This article discusses the application of constructive civil contempt in a recent child custody case. It is Part 3 of a three-part series. Part 1 provides an overview of the law of contempt in Maryland. Part 2 includes a summary and analysis of Breona C. v. Rodney D., 253 Md. App. 67 (2021), which clarified the law of civil contempt in child custody cases.
Lessons from the Breona C. Case
As discussed in Part 2, the opinion issued by the Appellate Court of Maryland in Breona C. v. Rodney D., 253 Md. App. 67 (2021) set forth important lessons regarding the application of constructive civil contempt in child custody cases:
- An order finding a person in constructive civil contempt must include a valid sanction that is distinct from the purge provision and the requirement the Court seeks to enforce.
- An order finding a person in constructive civil contempt must include a valid purge provision that allows the alleged contemnor to avoid the sanction by taking some defined, specific action.
- An order finding a person in constructive civil contempt must be designed to compel present or future compliance with a court order, not to punish past noncompliance.
Constructive Civil Contempt in a Recent Child Custody Case
When parents share custody of their children, the parents must cooperate and communicate with each other to follow their custody order and co-parent effectively. Terms in a court order related to minor children (e.g., custody and child support) are modifiable by a court after applying a two-prong analysis. First, a court must find a material/substantial change in circumstance has occurred and then make a determination of the best interests of the children. When parents do not cooperate and communicate with each other to co-parent effectively, this frequently results in attempts to modify custody and petitions for contempt.
Our team was contacted by a prior client who had been served with a Petition for Contempt filed against him by his child’s mother. In our previous representation of the client, we reached a Consent Order, which established a custody schedule for each parent with their child. During the specific week at issue in the Petition for Contempt, the mother was scheduled to have the parties’ child in her care for a specific period of time pursuant to the terms of the Consent Order. During this particular week, the parties’ child had agreed upon organized extracurricular activities near our client’s home, which would also take the child out of the state for his participation.
My client and the child’s other parent agreed that my client would take their child to the activity on the first evening of the other parent’s scheduled access, then the other parent would pick their child from the activity and take the child from the remainder of their scheduled access and take the child to the activities, which would be out of state. The other parent did not pick the child up from the scheduled activity as arranged, so my client kept their child that night and asked the other parent to pick up their child to start their weekend the following morning. The other parent did not pick up their child the following day or the morning of the out-of-state travel. When faced with \the child missing the activity or taking the child himself, my client took their child to the out-of-state activity so the child would not miss it.
When my client returned home the following evening after the conclusion of the out-of-state activity, the child’s other parent picked up the child from my client. Two days later, the other parent filed a Petition for Contempt against my client, which alleged that my client violated the Consent Order by failing to make their child available to her during her scheduled parenting time.
Applying the Lessons from the Breona C. Case to Serve Our Client
Our approach to defend our client against the allegation that he violated the Consent Order was two-fold: (1) our client did not prevent the other parent from spending her scheduled weekend with their child, it was the other parent who failed to exercise parenting time; and (2) even if our client violated the Consent Order, that violation was cured when the other parent finally retrieved their child, and therefore our client could not be found in constructive civil contempt because there was no ongoing noncompliance to correct through the contempt process.
Relying on the lessons from Breona C., we argued that the purpose of constructive civil contempt is to compel present or future compliance with a court order, not to punish past noncompliance; and in this case, our client remained in compliance with the Consent Order (or at a very minimum, was in compliance with the Consent Order by Sunday evening). The judge agreed with our position and denied the parent’s Petition for Contempt.
In many ways, the facts of this case were very similar to the facts of the Breona C. case. However, there was one critical difference. In Breona C., Breona was actively violating the operative custody order when the Petition for Contempt was filed against her, but Breona began complying with the custody order before the Contempt Hearing. In our case, there was no allegation that our client was actively violating the Consent Order at the time the Petition for Contempt was filed against him. This may seem like an insignificant distinction, but this fact turned out to have a major impact for our client.
You may recall that the Breona C. case instructs that the purpose of constructive civil contempt is to coerce or compel compliance with a court order, not to punish completed noncompliance. Because the other parent filed the Petition for Contempt against our client at a time when our client was undisputably complying with the Consent Order, we argued that the other parent’s Petition for Contempt was filed without substantial justification and filed a motion requesting that the other parent be ordered to pay our client’s attorneys’ fees pursuant to Maryland Rule 1-341. In most cases, the general rule is that each party must pay their own attorneys’ fees. There are some exceptions to this general rule, including Maryland Rule 1-341, which is “an extraordinary remedy” and allows a court to order one party to pay the other party’s attorneys’ fees if an action is maintained without substantial justification. We argued that, even accepting all of the other parent’s allegations as true, our client could not possibly have been found in constructive civil contempt because our client was undisputably complying with the Consent Order when the Petition for Contempt was filed, and therefore the other parent lacked substantial justification for filing the Petition for Contempt. The judge agreed with our position and ordered other parent to pay a portion of our client’s attorneys’ fees.
This case illustrates the importance of understanding and properly applying lessons from caselaw and the Maryland Rules to the real-life situations our clients face. Obtaining an order for attorneys’ fees pursuant to Maryland Rule 1-341 is very rare. Our client would not have achieved such a favorable result without our thorough research, clear writing, and persuasive arguments.
If you believe that you may need to file a petition for contempt to enforce a court order, or if a petition for contempt has been filed against you contact Monica Scherer, Esq. at 410-625-4740 to speak with an experienced family law attorney at Silverman Thompson.
Disclaimer: This blog is informative in nature. The information contained in this article is not to be considered legal advice and there is no attorney-client relationship formed between Silverman Thompson and the reader. The materials in this blog cannot be repurposed without permission of Silverman Thompson.