T he p aral l el m at t er i s D. C. v. D. C. , 2006- C A
- 00320- SC T ( M i s s . 2008) . D ue t o t he 1 s ens i t i ve i nf

ormat i on d i s c us s e d be l ow an d i n the p a r a l l e l matt e r , the p r op e rn a mes o f t he p a r t i e s h a v e b e e n r e mo v e d . M . R. A. P . 4 8 A.

I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI

NO. 2 0 0 6 - CA- 0 0 7 3 5 - S CT

I N RE: KAREN H. S

PENCER ON M OTI ON F OR RE HEAR I NG
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 04/ 18/ 2006 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. SARA H P. SP RI NG ER COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: CLARKE COUNTY CHAN CER Y COURT A TTO RN EY FO R A PPELL A N T: J U LI E A N N EPPS AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L E E : J . S T E W AR T P AR RI S H NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CI VI L - DOMES T I C R E L AT I ONS DI S P OS I T I ON: AF F I RMED I N P AR T ; RE VE RS E D AND RE NDE RE D I N P AR T ; RE VE RS E D AND REM AN DED I N PA RT; AN D V AC ATED A N D R E M A N D E D I N PA R T - 06/ 19/ 2008 M O T I O N FO R R E H E A R I N G FI L E D : 04/ 18/ 2008 M ANDAT E I S S UE D:
EN BA NC. W ALLER, PRES I DI NG J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶ 1 . T h e m o tio n fo r re h e a ri n g is d e n ie d . T h e o ri g in a l o p in io n is w ith d ra w n a n d th is
o p inion su b sti tuted there for. ¶2. A gr andmot her and a m other r et ai ned att orney K ar en Spencer t o r epr es ent them i n a chi l d- cus t ody mat t erbe f or e the C hance ry C our tof C l arke C ounty, M i s s i s s i ppi . D ur i ng t he 1

### 2

cour s e of thi s r epr es ent at i on, the chanc el l or , on m ot i on by the guar di an ad l i t em and couns el fo r th e fath e r, fo u n d S p e n c e r to b e in c o n tem p t o f c o u rt. T h e c h a n c e llo r o rd e re d S p e n c e r to pay f i nes and t o be i ncar cer at ed as s ent ence f orthe cont empt . T he chanc el l or , a l s o on m ot i on by the f atherand the guar di an ad l i t em, i m pos ed monet ary s anct i ons agai ns tSpencerunder th e L iti g a tio n A c c o u n tab ili ty A c t o f 1 9 8 8 a n d R u le 1 1 o f th e M iss iss ip p i R u les o f C iv il Pr ocedur e. O n r econs i der at i on, the chanc el l orr es ci nded the por t i ons of he rcont empt or der
w hi ch s ent ence d Spencert o i ncar cer at i on. Spencernow appea l s . M . R . A . P. 4. FACTS ¶3. T he gr andmot her r et ai ned Spencer t o r epr es ent her i n her att em pt t o i ntervene and
as s erta c l ai m f

orgr andpar ent s ’ vi s i t at i on i n Cause N o. 00- 0038( S) , a chi l d- cus t odym odi f i cat i on m att erf

i l ed i n the C hance ry C ourtof C l arke C ounty, M i s s i s s i ppi . T he cus t ody
m odi f i cat i on or i gi nat ed w i th the f ather ’ s pet i t i on f

orm odi f i cat i on of t he vi s i t at i on agr eement e n ter e d u p o n h is d iv o rc e fro m th e m o th e r. H e so u g h t fu ll su m m e r v is ita tio n w ith h is
c h ild ren : a d au g h ter b o rn in 1 9 9 5 , an d a son bo rn in 1 9 9 7 . T h e g ran d m o ther’s m o ti o n to i nt ervene, f

axed t o the ch ancery cl erk on Fr i day, A ugus t19, 2005, i ncl uded a r eques tf or cl ar i f i cat i on of

the O r derSua Spont e ( or“s ua s pont e or der ” her ei n) ent er ed tw o days ear l i er by the cha ncery court . T he sua spo nt e or dert empora r i l y pl ace d phys i cal cus t ody of t he chi l dr en w i th the M i s s i s s i ppi D epart m entof H um an Servi ces (“ D H S”) ; r equi r ed the mot her t o br i ng the chi l dr en t o the of f i ce of the guar di an ad l i t em by 3: 00 p. m . the upcomi ng Fr i day t o be pla ced w i th the D H S; and or der ed s upervi s ed vi s i t at i on f orboth the mot herand the fa th e r. T h e o rd e r a u th o ri z e d th e g u a rd ia n to in s tig a te a b u s e p ro c e e d in g s in y o u th c o u rt .S p en ce r en g ag ed in a p att ern o f fi rstfax ing a c o p y o f plea d ing s to the ch an ce ry 2 cl erk’ s of

f i ce and t o c ouns el of

r ecor d, a nd s ubs equent l y mai l i ng a n or i gi nal t o the cl erk and copi es t o couns el . T hi s pr act i ce r es ul t ed i n a l ar ge r ecor d, cont ai ni ng dupli cat e copi es of several l eng thy pleadi ng s. 

### 3 ¶4. A tthe t i m e, J oe K i er ons ki w as couns el of r ecor d f orthe m other . H e si gned the s ua s pont e or derunderthe hea di ng “appr oved as t o for m . ” T he m otherdi d notpr es entthe chi l dr en t o t he guar di an ad l i t em t hatFr i day as or der ed, bas ed upon the advi ce of Spencer th a t th e m o tio n to c la ri fy s u s p e n d e d th e e n fo rc e m e n t o f t h e s u a s p o n te o rd e r. ¶5. Spencer f

axed a “M ot i on f

or E m er gency/ E xpedi t ed H ear i ng on M ot i on t o I nt ervene a n d /o r fo r M o d ifica tio n a n d /o r fo r R e c o n sid e ra tio n o r C lar ifica tio n o f O rd e r S u a S p o n te” to the ch an ce ry clerk a n d c o u n sel o f reco rd o n b eh alf of b o th the g ran d m o ther a n d the m o ther. She al s o f

axed a not i ce of

hear i ng t o the cl erk an d couns el , not i ci ng the hea r i ng on t he
m ot i ons f

or9: 00 a . m . the f

ol l ow i ng M onday. T he exhi bi t s t o the m ot i on i ncluded t he 2
m e d ica l re c o rd s a n d c o u n se lin g re c o rd s o f th e m in o r d a u g h ter . S p e n c e r a lso filed a n a ffid a v it
m ade by the m otherw hi ch al l eged the f athers exual l y a bus ed thei rda ught er . T he r ecor ds and af f i davi tw er e nots ubm i t t ed unders eal orotherw i s e mar ked “c onf i dent i al . ” ¶6. O n M onday, the chanc el l ore nt er ed an orderal l ow i ng K i eronski t o w i t hd raw as couns el f

orthe mot herand s ubs t i tuted S penceras couns el . T he cha ncel l ordeni ed the g ra n d m o th e r’s m o tio n to in ter v e n e a n d fo r c lar ifica tio n . T h e c h ild re n w e re tu rn e d o v e r to D H S, w hi ch pl ace d them w i th t hei rpat ernal gr andpar ent s . A s hel t erhear i ng w as s etf or W ednes day i n the par al l el youth- courtmat t er . T r i al of the cus t ody i s s ues w as r es chedul ed f orSept ember20.T he guar di an ad l i t em, hi s ex- w i f e, and an unr el at ed per s on, r es pect i vel y. 3 

