Background
A.C. is the mother of three children. After her California marriage was dissolved in 2019, she moved with the children to Connecticut, while their father moved to Florida. Connecticut litigation later resulted in the children living with their father and stepmother in Florida.
In 2024, the father and stepmother petitioned a Florida circuit court to terminate A.C.’s parental rights and allow the stepmother to adopt the children. A.C. was later charged with indirect criminal contempt based on three acts: appearing at the children’s Florida home in April 2025 to take them to dinner, arranging through a third party to send books to two children’s school in May 2025, and filing a California petition in September 2025 to enforce previously awarded custodial or timesharing rights.
After a nonjury trial, the circuit court found A.C. guilty. She appealed, arguing that the court should have granted her motion for judgment of acquittal because no clear and precise Florida court order prohibited the conduct at issue.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth District agreed and vacated the contempt order. As to the April and May acts, the Florida court had not issued an order specifically prohibiting A.C. from contacting the children. Although a Connecticut order apparently prohibited contact, it had never been domesticated as a Florida order, and one court generally cannot punish contempt of another court’s order.
By September 2025, the Florida court had orally ordered A.C. to have no direct or indirect contact with the children, later reducing that directive to writing. But A.C.’s California filing did not produce direct or indirect contact with the children, and the Florida order did not expressly prohibit her from filing a petition. Because contempt requires violation of an order’s clear language, not merely its spirit or an implied restriction, the court remanded for entry of an order finding A.C. not guilty.
Key Takeaways
- A contempt finding requires a clear and precise order and conduct that violates the order’s express terms.
- A Florida court could not base contempt on the undomesticated contact restriction entered in the Connecticut proceeding.
- Conduct that may violate the spirit of a no-contact order is insufficient when it does not violate the order’s letter.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that criminal contempt cannot rest on implied commands, general expectations, or restrictions imposed only by another court. Before imposing contempt, a trial court must identify an order within its authority whose express terms clearly prohibit the charged conduct.
The ruling is especially relevant in interstate family-law disputes, where orders from multiple jurisdictions may overlap but are not necessarily enforceable through contempt in every forum.