State of Tennessee ex rel. Tonya Dotson v. Donald Howard, M2012-02248-COA-R3-JV

Petition filed March 26, 2012 seeking indirect criminal contempt for ten missed child-support payments, arrears $14,506.63 as of February 15, 2012.
Prior contempt in 2011 resulted in a 100-day sentence (98 suspended); after release, the suspended portion was later executed in January 2012.
Medical evidence shows Mr. Howard has sarcoidosis causing severe vision impairment and intolerance to sunlight and heat, limiting his employability; he is a tenth-grade graduate and a convicted felon.
SSI income reported as $328 per month at filing, later increasing, with little to no other substantial income; Dotson testified he provided January 2012 SSI payment.
Hearing on September 28, 2012 featured three witnesses; doctors described restrictions and potential employment with accommodations; Dotson testified regarding lack of ongoing support.
Juvenile court found ten acts of contempt based on credibility findings and sentenced 10 days per count (total 100 days); no specific weeks were identified as the offending payments.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there sufficient evidence of ability to pay at due dates and willfulness?	Dotson asserts Howard could work; lacked credible evidence of inability.	Howard contends his medical condition and limitations prevented payment.	No beyond-reasonable-doubt proof of ability or willfulness; convictions reversed.
Did the petition and proceedings comply with notice requirements for indirect criminal contempt under Rule 42(b)?	State contends proper notice and framing of charges were provided.	Howard argues notice insufficient or misframed for specific weeks.	Court notes deficiencies but relies on overall insufficiency of payment-ability/willfulness proof; remedy is dismissal.
Should ten unspecified weekly failures be individually proven beyond a reasonable doubt to sustain contempt?	Prosecution alleged multiple weeks with arrears; ten counts supported by petition.	Cannot identify which weeks, or prove ability to pay for those weeks, beyond reasonable doubt.	Convictions vacated for lack of proof of ability and willfulness for specified periods.

Cottingham v. Cottingam, 193 S.W.3d 531 (Tenn. 2006) (two elements: ability to pay and willfulness must be proved beyond reasonable doubt)
Long v. McAllister-Long, 221 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006) (notice and procedures for indirect criminal contempt under Rule 42(b))
Simpkins v. Simpkins, 374 S.W.3d 413 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012) (burden of proof and standard on appeal for criminal contempt)
In re Sneed, 302 S.W.3d 825 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010) (principles on proportionality and sentencing in contempt; consecutive vs. concurrent)
Black v. Blount, 938 S.W.2d 394 (Tenn. 1996) (purpose and vindication of law in criminal contempt)
Doe v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility of Supreme Court of Tenn., 104 S.W.3d 465 (Tenn. 2003) (civil vs criminal contempt distinctions and remedies)