Title: Sheehan v. Ryea

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Sheehan v Ryea (00-084); 171 Vt. 511; 757 A.2d 467 

[Filed 31-May-2000] 

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 00-084

                              MARCH TERM, 2000

Colin V. Sheehan	               }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
     v.	                               }	Chittenden Family Court
                                       }	
Dorothy D. Ryea	                       }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. 65-2-93Cndm

Trial Judge: Linda Levitt, J.

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       Defendant Dorothy Ryea appeals from the Chittenden Family Court's
  judgment of civil contempt  ordering her "to be incarcerated for a period
  of sixty (60) days, or until the sum of $2,147.88 is  paid."  She argues
  that the court erred because she has no present ability to pay.  We reverse
  and  remand.

       Defendant and two of her children reside with Dennis Girard, who earns
  a wage of $9.50 an hour.  Her former husband, Colin Sheehan, has custody of
  her third child, Jessica Sheehan.  Defendant  is required by an October 4,
  1993 child-support order to pay $178.99 per month in support of  Jessica
  Sheehan.  In March 1999, as a result of defendant's failure to pay this
  support, the Office  of Child Support (OCS) filed an enforcement action. 
  The court heard the matter on June 2, 1999,  and issued a child-support
  order that required defendant, in addition to providing child support, to 
  (1) apply for social security benefits; (2) secure an appointment with the
  State Department of  Employment and Training to address her
  underemployment; (3) file a tax return for 1997 with the  court; and (4)
  provide an assessment from her doctor, who had been treating her for
  disabling pain  from a chronic back condition.  At the next hearing, the
  court found defendant in contempt for her  continued failure to pay child
  support and her failure to comply with the June 2 child-support  order. 
  The contempt order, dated October 29, 1999, declared that defendant could
  purge herself  of contempt with a payment of $2,147.88 to OCS and, if
  payment was not made, the court would  issue a mittimus for her arrest.

       Defendant did not pay the purge amount and, at the mittimus hearing,
  testified that she did not (1)  apply for social security because she
  attempted to find employment and believed that she could not  receive
  social security while working, (2) file her tax return with the court
  because of problems  obtaining her W-2 forms from the Internal Revenue
  Service, and (3) obtain an assessment from her  doctor because he had told
  her not to work.  Defendant testified that she had recently held jobs,  but
  had voluntarily quit due to her back condition.  She asserted that she had 

 

  met with a vocational rehabilitation representative, but did not follow
  through with the proposed  plan. 

       The court found that, although defendant claimed that she is trained
  as a medical assistant, she did  not seek employment in that field.  The
  court also noted that defendant did not provide any  medical evidence of
  her inability to work.  After the family court denied of her request to
  stay its  contempt order, this Court granted a stay pending appeal.

       Civil contempt is a coercive measure, see In re C.W., ___ Vt. ___,
  ___,