NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule 23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28, as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008).
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPEALS COURT
25-P-185
SANDEEP GUPTA
vs.
CHARU SARAF GUPTA.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
The plaintiff, Sandeep Gupta (father), appeals from a
series of judgments entered in the Probate and Family Court that
found the defendant, Charu Saraf Gupta (mother), not guilty of
civil contempt. The parties were divorced in 2019, and a
modification judgment entered in 2024 granting custody of their
two children to the mother and setting parameters for their
transition to her custody (modification judgment). The father's
contempt complaints alleged that the mother failed to, among
other things, return inappropriately utilized escrow funds to
the father, allow him to have contact with the children, and
provide him with information regarding the children's
hospitalization. Because the judge did not abuse her discretion in finding that the father did not prove by clear and convincing
evidence that the mother violated any command in the
modification judgment, we affirm.
Background. In order for the mother to assume custody of
the children, the modification judgment ordered the father to
transfer $150,000 to be held in escrow by the mother's counsel
"to secure appropriate services for the children" and required
that the mother, father, and children attend sessions with
Patricia Brady, a court-appointed reunification therapist. The
father was also ordered to attend individual therapy "to learn
to separate himself and his conflict with Mother from the
relationship between Mother and the children." The modification
judgment further provided that, after custody of the children
transitioned to the mother, the father's parenting time and
telephone contact with the children would be supervised by Brady
for the first nine months.
Brady submitted a series of affidavits in 2024 to update
the court on the status of the children and request the court's
assistance in implementing the modification judgment. In an
affidavit dated June 26, 2024, Brady stated that, after failing
to appear for a scheduled appointment, the father left the
children at the Wellesley police station after giving the mother
2 only two hours' notice.1 Opining that this "abrupt transition"
was "designed to undermine the healthy transition of the
children," Brady recommended that contact with the father be
limited. In an affidavit dated July 26, 2024, Brady reported
that the father filed false police reports and allegations of
abuse and neglect against the mother and clinicians assisting
with the transition. She further stated that the father
"orchestrated a plan with the children to refuse to comply with
the Judgment and cause harm to the children emotionally and to
their mother."
In September 2024, the father filed a series of contempt
complaints against the mother related to the modification
judgment. Relevant here, the father alleged that the mother
(1) failed to return escrow funds that were not utilized for the
oldest child's boarding school, (2) failed to allow him
visitation and contact with the children, and (3) "weaponized"
the hospitalization of the children and failed to provide him
with related information. On October 14, 2024, Brady submitted
another affidavit reiterating her recommendation that there be
no contact between the father and the children for a period so
that the children could "become less dysregulated." Following a
1 The mother's answer avers that the father gave three hours' notice. The difference is immaterial to our decision.
3 hearing, the judge entered judgments on the contempt complaints
in favor of the mother, finding that the father did not prove
that she was in contempt. In so finding, the judge considered
Brady's affidavits and stated that the father presented no
credible evidence.
Discussion. As the plaintiff in the contempt action, the
father bore the burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence
that the mother acted in "disobedience of a clear and
unequivocal command". Birchall, petitioner, 454 Mass. 837, 853
(2009). In determining whether the father met that burden, the
judge was required to consider "the totality of the
circumstances." Voorhis v. Relle, 97 Mass. App. Ct. 46, 54
(2020), quoting Wooters v. Wooters, 74 Mass. App. Ct. 839, 844
(2009). We review the ultimate finding of civil contempt for an
abuse of discretion, "but we review underlying conclusions of
law de novo and underlying findings of fact for clear error."
Commercial Wharf E. Condominium Ass'n v. Boston Boat Basin, LLC,
93 Mass. App. Ct. 523, 532 (2018).
The father first contends that the judge abused her
discretion in finding that the escrow funds were "appropriately
utilized" by the mother. The modification judgment required the
funds to "be utilized to secure appropriate services for the
children . . . in order for Mother to assume custody of the
4 children," including the oldest child's "boarding school
tuition, room and board, [along with] any summer camp component,
Mother's live in professional help[,] and the fees of Ms.
Brady." Prior to the hearing, the mother submitted an affidavit
with an attached ledger showing her expenditures from the escrow
fund and supporting bills. The ledger shows that the funds were
spent on Brady's retainer and bills, camps for the children,
homecare services for the children, "communication/family
training," and interventional services for the children.
