Domestic violence represents a segment of law in which defendants can easily face an environment of assumed guilt. Differing opinions about the limits of appropriate parenting sometimes result in unwarranted accusations. Just having the allegation become part of public record can cause damage. Because of that, Connecticut residents facing domestic violence charges should be contacting an attorney as a first step.

Assembling a viable defense is crucial. An example of one possible outcome is offered by the recent case of an Enfield man accused of injuring his infant son. While he will now have a felony conviction on his record, he has avoided prison time and the conditions of his sentence are such that he has an opportunity to make good on his own stated goal of being the best father and husband he can be.

The details of the case are these. Three years ago, the man's 8-week-old son was admitted to Connecticut Children's Medical Center when his doctor spotted bruises on the child's arm during a well-baby exam. The infant was put through a full body scan and doctors said it appeared that he had fractured ribs.

According to authorities, the child's father admitted under questioning to squeezing the child's arm. He also allegedly admitted to squeezing the baby's torso and hearing a pop. He was charged and, last October, he pleaded guilty under the Alford rule to third-degree assault and risk of injury to a minor.

Had he gone to trial and been convicted, the man might have received two years in prison. By exercising the Alford rule, he avoided prison. Instead, he was placed on three year's probation and continues to enjoy supervised contact with his son. The latter restriction can be lifted by the determination of probation officials.

The reason the Alford rule could be used in this case was because there was conflicting evidence about the boy's injuries. While doctors at the medical center said they believed the boy had suffered fractured ribs, specialists at Yale who reviewed the x-rays said he had not. The father also disagreed with the state's interpretation of some related events. Neither side was convinced they could prove their cases at trial.

At sentencing, the judge opted for probation rather than prison time citing the discrepancy in opinion on the injuries. She also said that the felony conviction on the father's record was punishment enough.

Source: The Hartford Courant, "Enfield Man Gets Probation For Hurting Infant Son," David Owens, Jan. 17, 2012