2 total
Contempt declined despite proven breaches of the current parenting order.
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It held that contempt could not be grounded on two superseded orders because contempt is an enforcement remedy available only for a live operative order.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.
The court struck the self-represented respondent's pleadings and ordered an uncontested trial due to his persistent non-compliance with court orders.
The applicant brought a motion under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules seeking to strike the respondent's pleadings, set the matter down for an uncontested trial, impose a $5,000 penalty, and recover costs of $6,142.68.
The respondent, who was self-represented, had repeatedly breached multiple court orders including failing to file his answer, failing to file a sworn financial statement, failing to pay child and spousal support, and failing to pay ordered costs.
The court found a triggering event for Rule 1(8) relief and determined that the respondent had not persuaded the court to refrain from imposing sanctions.
The court struck the respondent's pleadings and set the matter for an uncontested trial, declined to impose a penalty, and awarded costs of $5,500.
