MURPHY Et Al. v. MURPHY, 330 Ga. App. 169

Third opinion in a custody modification action; final order on petition to modify not yet entered; contempt rulings issued against Nancy Michelle Murphy and her attorneys Farmer and King for conduct during proceedings.
Farmer held in contempt for discussing case with the children in violation of an August 23, 2013 order; Murphy contempt for refusing to cooperate with custody evaluator; King and Farmer held in contempt for Murphy’s failure to appear at contempt hearing.
Judgment below: contempt affirmed in part and reversed in part; defectively asserted contempt against Murphy for not appearing in person at hearing reversed.
Notice and process issues: proportionate notice for indirect contempt found adequate; direct vs. indirect contempt distinction governs required process.
Appeal posture: contempt order appeal path treated as discretionary appeal; issues regarding judge’s disqualification and procedural deficiencies discussed but narrow the scope of review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Farmer’s contempt for discussing with children was properly noticed	Murphy	Farmer	Yes, adequate notice provided.
Whether Murphy’s contempt for not cooperating with the custody evaluator was supported by evidence	Murphy	Murphy	Supported by evidence; civil contempt found.
Whether Murphy’s failure to appear at the contempt hearing justified contempt against her counsel	Murphy	Murphy	Appeal reversed as to this contumacy; no in-person appearance required absent subpoena.
Whether the trial judge was disqualified to hear the contempt motion	Murphy	Murphy and King	Authority proper; no reversible error found.

In re Waitz, 255 Ga. App. 841 (Ga. App. 2002) (criminal vs civil contempt standards; standard of review for criminal contempt)
In the Interest of J. D., 316 Ga. App. 19 (Ga. App. 2012) (civil contempt; remedial imprisonment until acts performed)
Hedquist v. Hedquist, 275 Ga. 188 (Ga. 2002) (notice and hearing requirements for contempt)