Martocchio v. Savoir
Decision Date | 09 August 2011 |
Docket Number | No. 31363.,31363. |
Citation | 130 Conn.App. 626,23 A.3d 1282 |
Parties | Henry J. MARTOCCHIOv.Stephanie A. SAVOIR et al. |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
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.
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 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 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 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, 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 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. (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 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 violation of the court order. Therefore, the court properly held the plaintiff in contempt.
Moreover, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion by ordering that the plaintiff undergo a psychological evaluation. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Gil v. Gil, 94 Conn.App. 306, 310, 892 A.2d 318 (2006). This court has held that the trial court has the discretion to order a contemnor to submit to a psychological evaluation if it is necessary to enforce a court's earlier order. Johnson v. Johnson, supra, 111 Conn.App. at 427, 959 A.2d 637 ( ).
We conclude that the court's order that the plaintiff undergo a psychological evaluation was within its inherent power to ensure compliance with the court's earlier judgment. The court ordered a psychological evaluation of the plaintiff after observing his behavior at the contempt hearing, which the court found evidenced his inability to control himself. The court also found, based on the plaintiff's testimony, that he had intentionally provided the grandparents with incorrect amounts of the minor child's prescriptions and supplements, in an attempt to “catch the grandparents doing something wrong.” In light of these facts, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the plaintiff to undergo a psychological evaluation. See Johnson v. Johnson, supra, 111 Conn.App. at 426–27, 959 A.2d 637.
The judgment is affirmed.
1. The defendants Roland Savoir and Tina Savoir are the parents of the named defendant, Stephanie A. Savoir, who is not a party to this appeal.
2. The plaintiff makes several additional claims. First, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly denied his request for court-appointed counsel during the contempt proceedings. Practice...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Lee–riveras
...immunity from prosecution for perjury with respect to any contradictory testimony he gave at the second trial. Thus, the defendant had an [23 A.3d 1282] adequate opportunity “to expose to the jury facts from [130 Conn.App. 625] which the jurors, as the sole triers of fact and credibility, c......
-
Martocchio v. Savoir, 35741.
...the defendant Stephanie Savoir,2 who never married, are the parents of the minor child, born in January, 2004. See Martocchio v. Savoir, 130 Conn.App. 626, 629, 23 A.3d 1282, cert. denied, 303 Conn. 901, 31 A.3d 1178 (2011). The plaintiff initially was not aware that he was the father of th......
-
Aliano v. Aliano
...cert. denied, 302 Conn. 946, 30 A.3d 1 (2011); Lynn v. Lynn, 130 Conn.App. 319, 327, 23 A.3d 771 (2011); see also Martocchio v. Savoir, 130 Conn.App. 626, 630, 23 A.3d 1282, cert. denied, 303 Conn. 901, 31 A.3d 1178 (2011). In the present case, the court articulated that its order requiring......
-
Southern v. Southern
...marks omitted.) Woodbury Knoll, LLC v. Shipman & Goodwin, LLP, 305 Conn. 750, 766 n. 12, 48 A.3d 16 (2012); Martocchio v. Savoir, 130 Conn.App. 626, 631, 23 A.3d 1282, cert. denied, 303 Conn. 901, 31 A.3d 1178 (2011). Nevertheless, as recognized by the trial court in this case, the plaintif......