### 4 ¶7. P ri or t o t he t ri al dat e, Spencer caus ed s ubpoenas f or comput er r ecor ds t o i s s ue t o a hos pi ce a nd a chur ch. T he f atherw as , atthe t i m e, w or ki ng a s a chapl ai n f orthe hos pi ce a nd pr evi ous l y had w or ked f orthe chur ch. T he s ubpoenas r eques t ed thatthe hos pi ce a nd t he chur ch pr oduce doc um ent s conce r ni ng comm uni cat i ons betw een t hem o r the f atherand E dw ar d N . K r amer , II I , E vel yn N . K r amerand/ orN i ck Sm i th. T he hos pi ce f i l ed a mot i on 3 to q u a s h its s u b p o e n a , a n d th e fa th e r s o u g h t to h a v e th e s u b p o e n a fo r t h e c h u rc h q u a s h e d . ¶8. I n the t i m e betw een the i ssuance o f the sub po enas an d the schedu l ed t ri al dat e, S p en ce r fax ed to an d fil ed a S tatu s R ep o rtan d M o ti o n for C h an g e w ith C u stod y to the clerk and couns el . She at t ache d t o t hi s m ot i on t he daught er ’ s m edi cal r ecor ds . T he nextday, s he f i l ed a r es pons e t o the f ather ’ s M ot i on t o Q uas h, agai n att achi ng t o the mot i ons the dau gh t er’ s m edical recor ds. ¶9. O n the s chedul ed tr i al dat e, T ues day, Sept ember20, the guar di an ad l i t em announce d h e w a s n o t p re p a re d to p ro c e e d . H e h a d n o t o b tain e d re p o rts fr o m m e d ica l ex p e rts conce rni ng t he ver aci ty of the abus e and mani pul at i on al l egat i ons pert ai ni ng t o the mi nor da ug ht e r , n orh a d he h a d t i me t o i nc l ud e the r e po r t s i n hi s o pi ni on . O n the s ame dat e, t he chanc el l orhear d and deni ed t he m other ’ s M ot i on f orC hange of

C us t ody, s chedul ed a s t atus conf er ence f orO ct ober6, and i ns truct ed the cha ncery cl erk t o s eal the court ’ s fi l e in the
cus t ody m att er . T he cha ncel l ori m pos ed a ga g or deron the part i es and t hei ratt orneys and
a g e n ts, w ith th e e x c e p tio n o f th e g u a rd ian a d litem . T h e g u a rd ian c o u ld d isc u ss m a tters w ith t he e xp e r t s u po n w hi c h he woul d r e l y t o make h i s r e po r t . The c ha nc e ry c ou r tq ua s he d t he

### 5

s ubpoena t o the chur ch. Fi nal l y, the chanc el l oror der ed Spence rt o s ubm i tf utur e s ubpoenas to th e c o u rt fo r a p p ro v a l b e fo re th e s u b p o e n a s w e re is s u e d . ¶1 0 . O n e w ee k after the sch ed u led tri al d ate, S p en ce r fi led a “(S ec o n d ) M o ti o n to R eturn C us t ody t o M othe r . ” A t t ache d t o thi s m ot i on w er e many of the s ame m edi cal r ecor ds pr evi ous l y f

i l ed w i th ot herm ot i ons . ( T hi s m ot i on al one compr i s ed more than tw o vol um es of thi s C our t ’ s r ecor d on appea l . ) T hr ee da ys af t erthat , s he f

axed a nd f

i l ed a “ M ot i on f

or E m er gency/ E xpedi t ed H ear i ng on M ot i on t o R eturn C us t ody t o M other ” and a not i ce of hear i ng, s ett i ng t he mat t ert o be hea r d on O ct ober10, the r es chedul ed conf er ence dat e. C ouns el f

orthe f atherf i l ed an obj ect i on t o t he hear i ng, ci t i ng pr i orengage m ent s i n K emper C ounty and the f

actthatSpenceruni l at er al l y had s etthe mat t erfor heari ng w i thout
c o n t a c t i n g h i m. ¶ 1 1 . O n O c to b e r 1 0 , S p e n c e r filed a n “ A m e n d e d (S e c o n d ) M o tio n to R e tu rn C u sto d y to M other , ” i ncl ud i ng al l the att ache d m edi cal r ecor ds thatacc om pani ed the f i r s tver s i on. Spencerl at erw oul d s t at e thatthe exhi bi t s t o the f i r s tver s i on w er e i ncorr ect l y i dent i f i ed,
w h ich m a d e it n e c e ss a ry to re -file th e m o tio n . O n e w e e k late r, S p e n c e r file d a “ M o tio n to R equi r e G uar di an ad l i t em t o Fi l e R eportR eturni ng Cust ody t o [ the mot her ] . ” The nextday, S p e n c e r f

a x e d a n d file d a “ M o tio n fo r O rd e r S c h e d u lin g th e T ri a l o f A ll P e n d in g I s s u e s .” She f axed a nd fi l ed a not i ce of hear i ng on al l pendi ng m ot i ons t o be hea r d f orN ovember7, the nextt i m e the cha ncel l ors chedul ed a s t atus conf er ence . ¶12. A t the hear i ng on N ovember 7, the guar di an ad l i t em i ndi cat ed t o the chanc el l ort hat he w as a w ai t i ng the compl et i on of a f ew m or e couns el i ng s es s i ons w i th a ps ychol ogi s tand thathe i nt ended t o i nt ervi ew f ourorf i ve more peopl e bef

or e com plet i ng hi s r eport . T he

### 6

chanc el l orf

ound Spencer ’ s m ot i ons r eac hed t he ul t i m at e i s s ue of cust ody and deni ed them
as pr ematur e. T he guar di an ad l i t em w as i ns truct ed t o f i l e hi s r eportno l at erthan D ece m ber 5. N o hear i ng w as s etf orthi s dat e. ¶13. O n D ecem ber 5, couns el f or the f ather w as not pr es ent i n C l arke C ounty w hen the
co u rtw en t bac k o n reco rd in th is m att er. T h e g u ard ian a d l it em fi led h is fi rstinteri m rep o rt as o rde red , w h ich rec o m m en d ed th e ch il d ren rem ain in the leg al cu stod y o f D H S . H o w ev er, the mot herw as gi ven t empora r y phys i cal c us t ody of the chi l dr en. A ts om e poi ntw i thi n t he fo llo w in g th re e d a y s , th e m o th e r l e ft M is s is s ip p i w ith th e c h ild re n a n d d id n o t r e tu rn . ¶14. C ons i s t entw i th t he chanc el l or ’ s pre vi ous orde rre gar di ng sub po enas , on D ece m ber 5, Spencers oughtperm i s s i on fr om t he chanc el l ort o i s s ue “tr i al ” or“w i tnes s ” s ubpoenas f or tr i al the f

ol l ow i ng February. T he cha ncel l orgr ant ed perm i s s i on, and Spence rhad the
c h a n c e ry c le rk is s u e te n s u b p o e n a s th a t d a y . ¶15. O ne w eek l at er , Spencer f i l ed a not i ce of hear i ng t o br i ng her pendi ng m ot i ons t o be hear d on J anuary 9, 2006. Spencerf ai l ed t o att end thi s hear i ng. A ccor di ng t o Spencer , s he had real i zed s he had a s chedul i ng conf l i ctthatday, buthad f ai l ed t o f

i l e a r e- not i ce of hear i ng. She st at ed s he had a t t empt ed t o part i ci pat e by t el ephone, butcouns el w er e not
w ill in g to d isc u ss th e m o tio n s b y te lep h o n e , a n d th e c o u rt d id n o t p e rm it h e r p a rticip a tio n in thi s m anner . Spencerw as or der ed t o pay the cos tof tr ans cr i pt i on of the hea r i ng. A tt he cont empt hear i ng, Spencerapol og i zed and ac cept ed r es pons i bi l i ty f orthe mi s t ake. T he
r ecor d i ndi cat es that , by thi s t i m e, the f atherw as aw ar e thatthe mot herhad l ef tM i s s i s s i ppi
w i th the chi l dr en.

