In re T.L.C., 2014 Ohio 3995

Parents (Mother Cindy Smith — appellant; Father David Coleman — appellee) share two daughters; disputes over custody and allocation of uninsured medical expenses led to juvenile-court proceedings.
Magistrate's June 12, 2013 decision: Mother to reimburse Father 16.59% of past and future uninsured medicals; ordered immediate payment of $621.77 within 30 days. Trial court adopted the magistrate's decision.
Father moved for contempt after Mother failed to pay; contempt hearing held November 7, 2013. Father introduced a larger total of unpaid uninsured medicals ($991.65) including amounts incurred after June 12. An email showed Father notified Mother of the newer expenses on October 31, 2013 (within 30 days of the hearing).
Magistrate found Mother in contempt and ordered costs, a 30-day jail term stayed on condition of monthly payments; magistrate declined to set a purge amount at the hearing. Trial court overruled Mother's objections without an evidentiary hearing and adopted the magistrate's contempt decision.
On appeal, Mother challenged (1) contempt based on amounts exceeding $621.77 and asserted a due-process defect, (2) denial of a hearing on objections, and (3) refusal to permit purging. Court reviews civil indirect contempt standard and procedural rules for magistrate objections.

Issue	Mother's Argument	Father's / Trial Court's Argument	Held
Whether Mother could be held in contempt for unpaid uninsured medicals beyond $621.77	Mother: Contempt improper for amounts above $621.77 because June 12 order only required $621.77 within 30 days; she was not given 30 days to pay later bills	Father/Ct: Mother violated order to reimburse her share of uncovered medicals and thus contempt is proper for unpaid amounts shown at hearing	Court: Affirmed contempt but modified — Mother in contempt only for failure to pay $621.77; contempt for amounts > $621.77 was error because 30-day cure period had not expired for later bills
Whether denial of a hearing on objections violated due process	Mother: Trial court erred in overruling objections without an evidentiary hearing, violating due process	Father/Ct: Juv.R. 40(D)(4)(d) does not require a hearing; court may rule on objections from the record	Court: Overruled — no error; hearing not required and Mother did not show she could not have presented new evidence earlier
Whether Mother was denied an opportunity to purge civil contempt	Mother: Magistrate refused to set a purge amount; she was denied a required opportunity to purge civil contempt	Father/Ct: Proceeding treated as civil contempt and court imposed conditional stay (payments ordered)	Court: Issue waived for appeal because Mother failed to raise it in objections; therefore overruled (no plain-error showing)

Windham Bank v. Tomaszczyk, 27 Ohio St.2d 55 (Ohio 1971) (defines contempt as disobedience of a court order and states purposes of contempt proceedings)
Brown v. Executive 200, Inc., 64 Ohio St.2d 250 (Ohio 1980) (distinguishes criminal contempt from civil contempt and describes purge opportunity for civil contempt)
State ex rel. Corn v. Russo, 90 Ohio St.3d 551 (Ohio 2001) (criminal contempt sanctions are punitive and vindicatory)
Cincinnati v. Cincinnati Dist. Council 51, Am. Fedn. of State, Cty. & Mun. Emp., AFL-CIO, 35 Ohio St.2d 197 (Ohio 1973) (notice sufficient when it apprises alleged contemnor so they can prepare a defense)
In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257 (U.S. 1948) (due process protections required in contempt proceedings)
Courtney v. Courtney, 16 Ohio App.3d 329 (3d Dist. 1984) (civil contempt proceedings require due process notice and opportunity to be heard)