J.R. v. D.D.D.A., Appeal of: D.D.D.A.
J.R. v. D.D.D.A., Appeal of: D.D.D.A. No. 1729 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 25, 2017Background
- Parents (Mother D.D.D.A. and Father J.R.) had joint legal custody and alternating physical custody under a November 23, 2015 order. Mother and Father share three children; Father is biological father of the youngest and stood in loco parentis to the other two.
- In June 2016 Mother obtained emergency custody; Father successfully sought reinstatement of the November 2015 order and then filed a petition for contempt against Mother.
- No formal evidentiary contempt hearing occurred; the trial court met with the parties and counsel in chambers off the record on October 11, 2016 and, based on that conference, entered an October 13, 2016 order modifying custody and stating Mother admitted contempt.
- The October 13 order adjudicated Mother in civil contempt and imposed a suspended 30-day incarceration conditioned on compliance; the order characterized the provisions as a negotiated agreement aided by counsel.
- Mother moved to vacate; the trial court denied relief. Mother appealed, arguing the court violated her due process rights by entering a contempt adjudication and sanctions without a hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court applied proper procedural due-process protections before adjudicating Mother in civil contempt | Mother: court violated due process by adjudicating contempt and imposing sanctions without a hearing or opportunity to present evidence/cross-examine witnesses | Trial court/Father: Mother admitted contempt during pre-hearing conference and parties negotiated the order, making a formal hearing unnecessary | Court held the lack of a hearing violated due process; vacated the contempt adjudication and sanctions and remanded for a contempt hearing |
| Whether the legal standard for civil contempt was properly applied | Mother: court failed to apply and make a record of required elements (notice, volitional act, wrongful intent) via an evidentiary hearing | Trial court: relied on Mother’s admission at the off‑the‑record conference as sufficient | Court found off‑the‑record admission insufficient; without a hearing appellate review is impossible, so contempt finding vacated |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by finding contempt without a full evidentiary hearing | Mother: abuse of discretion because judge did not receive or memorialize evidence, and Mother had no opportunity to defend | Trial court: treated matter as negotiated resolution and conditional sanction based on compliance | Court concluded it was an error to adjudicate contempt without the essential opportunity to be heard; remanded for proceedings consistent with due process |
Key Cases Cited
- G.A. v. D.L., 72 A.3d 264 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard of appellate review of contempt and deference to trial court discretion)
- Epstein v. Saul Ewing, LLP, 7 A.3d 303 (Pa. Super. 2010) (elements and procedural protections for civil contempt)
- Harcar v. Harcar, 982 A.2d 1230 (Pa. Super. 2009) (notice and opportunity to be heard are essential for civil contempt)
- Rhoades v. Pryce, 874 A.2d 148 (Pa. Super. 2008) (contempt orders imposing conditional sanctions are final and appealable)
- Wolanin v. Hashagen, 829 A.2d 331 (Pa. Super. 2003) (discussing finality of contempt orders)
- Warmkessel v. Heffner, 17 A.3d 408 (Pa. Super. 2011) (distinguishing civil contempt as remedial)
- Stahl v. Redcay, 897 A.2d 478 (Pa. Super. 2006) (definition and purpose of civil contempt sanctions)
- In re K.T.E.L., 983 A.2d 745 (Pa. Super. 2009) (excusing certain appellate procedural defaults when no prejudice results)