956 N.E.2d 1157
Ind. Ct. App.2011Background
- Mother and Father share parenting time for their 14-year-old daughter M.F.; Father resides in Florida, Mother in Indiana.
- July 6, 2010 order provided Father seven days of winter break parenting time and equal travel cost sharing, with Christmas arrangements thereafter.
- In mid-December 2010, disputes arose over flight schedules to Florida during winter break, with make-up days due to snow affecting M.F.’s school calendar.
- Father purchased travel for M.F. but Mother did not place M.F. on the flight arranged by Father; communication and scheduling deteriorated, culminating in emergency proceedings.
- December 27, 2010 order found Mother in contempt for past conduct and required travel costs and $300 in attorney fees; order later remanded by appellate court.
- Indiana Court of Appeals reversed contempt and attorney-fee awards, affirming travel-cost remedy but remanding to vacate contempt finding and related fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the contempt finding was an abuse of discretion | Mother willfully disobeyed the order, contends the order was vague or unclear. | Mother acted within the reasonable interpretation of the order given the calendar uncertainties. | Abuse of discretion; contempt reversed. |
| Whether the contempt order provided a purge mechanism | Any purge provision was not clearly required by the July 6, 2010 order. | The order clearly compelled travel arrangements to facilitate Father’s parenting time. | Lack of purge mechanism; contempt reversed and remanded. |
| Whether attorney fees based on contempt were proper | Fees awarded due to contempt should stand if contempt were proper. | Fees should not be tethered to an improper contempt finding. | Fees reversed; remand to vacate; travel-cost remedy affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- J.M. v. D.A., 935 N.E.2d 1235 (Ind.Ct.App.2010) (abuse of discretion standard for contempt review)
- Norris v. Pethe, 833 N.E.2d 1024 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (contempt standards and deference to trial court)
- Henderson v. Henderson, 919 N.E.2d 1207 (Ind.Ct.App.2010) (direct vs indirect contempt; purge opportunity)
- In re Paternity of J.T.I., 875 N.E.2d 447 (Ind.Ct.App.2007) (interference with parenting time as indirect contempt)
- Bandini v. Bandini, 935 N.E.2d 253 (Ind.Ct.App.2010) (clear and certain order required for contempt)
- Flash v. Holtsclaw, 789 N.E.2d 955 (Ind.Ct.App.2003) (purge capability in contempt orders)
- MacIntosh v. MacIntosh, 749 N.E.2d 626 (Ind.Ct.App.2001) (civil contempt aims to coerce compliance)
- Nicholas v. Nicholas, 482 N.E.2d 770 (Ind.Ct.App.1985) (express commands required for contempt)