Background
Sergeyev and Vasylenko are parents of a child born in November 2020. In October 2022, they reached a settlement agreement on custody and parenting matters, placing the agreement on the record at a hearing. The parenting plan included a nondisparagement clause prohibiting each parent and their family and friends from making derogatory comments about the other parent in the child’s presence or diminishing the child’s affection for the other parent. In January 2023, the trial court entered a general judgment formally adopting the stipulated parenting plan.
Between October 2022 and the January 2023 judgment, Vasylenko allegedly pulled the child’s hand down when the child attempted to wave goodbye to the father, allowed her older son to make negative comments about the father in front of the child, and raised concerns to medical providers that the father was improperly sedating the child. After the January 2023 judgment, Vasylenko continued communicating similar concerns to doctors and repeatedly yelled “may you be damned” at the father during an exchange, with the child present.
Sergeyev filed a motion seeking a contempt finding and remedial sanctions. The trial court held Vasylenko in contempt for both pre-judgment and post-judgment conduct, imposed restrictions on communications and parental exchanges, and awarded attorney fees. Vasylenko appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred in finding Vasylenko in contempt for her conduct occurring before the January 2023 judgment entered. The court reasoned that under ORS 33.015(2)(b), contempt requires disobedience of a court order or judgment, and a private settlement agreement—even when placed on the record—is fundamentally different from a court order and cannot alone support contempt findings. Following precedent in Air Rescue Systems Corp., the court concluded that a court lacks authority to hold a party in contempt for violations of a settlement agreement until that agreement has been adopted in a formal court order or judgment. Accordingly, the trial court erred in including Vasylenko’s pre-judgment conduct in its contempt judgment.
However, the Court of Appeals upheld the contempt finding for Vasylenko’s post-judgment conduct. The court found that her communications to doctors expressing unsubstantiated concerns about the father’s sedation of the child, made in the child’s presence, constituted “derogatory comments” that violated the nondisparagement clause. The court also upheld the contempt finding for Vasylenko’s repeated exclamations of “may you be damned” directed at the father in the child’s presence, characterizing such statements as derogatory and a clear violation of the parenting plan’s express prohibition. The court rejected Vasylenko’s argument that the child must have understood the communications for contempt to attach, finding that the clause requires only that derogatory comments be made in the child’s presence, not that the child comprehend them.
Because the contempt judgment was based partly on improper pre-judgment findings, the court vacated the judgment and remanded for the trial court to enter a corrected contempt judgment based solely on post-judgment conduct and to reconsider whether the remedial sanctions remain appropriate. The court also vacated and remanded the supplemental judgment awarding attorney fees for reconsideration on remand.
Key Takeaways
- A private settlement agreement, even when placed on the record in court, cannot support a contempt finding until it is formally adopted in a court order or judgment.
- A court may hold a party in contempt only for violations occurring after a settlement agreement has been incorporated into a formal court order or judgment.
- Once a nondisparagement clause is formally adopted in a parenting plan judgment, violations are strictly enforced, including statements reasonably interpreted as derogatory made in the child’s presence.
- The nondisparagement clause does not require that the child understand or comprehend derogatory comments for contempt to attach—only that the comments be made in the child’s presence.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies an important distinction in family law and contempt proceedings: the moment when a settlement agreement becomes enforceable through contempt sanctions. While parties may owe each other a good-faith duty to honor a recorded settlement, that duty alone cannot support contempt liability. Contempt requires the additional step of formal judicial adoption into a court order or judgment. This protects parties from contempt sanctions for breaching merely recorded agreements and ensures that the contempt power—a serious enforcement mechanism—is tied to actual court orders, not private agreements alone.
The ruling also reinforces strict enforcement of nondisparagement clauses in parenting plans once formally adopted. Courts will not second-guess characterizations of statements as “derogatory” or impose demanding proof requirements such as child comprehension. This approach reflects a policy judgment that protecting parent-child relationships through strict nondisparagement enforcement serves the child’s best interests, even if it limits a parent’s freedom to express concerns about the other parent’s parenting or conduct when the child is present.