### 7

¶16. O n J anuary 17, Spencer f i l ed her f i r s t m ot i on t o w i thdr aw as couns el . She s t at ed s he had been unabl e t o s peak w i th the m others i nce D ece m ber12 the pr ece di ng ye ar . The f ather
su b se q u e n tl y m o v ed the c h an ce ll o r t o fi n d the m o ther a n d S p en ce r i n co n tem p t f o r a c ivil
cons pi r acy t o depr i ve hi m of vi s i t at i on and cus t ody. T he guardi an ad l i t em fi l ed a mot i on f orcont empt , s eeki ng att orneys ’ f ees . A s gr ounds f

ors anct i ons , the guar di an ad l i t em a lleg e d th e a c tio n s o f th e m o th e r an d S p e n c e r in fil in g n u m e ro u s m o tio n s w e re re sp o n sib le fo r th e m a

jo rity o f h is fe e s; a n d th a t th e g ra n d m o th e r h a d file d a B a r c o m p lain t ag a in st h im
u sing h is r ep o rt s, w h ich c o u ld o n ly b e o b tai n ed thro u g h S p en ce r. H e also cit ed the m o ther’s
a c tio n s in le a v in g M is s is s ip p i w ith th e c h ild re n . ¶17. T he cont empt hear i ng began Fr i day, February 3, and ended the f ol l ow i ng T hur s day. T he cha ncel l ort ook the m ot i ons f orc ont empt unde ra dvi s ement . The tr i al on the mer i t s of the cus t ody pet i t i on began and concl uded t he nextday. T he f ather , thr ough couns el , f i l ed a
s epar at e mot i on t o fi nd S pence ri n cont empt af t ert r i al fordi s s emi nat i ng i nf or m at i on about th e c a se th a t h a d a p p e a re d o n v a rio u s in ter n e t w e b site s. S p e n c e r file d h e r se c o n d m o tio n to
w ith d ra w o n M a rc h 7 , 2 0 0 6 . ¶18. T he cha ncel l orent er ed herseve nty- s i x- page M emora ndum O pi ni on and Judgment on A pr i l 18, 2006. T he con t em ptor deri m pos ed the f ol l ow i ng s anct i ons and s ent ence s . For f ai l i ng t o a ppeara tthe J anuary 9 hear i ng, Spencerw as hel d i n cont empt and or der ed t o pay $ 1 0 0 o r to b e in c a rc e ra ted fo r tw e n ty -fo u r h o u rs. F o r v io latio n s o f th e g a g o rd e r a n d y o u th
courtconf

i dent i al i ty s t atut e, Spenc erw as he l d i n c ont empt a nd s ent ence d t o pay a $500 f i ne and be i ncar cer at ed f

orni nety days . T hi s s ent ence w as i m pos ed tw i ce, forvi ol at i ons occurr i ng bef

or e and af

t ert he t r i al of the cus t ody m att er s . Forcaus i ng a s ubpoena t o i s s ue

### 8

to th e Q u itm a n S c h o o l D is tr ic t i n v io latio n o f th e su b p o e n a o rd e r, S p e n c e r w a s h e ld in
c o n tem p t an d o rd e re d to p a y $ 1 0 0 . F o r c a u sin g fo u r su b p o e n a s to b e iss u e d a n d d ire c ted to f oure mpl oy e e s o f

DH S i n vi ol a t i on o f

the s ub po e na o r de r , Sp e nc e rwas s e nt e nc e d t o pay $500 a nd t o be i ncar cer at ed f orni nety days f

oreac h s ubpoena, w i th i ncar cer at i on s ent ence s t o run concurr ent l y. Forfi l i ng fr i vol ous pl eadi ngs and ot herw i s e har as s i ng the guar di an ad l i t em and couns el fort he f ather , S pence rw as orde r ed t o pay $25, 000 i n att orneys ’ f ees and expenses t o eac h att orney, w i th i nt er es tt o acc rue atf i ve per cent . O n r econs i der at i on, t he chanc el l orr es ci nded the por t i ons of thi s j udgm entw hi ch s ent ence d Spencert o i ncar cer at i on. S TANDA RDS OF REVI EW ¶19. T he decis i on t o aw ar d m onet ary s anct i ons under the L i t i gat i on A ccount abi l i ty A ct i s l e f tt o th e d i s c r e t i o n o f

th e tr i a l c o u r t . M i s s . Co d e An n . § 1 1
- 5 5 - 7 ( Re v . 2 0 0 2 ) . Th e s a me i s true f ors anct i ons aw ar ded underR ul e 11 of the M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e. M i s s . R. Ci v. P. 11( b) . T hi s Courtr evi ew s the j udgm entof the s anct i oni ng tri al cou rtf or a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . W

ys s br od v. W

itt jen , 798 So. 2d 352, 357 ( M i s s . 2001) . “ I n the abs ence of a def i nit e and f

i r m convi ct i on thatthe courtbel ow comm i t t ed a c l earerr orof j udgm ent i n th e c o n c l u s i o n i tr e a c h e d u p o n w e i g h i n g o f r e l e v a n tf

a c t o r s , th e j u d g m e n to f

th e c o u r t 's i m pos i t i on of

s anct i ons w i l l be af

f i r m ed. ” I

d. (c ita tio n s a n d q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ). ¶20 . T he d eci si o n to h o ld a p erso n o r en ti ty in c ri m inal o r civ il co ntem pt al so i s a d is c re tio n a ry f

u n c tio n o f th e tr ia l c o u rt . W ys s br od , 7 9 8 S o . 2 d a t3 5 9 . T h i s Co u r tr e v i e ws th e tria l c o u rt’s ju d g m e n t o f c rim in a l co n tem p t a b in iti o . In re Sm ith , 926 So. 2d 878, 885- 8 6 (M is s . 2 0 0 6 ). See a l so D e n n is v . D e n n is , 8 2 4 S o . 2 d 6 0 4 , 6 0 8 (M is s . 2 0 0 2 ).

DI S CU S S I ON

### 9

I . W HE T HE R T HE CH AN CE L L OR E RR E D I N G RA NT I NG A J UD GM EN T AG AI NS T S P E NC E R I N F AV OR OF CO UN S E L F OR THE FATHER A ND TH E G UAR DI AN A D LI TEM PURS UAN T TO T H E L I T I G A T I O N A C C O U N T A B I L I T Y A C T A N D / O R R U L E 11. ¶2 1. Spencer ’ s f

i r s ta s s i gn mento f

e rr ori s tha tt he cha ncel l orer r ed w hen i m pos i ng s anct i ons agai ns therunderthe Li t i gat i on A ccount abi l i ty A ctand R ul e 11 of the M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e. T he f atherand the guar di an ad l i t em gener al l y r es pond thatt he
s anct i ons ar e appr opr i at e bec aus e Spence rf i l ed s ever al f

r i vol ous pl eadi ngs and
c o m m u n ic a te d w ith th e m in a h a ra s s in g m a n n e r. ¶22. T he L i t i gat i on A ccount abi l i ty A ct author i zes a court t o i m po se m onet ary s anct i ons “i n any ci vi l act i on comm ence d orappea l ed i n any courtof r ecor d i n thi s s t at e. ” M i s s . C ode A n n . § 1 1 -5 5 -5 (1 ) (R e v . 2 0 0 2 ). A c c o rd in g to th e A c t: [ T ] he courts hal l aw ar d, . . . i n addi t i on t o any ot hercost s ot herw i s e as s es s ed, rea so n ab le att o rne y ’s fees a n d co sts ag ains t any p arty o r att o rne y if the c o u rt

. . . fin d s th a t an a tto rn e y o r p a rty . . . as s e rte d a n y c laim o r d e fe n se , tha t is w ith o u t su b sta n tial ju stific a tio n , o r . . . w a s in terp o se d fo r d e lay o r h a ra ss m e n t, ori f i tf i nds thatan att orney orparty unnece s s ar i l y expande d the pr ocee di ngs b y othe r i m p rop er co n d u ct i n clud ing , bu t n o t li m it ed t o , ab u se o f d isco v ery pr ocedur es avai l abl e underthe M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e. I d. A tri al courtm ustexam i ne cert ai n fact ors before aw ardi ng s ancti on s und er the act. M i ss. C o d e A n n . 1 1 -5 5 -7 (R e v . 2 0 0 2 ); Mis s . D ep’t of Hum an Serv s . v. Shel by , 802 So. 2d 89 (M is s . 2 0 0 1 ). ¶23. R ule 1 1 o f t he M i ssi ssi pp i R ules of C i vil P rocedu re per m i t s a court t o i m po se s anct i ons agai ns ta pa r ty orhi s a t t orney. M i s s . R . C i v. P. 11. “I f any party f

i l es a mot i on or pl ead i ng whi c h, i n the o pi ni on o f the c ou r t , i s f

r i vo l ou s o ri s f

i l e d f orthe p urpo s e of har as s m entordel ay, the courtm ay or ders uch a pa r ty, orhi s att orney, orb oth, to pay t heT hi s pr oductcomes t o $8, 550, yi el ding a t ot al s um of $20, 411. 36 i n f

ees and 4 exp enses. 

