.webp)
.png)
Whenever a judge issues an order in a family law case, the ideal course of action is to always follow that order to the letter. This is true regardless of what any party happens to think about the soundness or desirability of the order itself. Even if an order were found to be issued on a mistaken foundation, or contain a substantive error, parties should follow the terms of the order until such time that the order is revoked by the court. However, even if a party fails to abide an order, there are still limits regarding precisely the kind of repercussions which can follow. A judge doesn’t have the ability to impose whatever kind of punishment he or she wishes on a party who fails to follow all the terms of an order; the possible consequences are determined by various factors, including the exact nature of the violation.
In the case of Miller v. Chapman, Jr. (2019), a judge ended up issuing an incorrect punishment for a party’s disobedience of an established court order. This is a prime example of how punishments have to stick within certain bounds. Let’s examine this case in detail.
Overview of the Case
The father and mother in this case were engaged in a fairly bitter custody dispute. At one point, the child complained about injuries, and the father was subsequently charged with child abuse. Subsequent to this charge, the father sought a protection order against the mother and the court granted the order. Later, the father accused the mother of violating the order by sending threatening text messages. The parties were brought back to court, and ultimately the judge determined that the mother had been in “constructive civil contempt” due to the messages. The mother then appealed that determination and the case went before the appellate division.
Ruling & Discussion
The appellate division overturned the trial court’s determination regarding constructive civil contempt. The appellate division’s decision-making was ultimately based on the technical restrictions which govern constructive civil contempt. When most laypeople think of “contempt of court,” they think that there is only a single form of contempt which may be issued; in reality, Maryland law has different forms of contempt, and constructive civil contempt is just one of them. To be found in constructive civil contempt, the offending party must show that it hasn’t brought itself into compliance with the underlying order since the time of the offense. In other words, if the party subsequently brings himself or herself into compliance with an order after he or she violated the order, then the court must not make a finding of constructive civil contempt. In this case, by the time that the judge made the contempt determination, the mother hadn’t sent a text message for over 60 days.
The terms of the order made it clear that the mother needed to refrain from sending a text message for at least 30 days to be in compliance; in other words, she would be in compliance, even after violating the order, if she refrained from any additional violations for at least 30 days. Hence, the judge should not have made a determination of contempt based on the “time restriction” which applied. The appellate division overturned this lower court’s ruling on this basis.
Contact the Murphy Law Firm for Additional Information
If you want more information about obeying court orders, the possible consequences of failing to follow an order, or about another related issue, reach out to one of the family law attorneys at the Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-219-5243.
.png)
