in Re Mary Williams
334460
| Mich. Ct. App. | Dec 28, 2017Background
- Mary Williams, a DHHS foster-care worker, testified at a permanency planning hearing (PPH) regarding placement of 17-year-old AO with her father and was asked whether an Interstate Compact had been requested to place AO out of state.
- During the PPH Williams answered she had been “following the directions of [her] supervisor” when asked why the Compact had not been done, implying her supervisor told her not to complete it.
- After the hearing Williams told her supervisor, Kristin Anderson, in the DHHS offices that she had "thrown [Anderson] under the bus" and admitted she told the judge the Compact was undone because of her supervisor.
- Anderson and three coworkers testified that Williams said she told the judge her supervisor told her not to do the Compact; Anderson denied ever instructing Williams to abandon the Compact, although she had asked Williams to explore a potential military home-study alternative.
- The trial court charged Williams with criminal contempt for willfully misrepresenting the status of the Interstate Compact and implying her supervisor told her not to complete it; Williams was convicted and sentenced to community service and a conditional short jail term.
- On appeal Williams argued the court should have used civil contempt (to coerce compliance) and that there was insufficient evidence she willfully lied to the court; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DHHS) | Defendant's Argument (Williams) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether criminal contempt was appropriate vs. civil contempt | Criminal contempt justified because Williams’s misrepresentation was past conduct that affronted the court’s dignity | Civil contempt would have been proper to coerce completion of the Interstate Compact | Court upheld criminal contempt: purpose was punishment for past conduct, not coercion; sentencing supported that intent |
| Whether evidence sufficed to prove willful falsehood beyond a reasonable doubt | Testimony (supervisor and coworkers) and Williams’s posthearing admissions supported a willful misrepresentation that she hadn’t completed the Compact because her supervisor told her not to | Williams said she meant she had begun exploring a military home-study at the supervisor’s request (a different, non-deceptive meaning) | Court affirmed: appellate court may not reweigh credibility; competent evidence supported finding of willful misrepresentation beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Whether conviction was an abuse of discretion | N/A (DHHS argued conviction supported) | Williams argued the conviction and use of criminal contempt were improper | Court held no abuse of discretion; findings not clearly erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Contempt of Dudzinski, 257 Mich. App. 96 (discussing court contempt powers)
- Porter v. Porter, 285 Mich. App. 450 (distinguishing criminal- and civil-contempt due process implications)
- In re Contempt of Auto Club Ins. Ass’n, 243 Mich. App. 697 (civil versus criminal contempt purposes)
- In re Contempt of Henry, 282 Mich. App. 656 (evidentiary and burden standards in contempt proceedings)
- In re Kabanuk, 295 Mich. App. 252 (abuse-of-discretion standard for contempt orders)
- In re Moroun, 295 Mich. App. 312 (range of principled outcomes standard)
- People v. MacLean, 168 Mich. App. 577 (elements of contempt: willful disregard and clear, unequivocal proof)