In the case of Breona C. v. Rodney D., decided by the Court of Appeals of Maryland in November 2021 has significantly changed the way courts determine whether a party has violated a prior court order. In Breona C, the court held that an order holding a person in constructive civil contempt must satisfy certain basic requirements, including that it must: (1) impose a sanction; (2) include a purge provision that gives the contemnor the opportunity to avoid the sanction by taking specification of which the contemnor is reasonably capable; and (3) be designed to coerce the contemnor’s future compliance with a valid legal requirement rather than punish the contemnor for past, completed conduct. BREONA C. v. RODNEY D. | 263 A.3d 1090 (2021).
Although courts take violating a court order very seriously, the Court of Appeal’s Decision in Breona C gives the contemnor the opportunity to purge the contempt by abiding by the order going forward. An example would be a party to a custody case has refusing to abide by the portion of a court order relating to communicating with the other party relating to the child’s upcoming doctor’s appointments. After the Breona C decision, the court may give the party who has neglected to communicate regarding the child’s upcoming appointments the opportunity to purge the contempt. The court can require the party to notify the other parent in advance of future appointments as a purge provision going forward. The court may also impose a fine on the party who refuses to abide by the communication provision of the order going forward. The court’s purpose for imposing the fine provision to coerce the contemnor’s future compliance with the order as it relates to communication regarding the child’s medical appointments.
In Breona C, the mother refused to abide by the visitation provision of the court order. Prior to the court hearing on the mother’s contempt, she complied with the court order and resumed the father’s visits with the child. The circuit court found the mother in contempt for her past actions of refusing to permit the father to visit. On appeal, the mother argued that the circuit court’s contempt order must be reversed because it punishes past, completed conduct, and because it includes an impermissible “forever” purge provision that prohibited the mother from actually purging the contempt. The Court of Appeals agreed with the mother’s argument.
The Court of Appeals further held that the court could not find a sanction to impose to coerce Mother to comply with an order with which she was already in compliance; the court could not craft a valid provision to purge a non-existent sanction; and, where the court’s focus was on past, completed noncompliance with its order, neither a forward-looking sanction nor purge provision could come into play. In contemplation of mother’s future refusal to follow the order relating to visits, the court would need to impose a fine or allow a provision for father to have make-up visitations to coerce the mother to comply with the order moving forward.
After the Court’s decision in Breona C violating a court order is still very serious however, the way that the court ensures that a parent follows the court order looks to future as opposed to past behavior. Although family law matters can be very contentious, courts must always consider the child’s best interest. Taylor v. Taylor, 508 A.2d 964 (Md. 1986)
Since Breona C is now the leading authority for determining what constitutes contempt and how to ensure that a parent’s future behavior is in compliance with the court order.
If you have a family law custody matter that involves an issue relating to contempt, or enforcement of a court order, The Law Office of Lynndolyn Mitchell is exceptionally qualified to represent you in your matter. We are located at 199 East Montgomery Avenue Suite 100, Rockville, Maryland (by appointment only). Virtual appointments are available.
