J. C.-S. v. J. G.

************************************************
The “officially released” date that appears near the
beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be
published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it
is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the
beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopin-
ion motions and petitions for certification is the “offi-
cially released” date appearing in the opinion.
All opinions are subject to modification and technical
correction prior to official publication in the Connecti-
cut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut
Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event
of discrepancies between the advance release version of
an opinion and the version appearing in the Connecti-
cut 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
an opinion that appear in the Connecticut Law Jour-
nal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or
Connecticut Appellate Reports are copyrighted by the
Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may
not be reproduced or distributed without the express
written permission of the Commission on Official Legal
Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.
************************************************
Page 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

2 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1
J. C.-S. v. J. G.

J. C.-S. v. J. G.*
(AC 47655)
Elgo, Moll and Seeley, Js.

Syllabus

The plaintiff appealed from the trial court’s judgment denying his application
for a civil protection order against the defendant. The plaintiff claimed, inter
alia, that the court violated his right to self-representation by limiting the
manner in which he was permitted to present evidence in support of his
application. Held:

This court declined to address the merits of the plaintiff’s claims because
he failed to provide this court with an adequate record pursuant to the rule
of practice (§ 61-10 (a)), as, instead of providing the complete transcript
from the hearing on the application, he provided only self-selected excerpts.

Submitted on briefs January 15—officially
released February 11, 2025

Procedural History

Application for a civil protection order, brought to
the Superior Court in the judicial district of Stamford-
Norwalk, where the court, Hon. John F. Kavanewsky,
Jr., judge trial referee, denied the application, and the
plaintiff appealed to this court. Affirmed.

J. C.-S., self-represented, filed a brief as the appellant
(plaintiff).

Opinion

PER CURIAM. The self-represented plaintiff, J. C.-S.,
appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying
his application for a civil protection order against the
* In accordance with federal law; see 18 U.S.C. § 2265 (d) (3) (2018), as
amended by the Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization Act of 2022,
Pub. L. No. 117-103, § 106, 136 Stat. 49, 851; we decline to identify any person
protected or sought to be protected under a protection order, protective
order, or a restraining order that was issued or applied for, or others through
whom that person’s identity may be ascertained.
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 1

0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 3
J. C.-S. v. J. G.

defendant, J. G., pursuant to General Statutes § 46b-
16a.1 The plaintiff’s claims on appeal distill into two
parts, namely, whether the court (1) erred in ruling, in
the absence of a motion for protective order, that the
defendant and a nonparty witness were not required to
testify or produce documents pursuant to subpoenas
that had issued and had been served, and (2) violated
the plaintiff’s right to self-representation by limiting the
manner in which he was permitted to present evidence
in support of his application.2 We decline to address
the merits of these claims because the plaintiff has
failed to provide this court with an adequate record.
Thus, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The record reflects the following facts and procedural
history. On March 8, 2024, pursuant to § 46b-16a, the
plaintiff filed an application for a civil protection order.
In his application and the unsworn statement filed
therewith, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant was
stalking him and causing him to fear for his safety. On
that same day, the court, Vizcarrondo, J., scheduled a
hearing, having found that the allegations of the plain-
tiff’s unsworn statement satisfied the requirements of
1
The defendant did not file a brief or otherwise participate in the pres-
ent appeal.
2
The plaintiff also claims that the court erred in denying his motions for
contempt, which were filed on April 30 and May 2, 2024, and were directed
to the defendant and a nonparty witness. That claim is not properly before
us. On May 20, 2024, the plaintiff filed the present appeal. The court denied
the motions for contempt on June 5 and May 21, 2024, respectively.
Practice Book § 61-9 provides in relevant part: ‘‘If the trial court issues
an additional decision after an appeal has been filed that the appellant wants
to appeal, the appellant shall file an amended appeal within twenty days
from the issuance of notice of the decision as provided for in Section 63-
1. . . .’’
The plaintiff did not file an amended appeal to include a claim regarding
the denial of his motions for contempt. Accordingly, we need not review
that claim. See Jewett v. Jewett, 265 Conn. 669, 673 n.4, 830 A.2d 193 (2003);
Worth v. Commissioner of Transportation, 135 Conn. App. 506, 508 n.2, 43
A.3d 199, cert. denied, 305 Conn. 919, 47 A.3d 389 (2012).
Page 2 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

4 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1
J. C.-S. v. J. G.

§ 46b-16a (a). On April 29, 2024, the court, Hon. John
3

F. Kavanewsky, Jr., judge trial referee, conducted the
hearing, at which the defendant was represented by
counsel. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court
denied the application. This appeal followed.
Practice Book § 61-10 (a) provides: ‘‘It is the responsi-
bility of the appellant to provide an adequate record
for review. The appellant shall determine whether the
entire record is complete, correct and otherwise per-
fected for presentation on appeal.’’ ‘‘The general pur-
pose of [the relevant] rules of practice . . . [requiring
the appellant to provide a sufficient record] is to ensure
that there is a trial court record that is adequate for an
informed appellate review of the various claims pre-
sented by the parties. . . . This court also has
explained that [a]n appellate tribunal cannot render a
decision without first fully understanding the disposi-
tion being appealed. . . . Our role is not to guess at
possibilities, but to review claims based on a complete
factual record . . . . Without the necessary factual
and legal conclusions . . . any decision made by us
respecting [the claims raised on appeal] would be
entirely speculative.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quota-
tion marks omitted.) R & P Realty Co. v. Peerless Indem-
nity Ins. Co., 193 Conn. App. 374, 379, 219 A.3d 429
(2019).
In this appeal, the plaintiff has presented claims that
require us to have a complete and accurate picture of
3
General Statutes § 46b-16a (a) provides in relevant part: ‘‘Any person
who has been the victim of . . . stalking may make an application to the
Superior Court for relief under this section, provided such person has not
obtained any other court order of protection arising out of such . . . stalk-
ing and does not qualify to seek relief under section 46b-15. As used in this
section, ‘stalking’ means two or more wilful acts, performed in a threatening,
predatory or disturbing manner of: Harassing, following, lying in wait for,
surveilling, monitoring or sending unwanted gifts or messages to another
person directly, indirectly or through a third person, by any method, device
or other means, that causes such person to reasonably fear for his or her
physical safety.’’
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 3

0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 5
J. C.-S. v. J. G.

what occurred during the hearing. The plaintiff has not
provided this court, however, with a complete tran-
script of the hearing, opting instead to provide only
self-selected excerpts.4 In the absence of a complete
transcript, we would have to resort to speculation in
order to evaluate the plaintiff’s claims, which we decline
to do. See id., 380 (this court declined to review appel-
late claim where plaintiffs provided only partial trial
transcript); Buehler v. Buehler, 175 Conn. App. 375, 382,
167 A.3d 1108 (2017) (this court declined to review
appellate claim because defendant failed to provide
complete transcript of relevant hearing); Calo-Turner
v. Turner, 83 Conn. App. 53, 56–57, 847 A.2d 1085 (2004)
(this court declined to review appellate claim where
defendant failed to provide complete transcript of trial
proceedings). Accordingly, we decline to review the
plaintiff’s claims.
The judgment is affirmed.

4
Notably, the plaintiff’s transcript order form instructs the court reporter’s
office in part that ‘‘[t]he [defendant’s] counsel shouldn’t be on the tran-
script . . . .’’