IN Re Ethan R.
W2016-00201-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Aug 8, 2017Background
- Mother (Wang) and Father (Rowland) litigated custody after a 2011 juvenile petition; circuit court entered a May 29, 2015 final order setting a parenting schedule favoring Mother.
- Father filed a contempt petition (Aug. 26, 2015) alleging Mother refused to comply with the court-ordered visitation schedule; a Fiat set hearings and warned of possible civil and criminal contempt sanctions.
- Multiple notices/orders were issued; record includes a September 14 order rescheduling a hearing to October 5 and a FedEx proof of delivery to Mother’s workplace.
- Mother moved to dismiss the contempt petition claiming lack of jurisdiction, defective notice under Tenn. R. Crim. P. 42(b), and improper service under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 4.03/4.04 (and later relied on Rule 5 procedures).
- Mother failed to appear at the December 4, 2015 contempt hearing; the trial court found her guilty of criminal contempt, sentenced her to ten days in jail, and imposed travel/passport restrictions.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed: it held the circuit court retained authority to enforce its order by contempt, the contempt petition satisfied Rule 42(b) notice requirements, and service complied with Rule 5 procedures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction / venue to enforce order | Wang: circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to enforce the May 29 order (juvenile jurisdiction terminated) | Rowland: court retained power to enforce its order by contempt | Court: retained authority to punish contempt and enforce its orders; jurisdiction to adjudicate contempt upheld |
| Adequacy of criminal-contempt notice (Tenn. R. Crim. P. 42(b)) | Wang: petition’s single reference to "criminal contempt" and combined civil/criminal prayers failed to clearly notify her of criminal exposure | Rowland: petition and fiat expressly referenced criminal contempt and incarceration rights | Court: petition and fiat contained essential facts and explicit notice required by Rule 42(b) — notice adequate |
| Service of contempt petition / notice (Tenn. R. Civ. P.) | Wang: service defective under Rules 4.03/4.04; return receipts unsigned; late or incomplete summons delivery | Rowland: contempt is a pleading in existing action; service governed by Rule 5; certificates and FedEx proof suffice | Court: service under Rule 5 (delivery/mailing to last known address) and certificate of service created prima facie evidence of proper notice; service adequate |
Key Cases Cited
- Baker v. State, 417 S.W.3d 428 (Tenn. 2013) (criminal contempt vindicates court authority and dignity)
- Long v. McAllister-Long, 221 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006) (required elements for adequate criminal-contempt notice)
- Marcus v. Marcus, 993 S.W.2d 596 (Tenn. 1999) (a court that loses modification jurisdiction may still enforce existing custody orders by contempt)