When a Maryland court approves a child custody order, that decision is legally binding on both parents. This means that if either parent violates the order–even if they feel they had a good reason to do so–they can be held in civil contempt by the court. But there are also specific rules that govern the judge’s actions when holding a parent in contempt.

Court of Special Appeals Throws Out Civil Contempt Order Based on Judge’s Failure to Follow the Law

A recent published decision from the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, Breona C. v. Rodney D., provides an illustration of this principle. This case arose from an ongoing child custody dispute. The mother and father here have a 6-year-old child. In 2019, a Maryland circuit court judge modified an existing custody arrangement. As relevant here, the modified order granted the father primary physical custody of the child, with the mother having weekend visitation rights.

After one weekend visit in August 2020, however, the mother refused to return the child, claiming it was “out of concern for [the child’s] health and safety.” The following Monday, the father filed an emergency petition with the Circuit Court to hold the mother in contempt. The mother then received a temporary protective order from the court, allowing her to keep the child until the court addressed the merits.

The judge ultimately affirmed the terms of the modified custody order. However, the mother still refused to return the child to the father’s custody. After another court hearing, the mother finally relented. Several months later, the judge held a hearing on whether to hold the mother in civil contempt for the earlier violations of the court’s order.

The Court of Special Appeals reversed that contempt order, holding that the circuit judge “abused [their] discretion.” Specifically, the appellate court said the order did not follow the rules governing civil contempt orders in Maryland. In this case, the judge held the mother in “constructive civil contempt,” i.e., based on conduct that occurred outside of the court’s presence. As such, the Court of Special Appeals said the contempt order had to do three things:

• It must impose a sanction.
• It must include a “purge provision” that allows the mother a chance to avoid the sanction by taking some definite action.
• It must be designed to coerce the mother’s future compliance with a valid legal requirement rather than punish her for past, already completed conduct.

Here, the appellate court said the judge’s order lacked a “valid sanction.” That is, the mother was not fined or jailed. Instead, the contempt order simply “required Mother to comply in perpetuity with the December 2019 custody order.” In other words, the purge provision was the sanction, which the appellate court said was not permitted. Additionally, the contempt order was clearly designed to punish the mother’s past noncompliance rather than “compelling future compliance.” As such, the contempt order failed to meet any of the three requirements listed above and had to be reversed.

Contact Landover, Maryland, Family Law Attorney Robert Castro Today

This article has been provided by the Law Office of Robert Castro. For more information or questions contact our office to speak to an experienced lawyer at (301) 870-1200.

Source:

https://www.courts.state.md.us/data/opinions/cosa/2021/0299s21.pdf