### 10 o p p o sin g p a rty o r p a rties th e re a so n a b le e x p e n se s in c u rre d b y s u c h o th e r p a rties a n d b y th e ir att orneys , i ncl udi ng r eas onabl e att orney’ s f ees . ” I d. ¶2 4. T he cha ncel l orent e r e d a j ud gmen twhi c h or de r e d Spe nc e rt o pa y $25, 000 t o t he guar di an ad l i t em as “ penal ty pur s uantt o the Li t i gat i on A ccount abi l i ty A ctand s anct i on p u rs u a n t t o R u le 1 1 , M R C P .” T h e c h a n c e llo r e n ter e d a n id e n tica l ju d g m e n t to b e p a id to couns el f orthe f ather . T he t es t i m ony att he hear i ng on the m ot i ons f ors anct i ons i ndi cat ed th a t th e g u a rd ian a d lit e m inc u rre d $ 1 1 ,2 4 9 in fe e s a n d ex p e n se s u p to F e b ru a ry 3 , 2 0 0 6 . H is i nvoi ces w er e ent er ed as exhi bi t s , r ef l ect i ng an out s t andi ng ba l ance of $12, 449. 18 i n f

ees and expens es as of

February 8, 2006. T he t es t i m ony al so ref l ect ed thatcouns el f

orthe f ather i ncurr ed $11, 861. 36 i n f ees and expe ns es up t o J anuary 31, 2006. C oun s el t es t i f i ed he char ged $150 perhourand ant i ci pat ed bi l l i ng hi s cl i entf orf i f ty- s even a ddi t i onal hour s f r om th a t d a te u n til th e e n d o f tria l. 4 ¶2 5 . A ft er rev iew ing the re co rd, w e find the c h an ce ll o r co m m itted p lai n erro r an d there fore abus e d h e rdi s c r e t i on by a w a r di ng a j ud gmen tof f e e s a nd e xp e ns e s gr e a t e rtha n tha t s uppor t ed by the r ecor d. T her e i s nothi ng i n the Li t i gat i on A ccount abi l i ty A ctorR ul e 11
w hi ch s uppor t s aw ar di ng att orneys ’ f ees a nd e xpens es i n e xces s of thos e ac tual l y i ncurr ed. B o th th e A c t a n d th e R u le a llo w o n ly fo r t h e r e c o v e ry o f “ re a s o n a b le ” fe e s a n d c o s ts . W e previ ou sl y hav e ident i fi ed the fact ors t o b e con si dered w hen determ i ning t he reasonab l eness o f a tto rn e y s ’ f

e e s . See McK

ee v. McK

ee , 4 1 8 S o . 2 d 7 6 4 (M iss. 19 8 4 ); M iss. R u le of P rof’l C o n d u c t 1 .5 (a ). T h e p u n iti v e fu n c tio n s o f b o th th e A c t an d th e R u le a re se rv e d b y sim p lyWhil e se cti on 11 -55 -5( 1) doe s n ot c ontain s uc h a limit a s in Rule 1 1, sev eral ca ses wh ich 5 discuss th e awardof s an ct io ns un de r the Li ti gati onAc co untabi li tyAc t explici tly award the judgment of atto rn ey’s fees to a party. See e.g., In re E sta te o f L ad ner v. La dn er , 909 So. 2d 1051, 1055 (Miss. 2004) (“The chancel lor, in finding that the Lit igation Account ability Act and M.R.C.P. 11 had been violat ed, awarded $ 2500 in attorneys fees and expens es to [the defendant] to be pai d by [p lainti ff s] .” ); Wh eel

er v . S tewar t, 79 8 S o. 2d

38 6, 39 4 (M iss . 2 00 1) ( “F indingno error in th e circuit court's decision t o grant summ ary judgment and award attorney's fees [p ur su ant to the Lit igation Ac co untab ili ty A ct] to [ thede fend ant] , this C ourt af firm s th e judgm ent of

theFo rre st C ounty

Circuit Co urt .” ) 

### 11 a w a rd in g re a s o n a b le a tto rn e y s ’ f e e s a n d c o s ts , n o t a n a m o u n t in e x c e s s o f t h e m . A ddi t i onal l y, the cha ncel l orerr ed i n aw ar di ng f ees and expe ns es t o the f ather ’ s att or ney, s i nce Rul e 11 expl i ci t l y i ns truct s t hatt he tr i al courtor derthe s anct i oned party “t o pay t o the oppos i ng par t

y orpar t i es the r eas onabl e expe ns es i ncurr ed. ” Si nce Spenc erc hal l enges t he 5
me r i t s o f th e g r o u n d s f

o rs a n c t i o n i n g h e r , we wi l l n o w e x a mi n e th e m. A
. Li t igat i on A ccountabi l i t y Act ¶26. A s not ed above , the L i t i gat i on A ccount abi l i ty A ctperm i t s a courtt o i m pos e s anct i ons on an at t orney w ho “as s ert ed any cl ai m or def ens e, t hati s w i thouts ubs t ant i al j us t i f i cat i on, or. . . w as i nt erpos ed f

ordel ay orhar as s m ent ” ori f the att orney “unne ces s ar i l y expande d t he pr ocee di ngs by otheri m pr operconduct . ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 11- 55- 5 (Rev. 2002). “W i thout
su b sta n tial ju stific a tio n ” is d e fin e d a s a n y c laim th a t is “ friv o lo u s, g ro u n d les s in fa c t o r in law , o r ve x ati o u s, as d eterm ined b y the c o u rt . ” M iss. C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -55 -3(a )(R ev . 2 0 0 2 ). T h e ter m “ friv o lo u s” a s u se d in th is se c tio n tak e s th e sa m e d e fin iti o n a s it d o e s u n d e r R u le 11 : a cl ai m ordef

ens e made “w i thouthope of s ucce s s . ” See Sm ith v. Malouf , 597 So. 2d 1 2 9 9 , 1 3 0 3 -0 4 (M iss . 1 9 9 2 ); D e a k le , 661 So. 2d at196. O nl y the f i r s ttw o gr ounds appea r to b e a t is s u e in th is c a s e . T h e c h a n c e llo r m a d e fi n d in g s a s re q u ir e d b y S e c tio n 1 1 -5 5 -7 .

### 12

¶27. T he cha ncel l or ’ s gr ounds f orherf i ndi ngs underthe L i t i gat i on A ccount abi l i ty A ct can be br oken dow n i nt o t hr ee “c l ai m or def ens e” ca t egor i es : (1) S pence r ’ s num er ous f i l i ngs on behal f of the m othert o have t he cus t ody of the chi l dr en r eturned t o the mot herand al l egi ng thatthe f

athera bus ed thei rda ught er , ( 2) Spenc er ’ s r epr es ent at i on on behal f of t he gr a nd mot he ra nd h e rc l a i m f org r a nd pa r e nt s ’ v i s i t a t i on , a nd ( 3) Sp e nc e r ’ s c l ai m s and def ens es w i th r es pectt o t he gag or derand Sect i on 41- 21- 151. A f t err evi ew i ng the r ecor d,
w e f i nd evi dence s uppor t i ng the cha ncel l or ’ s f i ndi ngs thatthe cl ai m s con cerni ng t he di s s emi nat i on of

the daught er ’ s medi cal r ecor ds a nd c us t ody cl ai m s w er e w i thouts ubs t ant i al j us t i f i cat i on. W e decl i ne t o addr es s t he cha ncel l or ’ s f i ndi ng thatthe gr andpar ent s ’ vi s i t at i on cl ai m w as w i thouts ubs t ant i al j us t i f i cat i on as thi s i s the s ubj ectof a s epar at e appe al pendi ng bef or e thi s C our t . W e af

f i r m the j udgm entof

the cha ncel l orf

i ndi ng Spencerl i abl e f or sa n c tio n s u n d e r th e L iti g a tio n A c c o u n tab ili ty A c t. B
. R ul e 11 Sanct i ons ¶2 8 . A s n o ted a b o v e , R u le 1 1 p erm it s a c o u rtto aw ard a re sp o n d ing p arty rea so n ab le att orneys ’ f

ees and expenses w hen “any pa r ty f i l es a mot i on orpl eadi ng w hi ch, i n t he op i nion of the co urt , i s f ri vo l ou s or i s f

i l ed for the pu rpose of

haras sm ent ordelay. ” M i ss. R . C i v. P. 11( b) . A s the rul e sugge s t s , sanc t i ons ar e appr opr i at e underthi s rul e onl y w hen
a m o tio n o r p lea d in g h a s b e e n filed . T h is C o u rt h a s sta ted th a t a p lea d in g is friv o lo u s “ o n ly
w hen, obj ect i vel y s peaki ng, the pl eade ror m ovanthas no hope of succ es s . ” Cit

y of Madis on v. B r yan , 763 So. 2d 162, 168 ( M i s s . 2000) ( quot i ng T r i con Metal

s & Ser vs . , I

nc. v. T opp , 537 S o. 2 d 13 31 , 1 33 5 ( M i s s . 1989) ) . A m ot i on orpl eadi ng i s f i l ed f orthe purpos e of h a ra s s m e n t o r d e la y w h e n th e p a rt y d o e s n o t h a v e a v ia b le c la im . D e a k le , 661 So. 2d at195.

