In Re: The Paternity of S.R.W., M.R.B. v. B.T.T. (mem. dec.)
02A05-1701-JP-144
| Ind. Ct. App. | Sep 29, 2017Background
- Mother (M.R.B.) and Father (B.T.T.) share joint legal and physical custody of their daughter (born 2001); Child lives primarily with Mother in Indiana and trains as a competitive gymnast.
- Multiple contempt proceedings arose from disputes over parenting time and educational decisions dating to an August 13, 2013 order and a March 14, 2014 contempt determination finding Mother in contempt.
- In 2016 the trial court found Mother in contempt again for interfering with Father’s summer parenting time (Child refused to fly) and for unilaterally enrolling Child in college-level coursework.
- The court imposed a previously suspended 60-day sentence (converted to immediate 30 days), two additional 30-day suspended sentences conditioned on compliance, and $5,000 in attorney fees; Mother was taken into custody while breastfeeding an infant.
- Mother filed an appeal of an injunction related to college coursework; while that earlier appeal was pending (and later dismissed for failure to file a brief), the trial court proceeded with sanction proceedings.
- On appeal of the contempt sanctions the Court of Appeals affirmed in part, vacated the immediate incarceration as punitive, and remanded with instructions to (1) eliminate overbroad "strict" compliance language and (2) condition execution of suspended sentences on willful noncompliance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a pending appeal precluded the trial court from imposing contempt sanctions | Trial court should have postponed sanctions because the subject matter of the earlier appeal related to the same general topics | Trial court could proceed; any error was harmless because Mother failed to pursue the initial appeal | No reversible error; even if related, dismissal of the prior appeal removes any prejudice to Mother |
| Whether the imposed sanctions were proper (immediate incarceration; suspended sentences; purge requirement) | Immediate 30-day incarceration was improper because there was no purge condition and it was punitive; suspended sentences were overbroad by conditioning on "strict" compliance | Sanctions (including suspended sentences) were within the court’s civil contempt/coercive authority; suspended sentences are appealable | Immediate incarceration vacated as punitive (civil contempt cannot impose criminal punishment without proper procedure); suspended sentences affirmed as coercive but must be enforced only for willful noncompliance—court must remove "strict/strictly" language |
Key Cases Cited
- Bradley v. State, 649 N.E.2d 100 (Ind. 1995) (trial court may not interfere with subject matter of a pending appeal)
- Crider v. Crider, 15 N.E.3d 1042 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (trial court may preside over matters independent of pending appeal)
- Sutton v. State, 143 N.E. 353 (Ind. 1924) (a suspended judgment may be final and appealable)
- Crowl v. Berryhill, 678 N.E.2d 828 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (contempt power is inherent and necessary to enforce court orders)
- Meyer v. Wolvos, 707 N.E.2d 1029 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (inherent civil contempt power is coercive and remedial)
- Flash v. Holtsclaw, 789 N.E.2d 955 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (upholding lengthy incarceration for repeated protective-order violations)
- K.L.N. v. State, 881 N.E.2d 39 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (civil contempt order that offers no purge opportunity may be improper)
- Reynolds v. Reynolds, 64 N.E.3d 829 (Ind. 2016) (trial court should, on proper showing, postpone show-cause hearing to give reasonable opportunity to purge contempt)