In the Interest of K. J. Et Al., Children, 340 Ga. App. 468

At a January 26, 2016 juvenile judicial-review hearing, mother Haley Weaver appeared with counsel in a dependency proceeding; parties had stipulated to the dispositional report and consented to a legitimation petition.
The Department requested Weaver submit to a drug screen; the court asked Weaver directly and she agreed and was taken for screening during a recess.
The on-the-spot screen returned non-negatives for oxy, opiates, THC, amphetamines, and methamphetamines; Weaver did not contest the results and declined to speak for herself in court.
The juvenile court found Weaver had appeared in court under the influence, concluded that this interfered with the court’s ability to conduct business, and summarily adjudicated criminal contempt, ordering 48 hours in custody and continuing the hearing.
Weaver appealed, arguing (1) insufficient evidence to support criminal contempt and (2) denial of due process because the court announced contempt without prior notice and an adversarial hearing.
The majority affirmed: viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational factfinder could conclude Weaver’s in-court impairment obstructed proceedings, and the contempt was direct so summary adjudication after an opportunity to speak did not violate due process. A dissent argued the evidence did not prove interference beyond a reasonable doubt.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Weaver)	Defendant's Argument (State/Juvenile Court)	Held
Whether evidence supported criminal-contempt finding for appearing impaired in court	Drug-screen positives alone, plus demeanor, did not show she obstructed or interfered with the proceedings; counsel was able to represent her	Court observed impairment, positive screen, and continuation of the hearing showed interference with court business	Affirmed: evidence (demeanor, test results, hearing continuation) was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find criminal contempt beyond a reasonable doubt
Whether summary adjudication without prior notice violated due process	Weaver argued she lacked notice and time to prepare a defense because she was not given formal charges and hearing	Court treated the conduct as direct contempt occurring in its presence; Weaver was afforded opportunity to speak, so summary punishment was permissible	Affirmed: direct contempt committed in open court may be summarily adjudicated after opportunity to speak; no due-process violation

Moton v. State, 332 Ga. App. 300 (describing distinction between civil and criminal contempt)
In re Liles, 278 Ga. App. 496 (standard of review for criminal contempt convictions)
In re Jefferson, 283 Ga. 216 (judge’s authority to preserve order and use contempt power)
Ramirez v. State, 279 Ga. 13 (procedural differences between direct and indirect contempt; summary adjudication for direct contempt)
Dowdy v. Palmour, 251 Ga. 135 (trial judge’s power to summarily punish contempt observed in presence of court)
In re Bowens, 308 Ga. App. 241 (trial judge as factfinder and credibility determinations in contempt proceedings)
Hayes v. State, 298 Ga. App. 419 (addressing sufficiency of evidence for contempt based on alleged impairment in court)
Newton v. Golden Grove Pecan Farm, 309 Ga. App. 764 (limitations on summary adjudication where alleged contempt poses no immediate threat)
In re Harris, 289 Ga. App. 334 (criminal contempt requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt)
In re Beckstrom, 295 Ga. App. 179 (standard of appellate review for criminal contempt)
Moody v. State, 131 Ga. App. 355 (insufficient contempt where appearance in drunken condition alone did not establish contempt)