Although the father contends that these expenses were "not
explicitly allowed by the Judgment" and were "excessive," the
judge determined that the father's "failure to follow the
judgment" required the mother to use a variety of support
services to transition the children to her custody.
Accordingly, the judge concluded that the mother "appropriately
utilized" the funds in compliance with the modification
judgment. Because the judge was entitled to consider the
totality of the circumstances, including the father's disruptive
conduct and the needs of the children, in determining whether
the billed services were appropriate, we discern no abuse of
discretion. See Voorhis, 97 Mass. App. Ct. at 54.2
2 To the extent that the father now contends that his right to due process was violated because he did not receive the ledger and attached bills until the day before the hearing, that
5 The father next asserts that the judge abused her
discretion in determining that the denial of contact between the
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule 23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28, as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008).
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPEALS COURT
25-P-185
SANDEEP GUPTA
vs.
CHARU SARAF GUPTA.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
The plaintiff, Sandeep Gupta (father), appeals from a
series of judgments entered in the Probate and Family Court that
found the defendant, Charu Saraf Gupta (mother), not guilty of
civil contempt. The parties were divorced in 2019, and a
modification judgment entered in 2024 granting custody of their
two children to the mother and setting parameters for their
transition to her custody (modification judgment). The father's
contempt complaints alleged that the mother failed to, among
other things, return inappropriately utilized escrow funds to
the father, allow him to have contact with the children, and
provide him with information regarding the children's
hospitalization. Because the judge did not abuse her discretion in finding that the father did not prove by clear and convincing
evidence that the mother violated any command in the
modification judgment, we affirm.
Background. In order for the mother to assume custody of
the children, the modification judgment ordered the father to
transfer $150,000 to be held in escrow by the mother's counsel
"to secure appropriate services for the children" and required
that the mother, father, and children attend sessions with
Patricia Brady, a court-appointed reunification therapist. The
father was also ordered to attend individual therapy "to learn
to separate himself and his conflict with Mother from the
relationship between Mother and the children." The modification
judgment further provided that, after custody of the children
transitioned to the mother, the father's parenting time and
telephone contact with the children would be supervised by Brady
for the first nine months.
Brady submitted a series of affidavits in 2024 to update
the court on the status of the children and request the court's
assistance in implementing the modification judgment. In an
affidavit dated June 26, 2024, Brady stated that, after failing
to appear for a scheduled appointment, the father left the
children at the Wellesley police station after giving the mother
2 only two hours' notice.1 Opining that this "abrupt transition"
was "designed to undermine the healthy transition of the
children," Brady recommended that contact with the father be
limited. In an affidavit dated July 26, 2024, Brady reported
that the father filed false police reports and allegations of
abuse and neglect against the mother and clinicians assisting
with the transition. She further stated that the father
"orchestrated a plan with the children to refuse to comply with
the Judgment and cause harm to the children emotionally and to
their mother."
In September 2024, the father filed a series of contempt
complaints against the mother related to the modification
judgment. Relevant here, the father alleged that the mother
(1) failed to return escrow funds that were not utilized for the
oldest child's boarding school, (2) failed to allow him
visitation and contact with the children, and (3) "weaponized"
the hospitalization of the children and failed to provide him
with related information. On October 14, 2024, Brady submitted
another affidavit reiterating her recommendation that there be
no contact between the father and the children for a period so
that the children could "become less dysregulated." Following a
1 The mother's answer avers that the father gave three hours' notice. The difference is immaterial to our decision.
3 hearing, the judge entered judgments on the contempt complaints
in favor of the mother, finding that the father did not prove
that she was in contempt. In so finding, the judge considered
Brady's affidavits and stated that the father presented no
credible evidence.
Discussion. As the plaintiff in the contempt action, the
father bore the burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence
that the mother acted in "disobedience of a clear and
unequivocal command". Birchall, petitioner, 454 Mass. 837, 853
(2009). In determining whether the father met that burden, the
judge was required to consider "the totality of the
circumstances." Voorhis v. Relle, 97 Mass. App. Ct. 46, 54
(2020), quoting Wooters v. Wooters, 74 Mass. App. Ct. 839, 844
(2009). We review the ultimate finding of civil contempt for an
abuse of discretion, "but we review underlying conclusions of
law de novo and underlying findings of fact for clear error."
