Summary
The Connecticut Supreme Court held that a trial court had authority under General Statutes § 46b-121(b) to enforce supplemental orders issued in a juvenile matter through civil contempt. The court upheld the contempt finding against the respondent father and the award of attorney’s fees, concluding that the fees were compensatory and therefore did not require an opportunity to purge the contempt. The judgment of the Appellate Court was reversed and the case remanded with direction to affirm the trial court’s orders.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court had authority under General Statutes § 46b-121 (b) to hold the respondent father in civil contempt for violating the January 31, 2000 supplemental orders.
- Whether the contempt was criminal rather than civil because the father was not afforded an opportunity to purge himself.
- Whether the trial court properly awarded attorney's fees under General Statutes § 52-256b.
Holdings
- A supplemental order issued in a juvenile matter directing parents to comply with specified requirements is an enforceable court order, and failure to comply may support a finding of civil contempt under General Statutes § 46b-121 (b).
- The absence of an opportunity to purge does not invalidate a civil contempt finding when the court imposes only compensatory attorney's fees rather than imprisonment, a noncompensatory fine, or another coercive punishment.
Key quotations
“In juvenile matters, the Superior Court shall have authority to make and enforce such orders directed to parents, including any person who acknowledges before said court paternity of a child bom out of wedlock, guardians, custodians or other adult persons owing some legal duty to a child or youth therein, as it deems necessary or appropriate to secure the welfare, protection, proper care and suitable support of a child or youth subject to its jurisdiction or otherwise committed to or in the custody of the Commissioner of Children and Families.” (196)
“The trial court’s January 31, 2000 supplemental orders, like any other trial court orders, were orders with which a failure to comply could result in a finding of civil contempt.” (197)
“Thus, although it is true that, in civil contempt proceedings, the contemnor must be afforded the opportunity to purge himself of the contempt, this is only a consideration when punishment, such as imprisonment or a noncompensatory fíne, has been imposed in accordance with the finding of contempt.” (198)
Factual background
The Commissioner of Children and Families obtained an order placing Jeffrey C. under protective supervision and requiring his parents to complete specific steps, including counseling, substance-abuse assessment and treatment, drug testing, and refraining from substance abuse and criminal activity. The father failed to attend counseling, failed to participate in substance-abuse assessment and treatment, engaged in criminal activity, and was later arrested for assault, criminal mischief, and disorderly conduct. After the trial court issued supplemental orders directing compliance and warning that noncompliance could result in contempt, the father admitted violating the requirements against criminal activity and substance abuse.
Procedural history
The trial court adjudicated the minor child uncared for, placed the child under protective supervision, and ordered the parents to comply with specific steps. After finding that the father had violated the specific steps and supplemental orders, the trial court held him in civil contempt and awarded attorney's fees. The Appellate Court reversed, concluding that the trial court lacked authority to issue the contempt order. The Supreme Court of Connecticut granted certification, reversed the Appellate Court, and remanded with direction to affirm the trial court's orders.
Remand instructions
Reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court and remand with direction to affirm the trial court's orders holding the respondent father in contempt and awarding attorney's fees.