Background
The parties’ divorce decree designated Parisian Boggan as the sole residential parent of their five-year-old daughter and granted Wilbur Cofer parenting time every other weekend. After Cofer alleged that Boggan repeatedly denied him parenting time and telephone contact, a magistrate found Boggan in contempt and imposed a $250 fine and a 30-day jail sentence. Boggan could avoid jail by paying the fine and providing Cofer with 11 days of make-up parenting time.
At the purge hearing, Boggan’s attorney stated that the child had refused to go with Cofer during parenting exchanges and that Boggan had attempted to comply except on one weekend when she experienced car trouble. Cofer’s attorney disputed that account, contended that Boggan was responsible for the young child’s refusal, and said he was prepared to present evidence challenging the car-trouble explanation. Without admitting evidence, the trial court found that Boggan had done her best to comply and deemed the contempt purged. Both sides agreed that Boggan had paid the fine.
The Court’s Holding
The First District held that the trial court abused its discretion by finding the parenting-time purge condition satisfied without receiving evidence. At a purge hearing, the contemnor bears the burden of proving compliance with the purge conditions and also bears the burden of proving that compliance was impossible. Unsworn statements and representations by counsel are not evidence.
Because the trial court relied solely on Boggan’s counsel’s statements to find that the child’s refusal made full compliance effectively impossible, the record did not support its ruling on the parenting-time condition. The appellate court treated the fine differently because the parties stipulated that Boggan had paid it. The court reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing limited to whether Boggan satisfied the parenting-time purge condition.
Key Takeaways
- A contemnor bears the burden of establishing compliance with contempt purge conditions.
- A claim that compliance was impossible must be proved with evidence; counsel’s unsworn representations do not suffice.
- The stipulated payment of the $250 fine remained properly deemed satisfied, but the parenting-time condition requires an evidentiary hearing.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that domestic-relations courts may not resolve disputed facts at a contempt purge hearing solely from attorneys’ representations. When compliance or impossibility is contested, the court must receive evidence before determining whether the contemnor has met the applicable burden.
The ruling also shows that purge conditions may be evaluated separately: an undisputed or stipulated condition can remain satisfied even when the court’s treatment of another condition requires reversal and further proceedings.