Cristin Bates v. Robert Bickel
Background
- Parents Robert Bickel and Cristin Bates divorced in 2011; the decree set an alternating weekend custody schedule and required any modification to be by joint written agreement.
- Bates had custody on Mother’s Day weekend (May 9–11, 2014); disputes arose over exchanges the following weekends (May 16–17 and May 23–24, 2014).
- Bates filed a contempt motion alleging Bickel failed to present the child at exchanges on May 16 and May 23, denying her visitation.
- The magistrate found the parties had a verbal agreement swapping the May 16 weekend for May 23 and found Bickel in contempt for failing to exchange the child on May 23 (and alternatively on May 16 or under a different interpretation of the decree), sentencing him to jail and awarding attorney fees to Bates.
- The district court affirmed on intermediate appeal. On further appeal, the Court of Appeals considered jurisdiction, whether contempt was supported beyond a reasonable doubt, and the attorney‑fee award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bickel’s breach of a verbal agreement supported criminal contempt | Bates: Parties orally modified schedule; Bickel willfully violated that agreement by not exchanging the child on May 23 | Bickel: Decree controlled; any oral agreement was unenforceable and cannot form basis for contempt | Reversed: Verbal modification was unenforceable (decree required written modification); cannot support contempt |
| Whether failing to exchange on May 16 violated the decree willfully | Bates: Under decree Bickel violated the order by not providing the child on May 16 | Bickel: He believed parties had agreed orally he would keep the child that weekend | Reversed: Magistrate’s finding of an oral agreement created reasonable doubt as to willfulness; no proof beyond reasonable doubt |
| Whether failing to exchange on May 23 violated the decree under its express terms | Bates: Under one interpretation, Bickel failed to comply with the decree on May 23 | Bickel: Alternate interpretation of the decree would entitle him to May 16 instead | Reversed: Magistrate’s alternate interpretation was inconsistent; findings did not establish willfulness beyond reasonable doubt |
| Entitlement to attorney fees (contempt motion and appeal) | Bates: Fees awarded under I.C. § 7‑610 as prevailing party on contempt motion; requests fees on appeal | Bickel: Contempt finding improper, so no entitlement to fees | Reversed: Contempt judgment improper, so magistrate’s fee award vacated; Bates not prevailing on appeal and cites no basis for appellate fees |
Key Cases Cited
- Pelayo v. Pelayo, 154 Idaho 855 (review standard for magistrate findings) (court reviews magistrate record for substantial and competent evidence)
- Bailey v. Bailey, 153 Idaho 526 (procedural requirement to affirm or reverse district court decision on magistrate appeals)
- Carr v. Pridgen, 157 Idaho 238 (standard for reviewing contempt findings)
- In re Weick, 142 Idaho 275 (contempt power should be exercised with caution; substantial evidence standard)
- State v. Rice, 145 Idaho 554 (definition and proof of willfulness in contempt context)
- Int’l Union, United Mine Workers of Am. v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821 (criminal contempt requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Hicks ex rel. Feiock v. Feiock, 485 U.S. 624 (constitutional protections apply in contempt proceedings)
- Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 194 (due process constraints on contempt and criminal procedures)