The bill calls for $13.175 million in additional funding for the current fiscal year and $20 million next year.

The judiciary committee is facing a deadline of March 31 for all bills that are generated by the committee. If passed, the measures would be subject to final compromises before the legislative session ends in early June.

Patient privacy

Lawmakers are also debating Senate Bill 3, which is designed to protect a patient’s privacy when using online apps, as well as at abortion clinics and doctors’ offices.

Liz Gustafson, state director of Pro-Choice Connecticut, said she favors the bill because she is concerned about health data privacy.

“While abortion remains legal in Connecticut, we are not immune to the efforts of the global anti-abortion movement’s attempts to restrict or deny access to pregnancy-related care,” Gustafson told the committee. “Now, in this post-Roe world, the serious threatened harm by data privacy violations are significantly heightened. Privacy is a non-negotiable.”

She added, “Globally, the United States has the largest amount of data breaches. … In the aftermath of Dobbs, we are no longer speaking in hypotheticals.”

Among other provisions, the bill would also block anyone under the age of 16 from establishing an account on social media without parental consent.

Advocates note that online stores, smart watches, menstrual apps, and search engines often collect detailed personal health information. Those details, though, are sometimes sold for marketing reasons. The bill, however, would block businesses from selling the health data unless the person provides permission.

But Tim Phelan, president of the Connecticut Retail Network, said the legislature already passed a landmark consumer privacy bill last year, known as Public Act 22-15, and should wait before enacting any new provisions. The new bill’s language, he said, is so broad regarding health that it could be misinterpreted and spill over into retailers as an unintended consequence.

“We are concerned that some of the language under consideration, such as the way in which consumer health care data is described, is overly broad and unspecific,” Phelan said in written testimony. “It could therefore be misconstrued to include retailers and retail transactions far beyond what consumers think of as involving health care data. It could, as this bill is written, nonetheless be seen as applying to retail products that neither the consumer nor the business understands to be in any way related to an individual’s health.”

Christopher Keating can be reached at ckeating@courant.com