Preview:

****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ******************************************************

HENRY J. MARTOCCHIO v. STEPHANIE A. SAVOIR ET AL. (AC 31363)
Bear, Espinosa and Borden, Js. Argued May 23--officially released August 9, 2011

(Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of Tolland, Abery-Wetstone, J.) Henry J. Martocchio, pro se, the appellant (plaintiff). JoAnn Paul, for the appellees (defendants Roland Savoir et al.).

Opinion

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 Savoir1 (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. ``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

Download Martocchio v. Savoir.pdf

Connecticut Law