### 13

¶29. T he cha ncel l orexami ned s ever al pl eadi ngs fi l ed by S pen cer and rul ed as t o eac h. Speci f i cal l y, the cha ncel l orf

ound the ( Second) M ot i on t o R eturn C us t ody t o M otherand the A mend e d ( Se c on d) M ot i on t o Return Cus t od y t o M othe rt o be h a r a s s menti n l i gh tof t he
court ’ s hol di ng t hats uch ar gum ent s w er e pr ematur e w hen the guar di an ad l i t em had notyet f i l ed hi s r eport . T he chanc el l ora l s o f ound Spencer ’ s M ot i on t o R equi r e G uar di an A d L i t em t o Fi l e R eportReturni ng Cust ody t o [ the m other ] t o be a ddi t i onal ha r as s m entof the guar di an a d lit e m a n d u n n e c e ss a ry . T h e c h a n c e llo r fo u n d S p e n c e r’s m o tio n s to lift th e g a g o rd e r to be f r i vol ous beca us e they had no hope of s ucce s s underSect i on 43-21-151( 1) ( c) . Fi nal l y, t h e c h a n c e l l o rf

o u n d th a tS p e n c e r ’ s M o t i o n t o Di s q u a l i f y a n d Re mo v e Gu a r d i a n a d l i t e m, f i l ed the f i r s tday of

tr i al , t o be “w i thouta doubtf r i vol ous . ” ¶ 3 0 . W e re v ie w e d e a c h o f t h e s e p le a d in g s a n d th e e x p la n a tio n o ff e re d fo r e a c h filin g . W e al s o under s t and t he postur e of t he cas e att he t i m e w hen Spencerfi l ed t hem. W hi l e w e agr ee thatSpencer ’ s i ni t i al ef f or tt o have the chi l dr en r eturned t o thei rm otherm ay have been a g o o d -fa ith e ff

o rt to r e d u c e th e tra u m a to th e c h ild re n c a u se d b y se p a ra tio n fro m th e ir
c u s t o d i a n , th e s u b s e q u e n tp l e a d i n g s c r o s s e d th e l i n e . Af t e ro u rr e v i e w o f

th e r e c o r d , we cannots ay the cha ncel l orabus ed herdi s cr et i on i n f i ndi ng the s ever al pl eadi ngs f i l ed by S p en ce r co n sti tuted “ h ara ssm en t” un d er the R u le. T h ere fore , w e a ffi rm the c h an ce ll o r’s j udgm entf

i ndi ng Spencerl i abl e f oratt orneys ’ f

ees and cos t s underR ul e 11 of t he M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of

C i vi l Pr ocedur e. ¶31. W hi l e w e af

f i r m Spencer ’ s l i abi l i ty f or att orneys ’ f

ees and cos t s under the Li t i gat i on A ccount abi l i ty A ctand R ul e 11, w e f i nd pl ai n err ori n the cha ncel l or ’ s j udgm entaw ar di ng f ees and cos t s i n exces s of t he amount s actual l y i ncurr ed. T her ef or e, w e vac at e the j udgm ent

### 14

of the cha ncel l orw hi ch aw ar ded $25, 000 eac h t o the guar di an ad l i t em and couns el f orthe fa th e r, an d re m a n d fo r a fa c tu a l fin d in g o f th e a m o u n t o f r e a so n a b le a tto rn e y s’ fe e s a n d c o sts f orthe f atherand the guar di an ad l i t em ass oci at ed w i th r es pondi ng t o the cl ai m s and mot i ons iden ti fi ed b y the c h an ce ll o r i n h er o rde r. II. W H E T H E R T H E C H A N C E L L O R E R R E D I N H O L D IN G S P E N C E R IN CRI M I NAL CONT EM P T OF COURT F OR F AI LI NG TO AP P EA R AT A SCHEDULED H EARI NG W HERE TH E EVI DE NC E FAI LS TO S HOW A W I LL F UL F AI LU RE TO AP P EA R AND W HERE S P EN CE R’ S TR I AL LA CKED F UND AMEN T AL E L E M E NT S OF DUE PR O C ESS. ¶3 2. Spencernexta r gu e s the c ha nc e l l ore rr e d i n h ol di ng he ri n c ons t ruct i ve cr i m i nal cont empt f

orf ai l i ng t o appea rata hea r i ng s he not i ced. S he cl ai m s she r ece i ved no not i ce thats he w oul d be f

ound i n cont empt f

orthi s actpr i ort o the s anct i ons hear i ng i n February. S h e ass erts that he r f

ail u re t o ap p ea r i n co u rtw as n o t w il lf u l, th ere fore , th e co u rte rre d in hol di ng heri n cr i m i nal cont em pt. S he f ur therar gues thatthe l aw r equi r ed hercont empt hear i ng t o be hel d i n publ i c. Fi nal l y, s he cl ai m s the cha ncel l ors houl d nothave pr es i ded over th is p o rtio n o f th e c o n tem p t h e a rin g b e c a u se sh e h a d su b sta n tial p e rso n a l i n v o lv e m e n t i n its pr os ecut i on. T he cha ncel l orci t ed R ul e 1. 05 of the U ni f

or m C hance ry C our tR ul es as gr ounds t o hol d Spenceri n cont empt , and s he dr ew herauthor i ty t o i m pos e t he $100 f i ne and tw enty- four- ho ur senten ce from S ect i on 9-1-17 o f the M i ssi ssi pp i C od e, w hich al l ow s a m a x im u m $ 1 0 0 fin e an d /o r th irty d a y s im p riso n m e n t. W e fin d n o n e o f S p e n c e r’s a rg u m e n ts
m eri t ori ou s. ¶33 . U nif

orm C han cery C ou rtR ule 1. 05 provides: W hen any c i vi l act i on has bee n setfor , or adj ourned t o, a par t i cul arday o r ho u r, all offi ce rs, pa rt ies, w itn esse s an d soli cit o rs w h o se p rese n c e is

### 15

nece s s ary fort he t r i al shal l be pre s entprompt l y att he t i m e s et . A ny negl i gent o r w ill fu l fa ilu re to o b e y th is ru le s h a ll b e p u n ish e d b y c o n tem p t. U C C R R ul e 1 . 05 . To h ol d a c on t e mnori n c on t e mpt , the c on t e mnormus tb e p r ovi ded a
s p e c if ic a tio n o f t h e c h a rg e s a g a in s t h im , n o tic e , a n d a h e a ri n g . P u rv is , 657 So. 2d at798. W e fi rs tadd res s Sp encer’s argum ents con cerni ng no t i ce and w i l l ful ness. ¶34. Spencerdi d notra i s e an obj ect i on t o herl ack of not i ce ors peci f

i cat i on of

the char ges atthe pr e- tr i al hear i ng on cont empt and s anct i ons . She ar gued the mer i t s of thi s cont empt atthe pr e- tr i al hear i ng, and the chanc el l orpe rm i t t ed hert o cal l w i tnes s es i n herow n def ens e. S h e d id n o t o bjec t t o test im o n y ab o u t her failure to a p p ea r on this da te or m o v e fo r a cont i nuance i n or dert o pr epar e t o r es pond t o t hi s char ge. W e f i nd thatSpencerw ai ved her ri g h t to n o tic e a n d s p e c if ic a tio n o f t h e c h a rg e a g a in s t h e r. See D e n n is , 824 So. 2d at610- 11; I s om v. Jerni

