October 10, 2019
Superior Court, Judicial District of Stamford-Norwalk, Erika
M. Tindill, J.
self-represented, the appellant (plaintiff).
M. Moore, for the appellee (defendant).
C.J., and Lavine and Bishop, Js.
Conn.App. 729] The self-represented plaintiff, M.B., appeals
from the trial courts orders, rendered in a child custody
action, granting certain postjudgment motions for contempt
filed by the defendant, S.A., and awarding her attorneys
fees as a sanction
against the plaintiff. Specifically, the plaintiff contends
that the court erred in (1) finding him in contempt for
nonpayment of support orders when the support orders were on
appeal, (2) prioritizing the resolution of motions for
contempt over a simultaneously pending motion pertaining to
child visitation (3) failing to consider financial affidavits
he had submitted, (4) awarding the defendant attorneys fees
in connection with the granted contempt motions, and (5)
accepting the defendants affidavits of fees with incorrect
docket numbers. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
following facts, as evidenced by the record, and procedural
history are relevant to this appeal. The plaintiff and the
defendant are an unmarried couple who are [194 Conn.App. 730]
the parents of their minor child, born in June, 2014. After
the childs birth, the plaintiff filed an action seeking
joint legal custody of the child. By way of a memorandum of
decision issued on September 7, 2016, the trial court,
Tindill, J., awarded sole legal and primary physical
custody to the defendant. The award provided for the
plaintiff to have parenting time on weekends, restricted
entirely to the town of Greenwich. The plaintiff, who resided
in New York City at the time, thereafter rented an apartment
in Greenwich solely to exercise parenting time with his
child. The award further ordered the plaintiff to pay $253
per week to the defendant in child support payments.
Additionally, the court granted a number of motions for
contempt filed by the defendant that were predicated on the
plaintiffs failure to pay unreimbursed medical expenses and
work-related child care, as ordered pendente lite, and the
court calculated an arrearage. On November 18, 2016, the
court issued a corrected memorandum of decision in which,
inter alia, it corrected various grammatical and calculation
to the issuance of the corrected memorandum of decision on
November 18, 2016, the plaintiff filed an appeal on September
22, 2016, asking this court to consider whether the trial
court erred in not considering how its orders impacted his
rental expenses for the Greenwich apartment that he is
required to maintain to have parenting time with his child.
the pendency of that appeal, between October, 2016 and June,
2017, the defendant filed multiple postjudgment motions for
contempt against the plaintiff for failing to make both
arrearage payments and child support payments as required by
the September 7, 2016 support orders. On June 16, 2017, the
court ordered the defendant to submit an affidavit regarding
attorneys fees she had incurred in pursuing her postjudgment
motions for contempt.
Conn.App. 731] On December 11, 2017, the court granted one of
the defendants motions for contempt, filed on October 17,
2016, finding that the plaintiff had failed to pay his
required share of the work-related child care expenses.
Following the plaintiffs failure to pay the arrearage by the
date set by the court, January 31, 2018, the court ordered
the plaintiff to be incarcerated, setting a purge amount of
$15,000. The plaintiff paid the purge amount that same day
and was released from custody. On April 16, 2018, the court
granted four more of the defendants postjudgment motions for
contempt, two of which were filed on December 21, 2016, and
two others that were filed ...