Commercial Wharf E. Condominium Ass'n v. Boston Boat Basin, LLC,
93 Mass. App. Ct. 523, 532 (2018).
The father first contends that the judge abused her
discretion in finding that the escrow funds were "appropriately
utilized" by the mother. The modification judgment required the
funds to "be utilized to secure appropriate services for the
children . . . in order for Mother to assume custody of the
4 children," including the oldest child's "boarding school
tuition, room and board, [along with] any summer camp component,
Mother's live in professional help[,] and the fees of Ms.
Brady." Prior to the hearing, the mother submitted an affidavit
with an attached ledger showing her expenditures from the escrow
fund and supporting bills. The ledger shows that the funds were
spent on Brady's retainer and bills, camps for the children,
homecare services for the children, "communication/family
training," and interventional services for the children.
Although the father contends that these expenses were "not
explicitly allowed by the Judgment" and were "excessive," the
judge determined that the father's "failure to follow the
judgment" required the mother to use a variety of support
services to transition the children to her custody.
Accordingly, the judge concluded that the mother "appropriately
utilized" the funds in compliance with the modification
judgment. Because the judge was entitled to consider the
totality of the circumstances, including the father's disruptive
conduct and the needs of the children, in determining whether
the billed services were appropriate, we discern no abuse of
discretion. See Voorhis, 97 Mass. App. Ct. at 54.2
2 To the extent that the father now contends that his right to due process was violated because he did not receive the ledger and attached bills until the day before the hearing, that
5 The father next asserts that the judge abused her
discretion in determining that the denial of contact between the
father and the children was justified because the "father has
not completed prerequisite engagement with Ms. Brady." Although
the father contends that no such prerequisite existed, the
modification judgment provided that, at that time, "Father shall
have supervised parenting time . . . telephone contact or
FaceTime contact with the children . . . if the contact is
supervised" by Brady. According to Brady, the father failed to
appear for his appointments, follow her recommendations, respond
to her requests, or otherwise meet with her. While the father
argues that the judge should not have credited the statements in
Brady's affidavits, we accord substantial deference to the
judge's credibility determinations. See Pierce v. Pierce, 455
Mass. 286, 293 (2009). See also Psy-Ed Corp. v. Klein, 62 Mass.
App. Ct. 110, 114 (2004) (affidavit is "form of sworn testimony
the credibility of which is to be determined by the judge").
Because the modification judgment required that contact between
the father and the children be supervised by Brady, the judge
argument is waived. See Carey v. New England Organ Bank, 446 Mass. 270, 285 (2006) ("An issue not raised or argued below may not be argued for the first time on appeal"). See also Beaupre v. Cliff Smith & Assocs., 50 Mass. App. Ct. 480, 485-486 (2000) (failure to ask for continuance subversive of claim of unfair surprise or prejudice).
6 did not abuse her discretion in finding that the mother did not
violate "a clear and unequivocal command." See Birchall, 454
Mass. at 853.
Lastly, the father contends that the judge abused her
discretion in finding "no evidence of interference" by the
mother with respect to his efforts to obtain information about
the children's hospitalization. The modification judgment
provides that the father "shall have access to the . . . medical
records of the children without further permission of Mother,"
but imposes no affirmative duty on the mother to provide them.
Nor does the record support the father's assertion that the
mother otherwise restricted his access to the children's medical
information. To the contrary, the father testified that he
obtained records from Boston Children's Hospital, and the mother
averred that the father was in contact with the oldest child
during his hospitalization and with the children's medical
providers. We defer to the judge's implicit finding that the
mother was credible. Pierce, 455 Mass. at 293. The judge did
7 not abuse her discretion in finding the mother not guilty of
contempt. See Birchall, 454 Mass. at 853.3
Judgments entered November 5, 2024, on complaints for contempt affirmed.
By the Court (Henry, Shin & Toone, JJ.4),
Clerk
Entered: July 7, 2026.
3 The father also requests that we remand this matter for an evidentiary hearing on the removal of Brady "from all aspects of this litigation," but that issue is not presented for our review. A judge of the Probate and Family Court previously denied the father's motion to remove Brady, and he has not appealed from that decision here. 4 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.