gan , 840 So. 2d 104 ( M i s s . 2003) . A s the pl ai n t extof the rul e i ndi cat es , an att orney nee d only be neg l i genti n f ai l i ng t o appea rf

orthe cha ncel l ort o gi ve gr ounds f or hol di ng he ri n c ont empt . Si nce ther e i s no r equi r ementthatSpenc er ’ s c onductbe w i l l f ul underthi s rul e, w e f

i nd no m er i tt o herar gum entt hatt he cont empt j udgm entshoul d be se t
a sid e fo r la c k o f w ill fu ln e ss o n h e r p a rt. ¶35. Spencerar gues thatherc ont empt he ar i ng s houl d ha ve been he l d i n publ i c and c i t es I n re O li ver , 333 U . S. 257, 68 S. C t . 449, 92 L . E d. 2d 682 ( 1948) , f orthe rul e thatcr i m i nal
c o n tem p t trials c a n n o t b e h e ld in se c re t, g ra n d -ju ry -sty le p ro c e e d in g s w h e re th e a c c u se d is d e n ie d th e b e n e fi t o f c o u n s e l a n d th e p re s e n c e o f f ri e n d s a n d re la tiv e s . I

d. a t333 U . S. 271- 72. I n thatc as e, a w i tnes s c al l ed t o t es t i f y ata one-

j udge gr and j ury pr ocee di ng w as f ound in c o n tem p t an d se n ten c e d to p riso n im m e d iate ly a fte r h is te stim o n y b e c a u se it d id n o t “je ll”

### 16

w i th othert es t i m ony gi ven bef or e the j udge. I n f

i nd i ng thi s pr ocedur e vi ol at ed the D ue P r o c e s s Cl a u s e o f

th e F o u r t e e n th Ame n d me n to f th e Un i t e d S t a t e s Co n s t i tu t i o n , th e S u p r e me C o u rt s ta te d , B u t, u n less in M ichig an an d in o n e-m an g ran d jury co n tem p t case s, n o co u rt i n thi s countr y has everbef or e hel d, s o fa ras w e can f i nd, t hatan accus ed ca n b e tried , co n v icte d , an d se n t to jail, w h e n e v e ry b o d y e lse is d e n ied e n tra n c e to th e c o u rt, e x c e p t th e jud g e an d h is a ttac h e s. A n d w ith o u t ex c e p tio n all c o u rts hav e held that an accused i s atthe v ery l eastenti t l ed to hav e his fr i end s, r el at i ves and couns el pr es ent , no m att erw i th w hatoff ens e he m ay be cha r ged. I n G aines v. W

as hington , 2 7 7 U .S . 8 1 , 8 5 -8 6 , this C o u rt a s su m e d th a t a c rim in a l trial c o n d u c ted in se c re t w o u ld v io late th e p ro c e d u ra l re q u ire m e n ts of the Four t eenth A m endment ' s due proc es s cl aus e, al though i t s actual hol di ng ther e w as thatno vi ol at i on had i n f actoccurr ed, s i nce the tr i al court ' s or der barr i ng t he gene r al publ i c had notbeen e nfor ced. C ert ai n pr ocee di ngs i n a j udge' s chamber s , i ncl udi ng convi ct i on s forcont empt of court , have occa s i onal l y be en count enanc ed by s t at e court s , butther e has neverbeen a ny i nt i m at i on thatal l of

the publ i c, i ncl udi ng t he acc us ed' s re l at i ves , f r i ends , and co u n sel, w ere b arred from the tri al ch am b er. I d. ( f ootnot es r emoved) . “C ases w i t hi n the j ur i s di ct i on of court s m art i al m ay be r egar ded
as a n ex ce p ti o n . W h atev er m ay b e the classifi ca ti o n o f j u v en il e c o u rtp roc ee d ing s, they are o fte n c o n d u c ted w ith o u t ad m itt in g a ll th e p u b lic. B u t ith a s n e v e r b e e n th e p ra c tice w h o lly t o excl ude par ent s , re l at i ves , and fr i ends , or t o re f us e j uveni l es the bene f

i tof couns el . ” I

d.
a t 2 6 6 n .1 2 (c ita tio n s re m o v e d ). ¶ 3 6 . W e f

i n d th i s ma t t e rd i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f r o m I n re O li ver . Spencer had s epar at e couns el t o r epr es entheri nt er es t s atthe hea r i ng on cont empt and s anct i ons . S he di d notobj ectt o the pr i vat e natur e of

the hea r i ng atthe t i m e i toccurr ed. T he courtperm i t t ed hert o cal l w i tnes s es i n herdef ens e and t o t es t i f

y on herow n behal f

. Fi nal l y, the chanc el l orr es ci nded the por t i ons of hercont empt or ders ent enci ng Spencert o i m pr i s onm ent . T he pr ece dentSpencerci t es m ak es a ll o w an ce for the fac t th at yo u th co u rtp roc ee d ing s a re d if feren t f rom m att ers

### 17

gener al l y bef

or e the court . W e f

i nd t hati ti s nota vi ol at i on of the D ue Proc es s C l aus e of t he Four t eenth A m endmentt o hol d cont empt hear i ngs i n yout h cour tabus e pr ocee di ngs outof the p ub l i c eye u nd er these ci rcum st ances. ¶ 3 7 . F in a lly , S p e n c e r a rg u e s th e c h a n c e llo r sh o u ld h a v e re c u se d h e rse lf fro m h e a rin g th is cont empt char ge. She ar gues t he cha ncel l orbeca m e per s onal l y and s ubs t ant i al l y i nvol ved i n the pr os ecut i on of

thi s cont empt char ge, s uch thatanotherj udge s houl d have be en a p p o in te d t o c o n s id e r i t. Ma y b e rr y v. P e n n sy lva n ia , 400 U . S. 455, 465- 66, 91 S. C t . 499, 5 0 5 , 2 7 L . E d . 2 d 5 3 2 (19 7 1 ). O n this ch arg e, w e d isag ree . S p en ce r file d a n o ti ce for a hear i ng w hi ch s he compl et el y f ai l ed t o att end. T he nextt i m e Spence rappea r ed bef or e the chanc el l or , the cha ncel l ort ook up thi s cont empt char ge, among ot her s . A tthe conc l us i on of the chanc el l or ’ s consi der at i on of thi s m att er , s he s ent ence d Spencert o pay a $100 f i ne or be i ncar cer at ed f

ortw enty- f

ourhour s , a se nt ence subs t ant i al l y bel ow t he m axi m um al l ow ed b y s ta tu te . ¶3 8 . A fte r re v iew ing th e rec o rd, w e fi n d th e ch an ce ll o r d id n o t b e c o m e su b sta n tially i nvol ved w i th the pr os ecut i on of thi s cont empt char ge s uch thatw e d ou btthe cha ncel l or m a in ta in e d th e d e ta c h m e n t n e c e s s a ry fo r ru lin g o n th is c o n te m p t. See P u rv is v . P u rv is , 657 S o . 2 d 7 9 4 , 7 9 8 ( M i s s . 1 9 9 4 ) . T h e s e n t e n c e f u r th e rs u p p o r t s th i s c o n c l u s i o n . T h e r e f o r e , we af f i r m the j udgm entand se nt ence of the cha ncel l orf

i ndi ng Spenceri n cont empt f orf ai l i ng t o appea ratthe J anuary 9 hear i ng. III. W H E T H E R T H E C H A N C E L L O R E R R E D IN H O L D IN G S P E N C E R IN CR I M I NA L CO NT E M P T F OR P RO VI DI NG HE R C L I E NT T HE GR AND M OTH ER CO PI ES OF CO URT FI LES BEFORE THE PRETRI AL M OTI ON S AND TRI AL ON THE M ERI TS AND AFTER TR I A L O N TH E M ER I TS.

