Medeiros v. Medeiros
167 A.3d 967
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Parties divorced; one child (born 2007). Initial dissolution award: joint legal and physical custody; later orders modified custody/visitation several times. Final modification (Apr. 7, 2015) restored joint legal custody and unsupervised/overnight visits for plaintiff.
- May 10, 2015: child visited plaintiff; plaintiff disciplined child. Child returned to defendant and reported being upset; defendant subsequently denied visitation on May 12, May 15, and May 17.
- Plaintiff filed a motion for contempt alleging defendant wilfully denied court-ordered access. Contempt hearing held June 3, 2015.
- At hearing, trial court sustained plaintiff’s hearsay objections to certain testimony recounting statements the child made to defendant; court nonetheless heard other testimony conveying the gist that the child was distraught.
- Trial court found plaintiff’s discipline appropriate, found defendant in wilful contempt, and imposed sanctions: stayed 10-day incarceration, $100/day fines ($300), $500 fine, $2,500 attorney’s fees and $143 marshal fees. Court later vacated the incarceration order after compliance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether defendant was denied a fair opportunity to present a defense by exclusion of child’s statements as hearsay | Plaintiff argued statements were hearsay and inadmissible | Defendant argued statements fit the then-existing state-of-mind exception (or were offered to show effect on hearer) and were necessary to justify his actions | Court: Exclusion was error under the state-of-mind exception but harmless because defendant later conveyed the substance and court credited plaintiff’s testimony |
| 2. Whether trial court applied clear-and-convincing standard for indirect civil contempt | Plaintiff: evidence met clear-and-convincing standard | Defendant: court never stated the standard and should have remanded for clarification | Court: presumes correct standard applied because defendant failed to seek articulation/reargument; no merit to claim |
| 3. Whether a stayed incarceration order was punitive and thus improper / mootness | Plaintiff: stayed incarceration was lawful coercive remedy to ensure compliance | Defendant: order was effectively punitive and claim moot because incarceration vacated | Court: issue reviewable under capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review; stayed incarceration was coercive (not punitive) and permissible to monitor compliance |
| 4. Whether monetary fines and fees were properly imposed (compensatory fines, attorney’s fees, marshal fees) | Plaintiff: fines and fees were appropriate compensatory sanctions and costs of enforcement | Defendant: compensatory fines lacked factual basis; court failed to consider ability to pay for attorney’s fees | Court: reversed fines ($800) because compensatory fines must be based on evidence of actual loss; attorney’s fees and marshal fees upheld (defendant waived ability-to-pay argument by not objecting at hearing) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Miguel C., 305 Conn. 562 (2012) (standard of review and hearsay/state-of-mind discussion)
- Kaczynski v. Kaczynski, 294 Conn. 121 (2009) (presumption that trial court applied clear-and-convincing standard absent articulation or reargument)
- Brody v. Brody, 315 Conn. 300 (2015) (indirect civil contempt requires clear-and-convincing proof; contrasted where incorrect standard applied)
- DeMartino v. Monroe Little League, Inc., 192 Conn. 271 (1984) (compensatory fines in civil contempt must be based on actual damages)
- International Union, United Mine Workers v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821 (1994) (civil contempt is coercive and avoidable through obedience)
- Tobey v. Tobey, 165 Conn. 742 (1974) (inability to obey without fault is a defense to contempt)