Krystal D. Ruemker A/K/A Krystal D. Stanley v. Raymond Ruemker
339 Ga. App. 680
Ga. Ct. App.2016Background
- Ward is an incapacitated adult; parents (mother Krystal Ruemker/Stanley and father Raymond Ruemker) sought appointment as co-guardians/conservators after probate proceedings and appeal to superior court.
- Superior court appointed an emergency guardian pending the superior-court proceedings and later reappointed the same emergency guardian, vesting visitation decision-making in her.
- Father, who lives in Missouri, alleged mother refused to produce the ward for his December 18, 2015 holiday visitation; court issued a December 21, 2015 show-cause order directing mother and stepfather to appear Dec. 22 and produce the ward, warning immediate incarceration for failure to appear.
- Mother and stepfather did not appear as ordered; court on Dec. 22 ordered their immediate incarceration. Stepfather was released same day after cooperating; mother later arrested on a kidnapping warrant and subsequently released.
- Superior court later dismissed contempt proceedings and found there was no further action it could take; ward was residing with father. Appeals by mother and stepfather of the Dec. 21 and Dec. 22 orders were consolidated on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dec. 21 show-cause order was directly appealable | Mother: order affected custody/was reviewable | State/Respondent: order was interlocutory, not final contempt or custody order | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction — not directly appealable under OCGA §5-6-34(a)(11) |
| Whether Dec. 22 order (ordering immediate incarceration) was a directly appealable contempt order | Mother: Dec. 22 order was criminal contempt under OCGA §15-6-8(5) and thus directly appealable | Father: order was analogous to a bench warrant to secure appearance, not a final contempt adjudication | Appeal moot — mother released and subsequent order dismissed contempt, so no live controversy |
| Whether Dec. 22 order was in substance a bench warrant vs. contempt | Mother: characterizes it as contempt imposing punishment | Father: characterizes it as bench warrant to secure presence; moot once party appears | Court treated substance over form but found mootness/absence of final contempt determination; dismissed appeal |
| Whether appellants could challenge emergency guardian appointment on these appeals | Appellants: trial court erred in appointing emergency guardian and failing to meet statutory prerequisites | Respondent: appointment of emergency guardian under OCGA §29-4-70(d) is not appealable | Court noted statute expressly makes emergency-guardian appointment nonappealable; appeals otherwise dismissed/mooted |
Key Cases Cited
- American Med. Security Group, Inc. v. Parker, 284 Ga. 102 (2008) (distinguishes criminal contempt as unconditional punishment for past contumacy)
- Collins v. Davis, 318 Ga. App. 265 (2012) (procedural rules on appeals to Court of Appeals)
- Brabant v. Patton, 315 Ga. App. 711 (2012) (application of direct-appeal provision in guardianship context)
- Cagle v. PMC Dev. Co., 233 Ga. 583 (1975) (appeal from contempt is moot once contempt judgment complied with or vacated)
- Brochin v. Brochin, 294 Ga. App. 406 (2008) (dismissal of appeal as moot where contempt finding vacated or complied with)