Background
Jessica Miller and Michael Brittnacher divorced in 2018 and shared joint custody and physical placement of their three minor children. Subsequent orders established alternating-week placement, allocated the oldest child’s tax dependency exemption between the parents in alternating years, and required the parties to return to mediation concerning Miller’s pending motion to modify placement. The circuit court also denied Miller’s request to appoint a guardian ad litem.
Brittnacher later moved to hold Miller in contempt, alleging that she withheld the oldest child from placement, claimed that child as a tax dependent in the wrong year, and refused to participate in mediation. The circuit court found contempt on all three grounds and imposed remedial sanctions, including reimbursement of tax-related expenses, attorney fees, compensatory placement, and a restriction on further postdivorce motions until Miller participated in mediation. It also denied Miller’s renewed guardian ad litem request.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed. It declined to address Miller’s challenges to the original denial of a guardian ad litem and the mediation requirement because her notice of appeal identified only the later contempt order, not the February 24, 2025 order that initially decided those issues. Even if jurisdiction existed, Miller did not provide the transcript of the earlier hearing, so the appellate court was required to assume that the missing transcript supported the circuit court’s decisions.
The court also upheld the contempt findings concerning the tax exemption and missed placement. Miller’s amendment of her tax return after Brittnacher filed his contempt motion did not erase the prior contempt, and requiring her to reimburse his amendment costs was an appropriate remedial sanction. As to placement, the circuit court was not required to accept Miller’s assertion that the child independently refused to attend when Miller offered no testimony about her own efforts and the correspondence showed no effort to encourage compliance.
Key Takeaways
- A notice of appeal identifying only a contempt order does not necessarily permit review of an earlier order addressing mediation and appointment of a guardian ad litem.
- An appellant’s failure to provide a necessary hearing transcript requires the appellate court to assume that the missing record supports the circuit court’s ruling.
- Correcting a violation after a contempt motion is filed does not eliminate the contempt or prevent remedial sanctions for expenses incurred to obtain compliance.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that parties subject to family-court orders must make genuine efforts to comply, including with placement and tax-allocation provisions. A parent may not avoid contempt merely by attributing noncompliance to a child without evidence of efforts to encourage compliance.
It also highlights two appellate-practice requirements: the notice of appeal must encompass the order being challenged, and the appellant must supply transcripts necessary to review the asserted errors.