Harold Rowe v. Dolores Rowe (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

In this postjudgment action the defendant has filed a motion for contempt alleging that the plaintiff has wilfully failed to comply with the shared parenting plan.   The plaintiff has moved to dismiss the defendant's motion on the grounds that a court cannot, as a matter of law, find a party in contempt for failure to comply with said parenting plan.   The plaintiff offers no authority for this novel proposition, nor is the court aware of any.   Indeed, it flies in the face of well settled authority that a court has the inherent authority to enforce its orders.   See State v. Murray, 225 Conn. 355, 364-66 (1993);  Blaydes v. Blaydes, 187 Conn. 464, 467 (1982).   The plaintiff's motion is denied.

SO ORDERED

BY THE COURT

Fischer, J.

Fischer, Brian T., J.