Brandis McCollum (formerly Brandis Adams) v. Indiana Family and Social Services Administration
82 N.E.3d 368
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Mother (Brandis McCollum) owed substantial child-support arrears to the children’s guardian and repeatedly failed to pay as ordered; multiple court hearings, a body attachment, and prior contempt proceedings resulted.
- June–November 2011: arrearage grew; court ordered wage withholding; Mother missed hearings and was arrested in 2013; court found contempt and imposed a stayed 90-day jail term with a purge option.
- Mother served 90 days after failing to purge; arrearage continued to grow. May 2016: State filed another show-cause motion; Mother missed a hearing, was arrested in Oct. 2016, and a rule-to-show-cause hearing followed.
- At the 2017 hearing Mother admitted no child-support payments since Feb. 11, 2016, had intermittent employment (low-wage jobs), had paid for a diversion to avoid a drug conviction, and had limited completion of a court-ordered treatment program.
- Trial court found Mother in civil contempt for willful failure to pay and, on review, sentenced her to 150 weeks’ imprisonment (work release) with a purge condition: reduce arrearage below $7,500 to obtain release; child-support obligation stayed during incarceration.
- Appeal contested (1) sufficiency of evidence of willfulness for civil contempt, and (2) whether the 150-week sanction was punitive (impermissible) rather than coercive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion finding Mother in civil contempt (willfulness/ability to pay) | Mother: she lacked ability to pay; recently employed and attempted to provide employment info for withholding | State/Court: evidence showed Mother had funds (paid diversion fees) and chose not to pay child support; she had partial ability to pay | Court: No abuse — evidence supported willful disobedience and some ability to pay |
| Whether 150-week imprisonment sanction for civil contempt was proper (coercive v. punitive) | Mother: purge requirement was realistically unattainable; sanction is punitive, not coercive | State/Court: incarceration with purge option is permissible to coerce compliance | Court: Sanction reversed — term and purge amount were punitive/unattainable; must impose coercive remedy |
Key Cases Cited
- Himes v. Himes, 57 N.E.3d 820 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (willful disobedience required for contempt)
- Sutton v. Sutton, 773 N.E.2d 289 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (arrearage alone may not show willfulness)
- Woodward v. Norton, 939 N.E.2d 657 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (must find ability to pay for contempt)
- Marks v. Tolliver, 839 N.E.2d 703 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (incarceration allowed only if purge condition is attainable)
- Emery v. Sautter, 788 N.E.2d 856 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (burden on contemnor to show non-willfulness)
- Duemling v. Fort Wayne Cmty. Concerts, Inc., 188 N.E.2d 274 (Ind. 1963) (civil contempt must be coercive/remedial, not punitive)
- Hunter v. State, 802 N.E.2d 480 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (imprisonment must cease once contemnor complies)
- D.W. v. State, 673 N.E.2d 509 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (same)
- Moore v. Ferguson, 680 N.E.2d 862 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (excessive purge amount can render sanction punitive)