In re M.H., 2012 Ohio 3371

Father filed a motion to show cause for contempt on September 28, 2010, alleging violations of a 2007 visitation order and failure to reimburse for extracurriculars and child support arrears.
At the time, father had been designated the temporary residential parent of M.H., who was 11.
On January 4, 2011, the trial court modified custody, designating father as the primary residential parent and issuing a new parenting plan.
The contempt hearing occurred October 21, 2011, more than a year after the motion and after the January 2011 modification; the hearing focused on the 2011 order rather than the 2007 order.
The trial court found mother in contempt for noncompliance with the January 4, 2011 order, and sentenced her to a suspended three-day jail term with a purge plan.
Mother appealed, arguing the contempt finding was based on the wrong order and that the purge was improper; the appellate court reversed the contempt finding and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there clear and convincing evidence of contempt?	Mother violated the 2007 order; evidence shows noncompliance.	Contempt relied on the 2011 order, not the 2007 order; insufficient evidence of 2007 violations.	Contempt reversed; insufficient basis on the 2007 order.
Did the court err by relying on the modified 2011 order instead of the underlying motion's order?	Motion to show cause targeted the 2007 order; focus on 2011 was improper.	Modified order reflects ongoing parenting obligations; evidence relevant.	Abused discretion; reversed contempt for reliance on the wrong order.
Was the purge/clarifying purgable contempt order proper?	Purge terms allow actual compliance with the underlying order.	Order coerces future conduct and may be indefinite.	Moot, as contempt reversed; purge order itself defective if maintained.

Corn v. Russo, 90 Ohio St.3d 551 (2001) (defines contempt; purpose is dignity and administration of justice)
Windham Bank v. Tomaszczyk, 27 Ohio St.2d 55 (1971) (contempt is civil or criminal depending on remedial vs punitive aim)
In re J.M., 2008-Ohio-6763 (Ohio 2008) (abuse of discretion standard for contempt findings)
Brown v. Executive 200, Inc., 64 Ohio St.2d 250 (1980) (civil contempt requires opportunity to purge; arrest not sole remedy)
U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v. Golf Course Mgmt., Inc., 2009-Ohio-2807 (Ohio 12th Dist.) (purge ability and timing in contempt orders)
Tucker v. Tucker, 10 Ohio App.3d 251 (1983) (purge orders must provide true opportunity to purge)
Ryder v. Ryder, 2002-Ohio-765 (Ohio 5th Dist.) (limits on future-conduct purges; requires new notice/hearing for future penalties)
Mackowiak v. Mackowiak, 2011-Ohio-3013 (Ohio 2011) (purge order must be true purge, not ongoing future-conduct regulation)