In re Paternity of S.M.J. v. Ogle, 115776

Ogle and Jacobs share a child; after custody orders in 2009, Ogle repeatedly accused Jacobs of involvement with a Colombian drug cartel and circulated those accusations to the child and third parties.
Beginning in 2014 the Douglas County District Court ordered Ogle to stop making or sharing the cartel allegations with the child and other third parties; the court later limited Ogle’s parenting time and granted Jacobs temporary sole custody.
In late 2015 Ogle repeated the allegations to Jacobs’s employer (the school), prompting Jacobs to seek sanctions for contempt for violating the court’s nondisparagement order.
The district court scheduled a show-cause (contempt) hearing; Ogle and his attorney both knew of the hearing but did not appear. The court held the hearing in their absence, found Ogle in contempt, assessed attorney fees, and imposed a 30-day jail sanction suspended if he paid.
Ogle moved to rescind; the district court denied relief. Ogle appealed, arguing (among other things) that the contempt hearing was improper because it proceeded without him or his counsel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Jacobs)	Defendant's Argument (Ogle)	Held
Whether the district court could hold an indirect-contempt hearing in the accused’s absence under K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 20-1204a(c)	The contempt hearing could proceed and sanctions be imposed despite Ogle’s nonappearance	The statute requires that, after proper service, if the accused fails to appear the court may issue a bench warrant and must proceed only when the accused is brought before the court; holding the hearing in absence was improper	Court vacated the contempt judgment: under 20-1204a(c) the court should not have conducted the hearing without Ogle present and remanded for further proceedings
Whether conducting the contempt hearing in absentia comported with due process	Implicitly that prior practice or necessity could permit proceeding	Absent hearing denied basic procedural protections (presence, opportunity to be heard, counsel), implicating due-process concerns	Court held its statutory interpretation advances due-process protections and thus supports requiring presence before imposing fines/coercive jail terms

Neighbor v. Westar Energy, Inc., 301 Kan. 916, 349 P.3d 469 (statutory interpretation de novo)
In re Marriage of Shelhamer, 50 Kan. App. 2d 152, 323 P.3d 184 (distinguishing criminal vs. civil contempt and noting protections required)
Turner v. Rogers, 564 U.S. 431 (due-process limits when civil sanctions may imprison)
Bond v. Albin, 29 Kan. App. 2d 262, 28 P.3d 394 (prior panel allowed proceeding in absence; this opinion disagrees)