Contempt of court; In re Dudzinski; Comparing civil & criminal contempt; DeGeorge v Warheit; Comparing neglectful failure to obey a court order & willful disobedience; In re United Stationers Supply Co; Michigan Child Support Formula (MCSF)

The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by finding plaintiff-mother in civil and criminal contempt and ordering that she continue to pay 100% of parental reunification costs. Plaintiff divorced defendant-father, who was abusive to her and their children. Defendant eventually received supervised parenting time. Despite problems with the process, a psychologist who had been working on the case recommended reunification. The trial court found plaintiff was interfering with the reunification process and ordered her to pay a larger share of the children’s counseling costs and engage in therapy. It eventually held her in civil and criminal contempt based on her alleged involvement in the estrangement of the children from defendant and her purported failure to comply with court orders, and continued her obligation to pay 100% of reunification costs. It also ordered that defendant’s child support should be recalculated as a sanction. The court previously peremptorily reversed, noting that her alleged involvement in the estrangement of the children and purported failure to comply with the judge’s orders were not circumstances that rendered the MCSF unjust or inappropriate. In this appeal, the court agreed with plaintiff that the trial court abused its discretion when it found her in civil and criminal contempt. First, she “was not provided with adequate notice that the trial court might also consider civil contempt.” In addition, there was simply “no competent evidence . . . to support a finding that mother willfully disobeyed or disregarded any court orders.” Rather, the evidence showed that the trial court’s “insistence on forcing a particular timetable and punishing mother into, as father’s counsel literally and inappropriately stated, ‘suck[ing] it up,’ caused the children further trauma and is the real cause of the delays in reunification.” The court also agreed with plaintiff that the trial court abused its discretion by continuing its requirement that she pay 100% of the costs of reunification therapy, noting it “should, minimally, have recognized that progress was being made and followed through on its promise to reduce mother’s share of the reunification therapy costs by a minimal amount.” However, in light of defendant’s “egregiously unacceptable attitude that mother should just ‘suck it up,’ the trial court’s own contribution to the children’s additional traumas and the ensuing delay in reunification, and the trial court’s failure to afford mother reasonable due process,” her share must be reduced to 50%. Reversed and remanded.