In the Interest of J. D., 316 Ga. App. 19

Stallworth appeals a juvenile court contempt order finding her in contempt for two acts and sentencing her to 40 days total.
In 2010 J. D. was placed on probation; a December 2010 protective order imposed duties on Stallworth relating to J. D.’s delinquency probation.
A June 17, 2011 contempt hearing addressed Stallworth’s failure to appear; Stallworth had a subpoena but did not appear.
The State amended its contempt motions to include failures to cooperate with the court and to participate in counseling as to J. D.’s probation.
At an August 22, 2011 hearing Stallworth admitted the first contempt; she denied the second but the court found both contempts wilful and imposed 20 days for each, with the second suspendable upon compliance with the protective order.
Stallworth timely appealed, challenging the designation of contempt, the second contempt as an additional contempt, and the subpoena’s timeliness; the court affirmed the judgments.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the contempt convictions were properly designated civil or criminal	Stallworth argues the court erred by not specifying civil/criminal	Court’s purpose of punishment vs. remedy governs designation; explicit labeling not required	Yes; both convictions were criminal in purpose; no reversible error in designation
Whether the second contempt was a separate contempt and supported by the evidence	Stallworth contends second contempt was not a separate act and findings were against the weight of the evidence	Court properly treated the failure to appear at 4:30 p.m. as a separate contempt; evidence supports wilfulness	Yes; second contempt valid and supported by evidence of wilful noncompliance
Whether the subpoena was unenforceable due to 24-hour notice	Subpoena served approximately five hours before appearance violated OCGA § 24-10-25(a)	Stallworth waived timeliness by not objecting and had opportunity to prepare; continuance issued	Yes; waiver valid; subpoena timely for purposes of contempt under the circumstances
Whether the evidence supported wilfulness and ability to comply with the court order	Stallworth lacked transportation and could not comply	Judge properly rejected credibility and found ability to comply; evidence supports wilful disobedience	Yes; evidence supported wilful disobedience and separate contempt for 4:30 p.m. return

Rhone v. Bolden, 270 Ga. App. 712 (2004) (distinguishes civil vs. criminal contempt based on purpose of punishment vs. remedial effect)
Cabiness v. Lambros, 303 Ga. App. 253 (2010) (civil vs. criminal contempt depends on court’s purpose of order and punishment)
Phillips v. Tittle, 261 Ga. 820 (1992) (recognizes reconsideration of civil vs. criminal without explicit designation)
Thedieck v. Thedieck, 220 Ga. App. 764 (1996) (explicit framework for civil vs. criminal contempt based on imprisonment to perform act vs. indefinite confinement)
In re Earle, 248 Ga. App. 355 (2001) (contempt can be civil when imprisonment is conditional on future compliance)
In re Bowens, 308 Ga. App. 241 (2011) (credibility determinations committed to trial judge in contempt hearings)
Waitz, In re, 255 Ga. App. 841 (2002) (standard of review for criminal contempt: rationality beyond reasonable doubt)
Eubanks v. Brooks, 139 Ga. App. 166 (1976) (24-hour notice for subpoenas; waiver possible)
Adams v. State, 282 Ga. App. 819 (2006) (waiver of 24-hour notice for subpoenas)
Stein v. Cherokee Ins. Co., 169 Ga. App. 1 (1983) (subpoena timeliness and preparation time considerations)