Erika L. Spitz F/K/A Erika L. Gentz v. Iowa District Court for Mitchell County
2016 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 75
| Iowa | 2016Background
- Erika Spitz and Bradley Gentz divorced in 2011; the decree awarded Erika primary physical custody and set a visitation schedule for Bradley.
- Both parties were later found in contempt: Erika for willfully denying visitation and Bradley for failing to pay uninsured medical expenses. The district court set jail terms but allowed each an opportunity to purge their contempt (visitation compliance for Erika; payment for Bradley).
- After a series of supervised visits in June–August 2014 and a DHS investigation (which did not substantiate abuse), Erika prevented further visitation; Bradley filed affidavits alleging continued denial of visitation.
- A combined purge hearing was held September 16, 2014; both parties proceeded pro se, the court limited the hearing to about one hour, and the court refused to allow the minor children to testify (admitted their letters instead).
- The district court later found neither party had purged their contempt and ordered Erika to serve 30 days in jail (previously imposed) and Bradley to serve 10 days; Erika sought certiorari, claiming Fourteenth Amendment due process violations.
Issues
| Issue | Spitz's Argument | Gentz's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Right to counsel at purge hearing | Denial of counsel violated Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights; no valid waiver | Court: no constitutional right to appointed counsel in this civil purge hearing where Turner safeguards present | No violation; Turner procedural safeguards were satisfied and no Sixth Amendment right applies |
| Time limitation on hearing | One-hour cap (25 minutes per party) deprived Spitz of meaningful opportunity to be heard | Court: time limit was disclosed, parties did not request more time, judge familiar with case, additional 20 minutes allowed | No due process violation under circumstances; court cautioned against arbitrary limits |
| Exclusion of children’s live testimony | Preventing children from testifying denied ability to present defense evidence | Court: letters from each child and DHS report were admitted; not a custody determination | No due process violation; admission of written letters and DHS report sufficient here |
| Sufficiency of evidence that contempt was not purged | Spitz contended she had made efforts or justification for withholding visitation | Court: no visitation after Aug 10, 2014; DHS investigation cleared allegations; record showed no bona fide effort to reestablish visitation | Held that Spitz failed to show purge or bona fide inability; contempt finding affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- McNabb v. Osmundson, 315 N.W.2d 9 (Iowa 1982) (Due Process requirements in contempt proceedings, including right to counsel analysis)
- Phillips v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 380 N.W.2d 706 (Iowa 1986) (civil contempt is quasi-criminal and due process requires certain safeguards)
- Turner v. Rogers, 564 U.S. 431 (2011) (Due Process does not always require appointed counsel in civil contempt so long as adequate procedural safeguards exist)
- Hicks ex rel. Feiock v. Feiock, 485 U.S. 624 (1988) (distinction between remedial civil contempt and punitive criminal contempt)
- In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257 (1948) (due process protections in contempt proceedings)
- Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (1979) (liberty interest and need for due process protections)
- Van Meter v. Hellwege, 356 N.W.2d 541 (Iowa 1984) (denial of counsel in civil contempt as due process violation)