### 18

¶39. Spencerne xta r gues thatthe chanc el l ore rr ed i n f i ndi ng heri n c ons truct i ve cr i m i nal cont empt f

orvi ol at i ng the Y outh C our tA ctand the gag or dere nt er ed by the cha ncel l oron Sept em ber 20 , 2005. She r ai s es as err orthe s ame ar gum ent s conce rni ng not i ce, the
r equi r ementof

a det ache d chanc el l orand a publ i c tr i al . She al s o r ai s es a cha l l enge t o t he
s uf f i ci ency of

the evi dence of

hergui l t . T he rul es di scussed a bove s erve as a bas i s f or anal yzi ng S pencer ’ s cl ai m s underthi s ar gum entand w i l l notbe r epea t ed her e. W e now add res s her ar gu m ents con cerni ng no t i ce, the im part i al i ty o f the ch ancell or, and du e process. ¶4 0. T he r ecor d r e f

l e c t s the g ua r di a n a d l i t e m s ou gh tt o hol d Spenceri n cont empt f or s uppl yi ng h i s r e po r tt o the g r a nd mot he r , b e c a us e the g r a nd mot he rs e ntthe r e po r tt o t he M i s s i s s i ppi B arw hen f

i l i ng a compl ai ntagai ns thi m . I n pos t - tr i al m ot i ons , the f athers ought t o have Spenc erhel d i n cont empt f orthe appe ar ance of

conf i dent i al i nf

or m at i on on t he i nt ernet . W e f

i nd both pl eadi ngs pr ovi ded Spence rs uf f i ci entnot i ce of

thi s cont empt char ge againsther. W e al so no t e t hat s he ap peared an d d efended hersel f th rou g h c o u n sel against th e se c h a rg e s. B y tak in g th e se a c tio n s, S p e n c e r w a iv e d w h a tev e r d e fic ien c y e x iste d w ith
re s p e c t to th e n o tic e . See D e n n is , 8 2 4 S o . 2 d a t 6 1 0 -1 1 ; I s om , 8 4 0 S o . 2 d a t 1 0 6 . ¶41. Fur therm or e, the cha ncel l ordi d notpr osecute t hese c on t em pt charges. Fr om the
r ecor d, w e can fi nd no i ndi cat i on the cha ncel l orbeca m e s ubs t ant i al l y i nvol ved i n the p ro s e c u tio n o f t h is c o n te m p t c h a rg e . See In re W il liam s on , 83 8 S o. 2d 22 6, 23 7 (M i ss. 20 02 ). W e fi nd no err or i n the f actthe ch ancell or di d no trecuse h ers el f f rom heari ng these cont empt char ges . Forthe r eas ons di s cus s ed above , w e f i nd no due- pr oces s vi ol at i on occurr ed s i m pl y becaus e the cont empt hear i ng w as s ubj ectt o the conf i dent i al i ty s t atut es

### 19

appl i c a bl e t o p r oc e e di ng s i n Youth Court . N on e of the s e gr ou nd s ha ve mer i t . W e now exami ne the s uf

f i ci ency of

the evi dence . ¶4 2. T he gag or derent er e d b y the c ha nc e l l oron Se pt e mber20 , 20 05 , pr ovi ded, “The part i es themsel ves w i l l be enj oi ned f r om di s cl os i ng any i nf

or m at i on t o thi r d part i es and that i nj un c t i on woul d go t owar ds the i ra ge nt s a s wel l . ” The wr i t t e n or de re nt e r ed by t he chanc el l oron N ovember9 pr ovi ded, i nt era l i a: “N ei therthe Par t i es , northei ratt orneys , nor th e ir a g e n ts s h a ll d isc u ss th e p ro c e e d in g s in th is C o u rt w ith a n y p e rso n n o t d ire c tly
as s oci at ed w i th t he Part i es orthei ratt orneys . ” ¶43. W e r evi ew ed t he verbal and w r i t t en gag or der s and fi nd t hem t oo vague t o enf or ce. See Mayorof

Clinton v. W

elch , 8 8 8 S o . 2 d 4 1 6 , 4 2 0 -2 4 (M iss . 2 0 0 4 ). W e a re p a rticu lar ly
u n ab le t o d eterm ine w ith rea so n ab le c ertainty w h ethe r th e g ran d m o ther q u ali fi es a s a “ thir d p a rty ” o r “ a g e n t” u n d e r th e c h a n c e llo r’s firs t o rd e r o r a “ p e rso n n o t d ire c tly a ss o c iate d w ith the P arti es o r th eir att o rne y s” u n d er the ch an ce ll o r’s w ri tt en ord er. W e c o n clud e the se o rde rs ar e nots uf

f i ci ent l y expl i ci torcl eart o gi ve f ai rnot i ce t o m en of

comm on i nt el l i gence of t he
c o n d u c t w h ic h w o u ld o ff e n d th e s e o rd e rs . I

d. a t422. T her ef

or e, the cha ncel l or ’ s j udgm ent hol di ng Spenc eri n c ont empt f orvi ol at i ng thes e or der s i s i n e rr or . W e nexte xami ne w hether th e fa c ts s u p p o rt th e c h a n c e llo r’s c o n tem p t ju d g m e n t a g a in st S p e n c e r f o r v io latin g th e Y o u th C o u rt A c t. ¶ 4 4 . S e c t i o n 4 3
- 2 1
- 1 5 1 ( 1 ) ( c ) o f th e M i s s i s s i p p i Co d e a l l o ws t h e c h a n c e ry c o u r tt o a s s u me j ur i s di ct i on overa youth courtm att erunderc ert ai n ci r cumst ance s . M i s s . C ode A nn. §43- 21- 151( 1) ( c) ( R ev. 2004) . “The pr ocee di ngs i n chanc ery courton the abus e cha r ge s hal l be conf i dent i al i n the s ame m annera s pr ovi ded i n youth courtpr ocee di ngs . ” I d. See a l so M i ss.W e a re trou b led th at a c h an ce ll o r w o u ld o rde r Sp encer’s att orney to rev iew S p en ce r’s 6 f i l es f orevi dence re l at ed t o t hi s sanc t i on and t hen r eports uch evi dence back t o the court . For re a so n s u n k n o w n to u s, th is is n o t alle g e d a s e rro r o n a p p e a l. 

### 20 C ode A nn. §§ 43-21- 203( 6) ; 43-21- 257( 1) ; 43-21- 259 (Rev. 2004). S ect i on 43- 21- 153( 2) gives the yo uth courtthe p ow er t o h old i n co ntem pt of cou rta party w ho w i l l ful l y v i olat es, negl ect s , orr ef

us es t o obey an or dera nd t o i s s ue a f i ne nott o e xcee d $500 and/ ort o i m pr i s on th e v io la to r f

o r n o t m o re th a n n in e ty d a y s . M is s . C o d e A n n . § 4 3 -2 1 -1 5 3 (R e v . 2 0 0 4 ). ¶45. T he cha ncel l orhel d Spenceri n con t em pt f or prov i di ng the gr andmot hercopi es of chanc ery courtf

i l i ngs and or der s i n vi ol at i on of the gag or der . T he chancel l ors pl i tthe cont empt i n tw o: the vi ol at i on w hi ch occ urr ed bef or e the tr i al and the on e t hatoccurr ed af t erw ar d. I n the cont empt order , the cha ncel l ori dent i f i ed onl y one i ns t ance i n w hi ch Spencers uppos edl y di s cl os ed conf i dent i al i nf

or m at i on t o the gr andmot herand vi ol at ed the gag or de r . Thi s was i n a n e l e c tr on i c mai l mes s a ge f r om Sp e nc e rt o the mot herand gr andmot heri n J anuary 2006, t o w hi ch Spence ratt ache d copi es of the or dercompel l i ng the
m other ’ s appea r ance att r i al , t he f ather ’ s m ot i on forsanc t i ons , m ot i on t o str i ke def ens es , and
w i tnes s s ubpoenas , and the guar di an ad l i t em’s s econd i nt er i m r eportand mot i on f or sa n c tio n s. T h e ch a n c e llo r fin e d S p e n c e r $ 5 0 0 a n d o rd e re d h e r to b e in c a rc e ra ted fo r n in e ty day s forthe vi ol at i on bef or e tr i al . T he cha ncel l ori m pos ed an i dent i cal s ent ence f ort he vi ol at i on af

t ertr i al . I n t hatcas e, t he cha ncel l orr el i ed upon Spence r ’ s admi s s i on thats he s ent a co p y of th e co u rt ’s “B en ch O p inion an d Jud g m en t” r eg ard ing cu stod y to the g ran d m o ther. 6 O n r econs i der at i on, the chanc el l orva cat ed the por t i ons of heror derthats ent ence d Spencer to im p ri s o n m e n t.

