On a family-law contempt motion concerning repeated failures to facilitate parenting time and reunification therapy, the court found that the respondent had breached three parenting-related orders.
It held that contempt could not be grounded on two superseded orders because contempt is an enforcement remedy available only for a live operative order.
As to the current order, the court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the order was clear, the respondent knew of it, and her failure to ensure the children's attendance was intentional, but declined to enter a contempt finding because contempt in family cases is a remedy of last resort and an enforcement motion had not yet been pursued.
The court instead directed an enforcement motion, declined police enforcement, and imposed interim compliance-related orders including a $250 payment for each missed parenting-time or therapy date.
