Martocchio v. Savoir, 31363.

• Court: Appellate Court of Connecticut
• Citation: 130 Conn.App. 626,23 A.3d 1282
• Docket Number: No. 31363.,31363.
• Parties: Henry J. MARTOCCHIOv.Stephanie A. SAVOIR et al.
• Decision Date: 09 August 2011

130 Conn.App. 626
23 A.3d 1282

Henry J. MARTOCCHIO
v.
Stephanie A. SAVOIR et al.

No. 31363.

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued May 23, 2011.Decided Aug. 9, 2011.

[23 A.3d 1283]

Henry J. Martocchio, pro se, the appellant (plaintiff).JoAnn Paul, Vernon, for the appellees (defendants Roland Savoir et al.).BEAR, ESPINOSA and BORDEN, Js.PER CURIAM.

[130 Conn.App. 627] The plaintiff, Henry J. Martocchio, appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the motion for contempt brought by the defendants Roland Savoir and Tina Savoir ¹ (grandparents) and ordering

[23 A.3d 1284]

that the plaintiff submit to a psychological evaluation. On appeal, the plaintiff claims, inter alia, that the court improperly concluded that he was in contempt of a previous court order and that the court abused its discretion in ordering that he submit to a [130 Conn.App. 628] psychological evaluation.² We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The following facts, as found by the court, and procedural history are relevant to this appeal. The plaintiff [130 Conn.App. 629] and Stephanie A. Savoir (mother) are the parents of a minor child. The parties were not married at the time of the minor child's birth and the plaintiff was initially unaware that he was the child's father. Subsequent paternity tests revealed that the plaintiff is the biological father of the minor child. In August, 2006, the child was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. On July 28, 2008, the court, Shluger, J., granted the plaintiff sole custody of the minor child. The court granted the grandparents visitation rights every other weekend and granted the mother visitation rights once a week during the grandparents' visitation time or at a professional visitation facility. The court ordered that the mother and grandparents shall not interfere with the plaintiff's choice of physician,

[23 A.3d 1285]

medication or educational options for the minor child.

In July, 2009, the grandparents brought a motion for contempt, claiming, inter alia, that the plaintiff prevented them from visiting with the minor child in accordance with Judge Shluger's order. After a hearing, the court, Abery–Wetstone, J., found that the evidence “clearly indicates that there were clear court orders in [effect and] that father unilaterally decided he wasn't going to follow those court orders and terminated contact between grandparents and grandchild.” ³ The court, thereafter, held the plaintiff in contempt. Additionally, the court ordered that the plaintiff undergo a psychological evaluation before filing any other motions, after finding that the plaintiff lacked control in the courtroom [130 Conn.App. 630] and had an “extreme” attitude toward the care of his son. This appeal followed.⁴

We begin by setting forth our well settled standard of review. “Our review of a judgment of contempt is limited. Contempt is a disobedience to the rules and orders of a court which has power to punish for such an offense.... Contempt may be civil or criminal in character.... If the underlying court order was sufficiently clear and unambiguous, we ... determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in issuing ... a judgment of contempt, which includes a review of the trial court's determination of whether the violation was wilful or excused by a good faith dispute or misunderstanding.... The trial court's findings are binding upon this court unless they are clearly erroneous in light of the evidence and the pleadings in the record as a whole.... We cannot retry the facts or pass on the credibility of the witnesses.... The credibility of witnesses, the findings of fact and the drawing of inferences are all within the province of the trier of fact.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Johnson v. Johnson, 111 Conn.App. 413, 420–21, 959 A.2d 637 (2008).

In the present case, we conclude that the court's findings were not clearly erroneous and the court did not abuse its discretion in holding the plaintiff in contempt. There was a clear order of the court granting visitation rights to the grandparents. The plaintiff admitted violating that order by preventing the grandparents from visiting the minor child. The court found that there [130 Conn.App. 631] was no credible evidence that the grandparents were not properly administering the child's medications and, as such, there was no good faith justification for the plaintiff's deliberate...