Maryland Court of Appeals Teaches Contempt of Court 101
Friday / November 30, 2007
The Court explained how child support may be
collected by contempt of court.
In a lengthy opinion released November 8,
2007, the Maryland Court of Appeals detailed how
a custodial parent must proceed to obtain a
contempt finding - and a sentence of
incarceration - against the noncustodial parent
when child support is in arrears.
Although the law of contempt varies slightly from state to state, the Maryland opinion sets forth the basics of contempt of court that apply in any jurisdiction. For example, the Court discussed the differences between direct and constructive contempt and civil and criminal contempt: When a private party asks the Court to jail a noncustodial parent to induce that parent to pay child support, the remedy is civil, constructive contempt. When the state wants to punish a noncustodial parent for failing to pay child support, the remedy is constructive, criminal contempt.
The opinion came about because two noncustodial parents were sent to jail under conditions that they could not meet prior to incarceration. Under Maryland law, a person cannot be incarcerated unless the person convinces the court that the person lacks the ability to pay the child support arrears in a lump sum. If the testimony is credible, then the court must not impose a condition that the noncustodial parent cannot meet.
The Court struck down "a practice" that "has developed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City of committing fathers found in contempt for failure to comply with child support orders to Dismas House or the Baltimore City Detention Center until such time as they obtain employment through a work release program or satisfy other conditions they are unable to meet in time to avoid the incarceration."
Dismas House, the Court explained, "appears to be a national movement, named for St. Dismas, the penitent thief who was crucified with Christ. In many communities throughout the country, including Baltimore City, churches or other non-profit organizations have established Dismas House group homes for prisoners, to provide a transition back into community life."
Although the law of contempt varies slightly from state to state, the Maryland opinion sets forth the basics of contempt of court that apply in any jurisdiction. For example, the Court discussed the differences between direct and constructive contempt and civil and criminal contempt: When a private party asks the Court to jail a noncustodial parent to induce that parent to pay child support, the remedy is civil, constructive contempt. When the state wants to punish a noncustodial parent for failing to pay child support, the remedy is constructive, criminal contempt.
The opinion came about because two noncustodial parents were sent to jail under conditions that they could not meet prior to incarceration. Under Maryland law, a person cannot be incarcerated unless the person convinces the court that the person lacks the ability to pay the child support arrears in a lump sum. If the testimony is credible, then the court must not impose a condition that the noncustodial parent cannot meet.
The Court struck down "a practice" that "has developed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City of committing fathers found in contempt for failure to comply with child support orders to Dismas House or the Baltimore City Detention Center until such time as they obtain employment through a work release program or satisfy other conditions they are unable to meet in time to avoid the incarceration."
Dismas House, the Court explained, "appears to be a national movement, named for St. Dismas, the penitent thief who was crucified with Christ. In many communities throughout the country, including Baltimore City, churches or other non-profit organizations have established Dismas House group homes for prisoners, to provide a transition back into community life."
|
