State v. LA
2010 UT App 356
| Utah Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Probation placed C.A. on April 13, 2009 with conditions directed at Mother L.A. and Father R.A., including cooperation and transportation to meetings.
- PO Brehm discovered a positive marijuana urinalysis for C.A. on April 16, 2009 and directed Mother to bring C.A. to detention the next morning; Mother expressed disagreement.
- Between April 17–21, 2009, Mother and Father attempted to comply inconsistently; detention was ultimately delayed and contested.
- Brehm sought contempt orders against both parents for failure to transport C.A. to detention as directed.
- The juvenile court found Mother in contempt for failing to comply with the detention directive, imposed a $200 fine and suspended seven-day jail sentence; Father was not held in contempt due to timing and other explanations.
- Mother appeals, arguing the probation order was too vague to impose contempt and that she did not know the directive equated to a court-ordered requirement to transport to detention.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the contempt finding is supported by sufficient evidence | Mother contends she did not know she was violating the order | State argues the directive to attend meetings and provide transportation included the detention directive | No; the order was not sufficiently clear to put Mother on notice she must take C.A. to detention. |
| Whether the probation order was sufficiently specific to support contempt | Mother asserts the order’s 'attend meetings... and ensure transportation' is ambiguous | State relies on Brehm’s directive as a valid fulfillment of the probation terms | No; the language did not clearly include obligations to deliver to detention. |
| Whether the conduct constitutes willful disobedience under contempt standards | Mother acted due to beliefs about marijuana and perceived unfairness | State asserts willful disobedience given knowledge of directive and several days to comply | Not reached; prejudice by lack of clear notice defeats contempt finding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Von Hake v. Thomas, 759 P.2d 1162 (Utah 1988) (requirements for proving contempt: knowledge, ability, and intentional noncompliance)
- Salt Lake City v. Dorman-Ligh, 912 P.2d 452 (Utah Ct.App.1996) (order must be clear and definite to sustain contempt)
- Foreman v. Foreman, 176 P.2d 144 (Utah 1946) (order must be clear and unambiguous to support contempt)