### 21

¶46. T he guar di an ad l i t em f i l ed a m ot i on t o hol d Spenc eri n c ont empt f ordi s s emi nat i ng his second i nter i m reportpri or t o the dat e of the electroni c m ai l sen t by S pen cer. B ecause the m ot i on pre - dat ed t he el ectr oni c m ai l m es s age i n t he r ecor d, the mess age c annots erve as a bas i s f

orhol di ng Spenceri n cont empt underthe char ge m ade by the guar di an. F u rth erm o re, w h il e S p en ce r’s em ail did inc lud e the gu ard ian’s rep o rt , argu ab ly a y o u th co u rt
r ecor d, i tw as di r ect ed t o the m other . Spencer ’ s unr ebutt ed t es t i m ony w as that , by s endi ng a c o u rte sy c o p y o f th is m a il m e ss a g e to th e g ra n d m o th e r, sh e h o p e d to p lac e th e d o c u m e n ts i n the m other ’ s poss es s i on. A tt hatt i m e, i thad been m or e t han a m onth s i nce Spenc erhad had cont act w i t h t he mot her . T he r ecor d i ndi cat es the gr andmot herpai d Spencerf orher
r epr es ent at i on of

the mot her . T he gr andmot herher s el f w as Spencer ’ s cl i entand had a r i ght to b e in fo rm e d o f th e o u tco m e o f th e c u sto d y h e a rin g . W e fin d th e e v id e n c e in su ffic ien t to s how thatSpencer ’ s conductw as a w i l l f ul orc ontum aci ous vi ol at i on of the Y outh C our tA ct beyond a r eas on able doubt . W e ther ef or e r ever s e the j udgm entof the cha ncel l orhol di ng Spenc e ri n c on t e mptf

orv i ol a t i ng the g a g or de r s a nd Youth Cour tAct , a nd h e r e by r ender jud g m en t i n fav o r of S p en ce r. IV . W H E T H E R T H E C H A N C E L L O R E R R E D IN H O L D IN G S P E N C E R IN C O N T E M P T F O R ISS U IN G S U B P O E N A S D U C E S T E C U M IN V I O L A T I O N O F M I SSISSIPP I C O D E A N N O T A T E D § 43- 21- 151. ¶4 7. Spenc e r f

i na l l y a r gu e s the c ha nc e l l or e rr e d i n ho l di ng he r i n c on t e mpt f orcaus i ng s ever al s ubpoenas t o i s s ue af t erthe D ecem ber 5 hear i ng. She as s ert s the cha ncel l orerr ed beca us e Spence r ’ s tr i al w as notpubl i c, thatS pence rw as notgi ven ade quat e not i ce of t he char ge aga i ns ther , and thatthe cha ncel l ors houl d notha ve s ati n j udgm ent . Forthe r eas ons di s cus s ed above , w e f

i nd no m er i tt o the ar gum entthatthe cha ncel l or ’ s j udgm enthol di ng

### 22

S p e n c e r in c o n tem p t sh o u ld b e s e t a sid e b e c a u se it w a s m a d e w h ile u n d e r th e c o n fid e n tiality pr ovi s i ons of

the Y outh C our tA ct . W e al s o f i nd, f orthe r easons dis cuss ed above , that Spencerw ai ved the r equi r ementthats he be gi ven not i ce, be caus e s he ar gued the mer i t s of hercas e w i thoutobj ect i ng t o the l ack of not i ce a tthe hear i ng . H ow ever , w e agr ee i tw as err orf orthe cha ncel l ort o s i ti n j udgm entof thi s cont empt char ge. ¶48. T he conduct f

or w hi ch the chanc el l or hel d Spencer i n cont empt occurr ed both i n t he chanc el l or ’ s pr es ence and out s i de the cha ncel l or ’ s per cept i on. Spencerm ade the
m isre p re se n tatio n c o n c e rn in g th e n a tu re o f th e su b p o e n a s in p e rso n to th e c h a n c e llo r to obt ai n herappr oval t o have them i s s ued. T he l anguage w hi ch appea r ed w i thi n the s ubpoenas
a n d the re q u est th at th e re sp o n d en t pro d u ce d o cu m en ts w ere fac ts ou tsi d e the ch an ce ll o r’s per s onal know l edge. T her ef or e, w e f

i nd the j udgm entof

cont emp tagai ns tSpencerf or vi ol at i ng t he or derre gar di ng subpoena s i s cr i m i nal i n natur e and i s one of cons truct i ve, r ather th a n d ir e c t, c o n te m p t. See D e n n is , 8 2 4 S o . 2 d a t 6 0 8 -6 0 9 . C f. I n I nter es t of Hol m es , 355 So. 2d 677, 678 ( M i s s 1978) ( “w her e t her e i s doubtw hethert he al l eged c ont empt w as di r ect
orcons truct i ve, i ts houl d be r egar ded as the l att er ”) . A s w e s t at ed i n D e n n is : If th e p rim a ry p u rp o se o f th e co n tem p t o rd e r is to e n fo rc e th e rig h ts o f p riv a te p a rty lit ig a n ts o r e n fo rc e c o m p lian c e w ith a c o u rt o rd e r, th e n th e c o n tem p t is ci vi l . T he cont emnor may be j ai l ed orfi ned f orci vi l cont empt ; how ever , the c o n tem n o r m u st b e re liev e d o f th e p e n a lty w h e n h e p e rfo rm s th e re q u ire d a c t. C r i m i nal cont empt penal t i es , on the otherhand, ar e desi gned t o puni s h the def endantf ordi s obedi ence of

a courtor der ; puni s hm enti s f orpastof

f ens es an d d o es n o t t erm inate u p o n co m p li an ce w ith co u rto rde r. D e n n is , 824 So. 2d at608 ( ci t at i ons r emoved) . A s not ed above , thi s C our tr evi ew s cr i m i nal
con t em pt ci t at i on s a b in iti o .

### 23

¶49. A f

t erS pence rcaus ed se ver al subpoena s t o be i s s ued f ort he S eptem ber 20 t r i al and the hea r i ng on the mot i on t o quas h the hos pi ce s ubpoena, the cha ncel l orenj oi ned Spence r f r om caus i ng m or e s ubpoenas t o i s s ue. T he cha ncell or st at ed on t he tw ent i eth, “I w i l l go ah ea d an d en ter a b lank et ord er tha t r eq u ir es a ll su b p o en as to b e a p p rov ed b y the C o u rt bef or e they ar e i s s ued. . . . ” A l at erw r i t t en or derp rovi ded , “[ T he mot her ] s hal l noti s s ue addi t i onal s ubpoenas w i th [ s i c] pr i orappr oval of thi s C our t . . . . ” ¶5 0. A tt he D ece m ber5 hear i ng, S pence raske d t he c ou r t ’ s pe r mi s s i on t o i s s ue tr i al
su b p o e n a s fo r th e u p c o m in g trial d a te: [ M S. SPE N C E R ] : M ay I go ahea d and have m y tr i al s ubpoenas i s s ued? T H E C O U R T : O k ay . W h at all are they for? M S . S P E N C E R : Just for a v ariety o f i n d ividu als t o - - T H E C O U R T : H ave you gi ven them t o M r . Parr i s h? M S . S P E N C E R : N o , I h a v e n o t. T H E C O U R T : I m ean, w e had som e probl em s w i th sub po enas be for e. T hese are j ustw i tness subp oen as? M S . S P E N C E R : T hese are w i tness subp oen as. T H E C O U R T : A n y p rob lem w ith that M r. K ram er? M S. SPE N C E R : I mean, Y ourH onor , he c an f i l e a m ot i on t o qua s h a nd then i tcan be hear d on J anuary 9 and i tcoul d be r es ol ved pr i ort o tr i al s o w hat c o u l d b e th e h a r m? T H E C O U R T : W el l , I don’ ts ee a pr obl em w i th w i tness subpoenas bei ng i s s ue d. D o yo u, M r . Kr a mer ? I mea n, the r e was s ome pr ob l e m w i t h t he su b p o en a d u ce s tecu m - - M S . S P E N C E R : Y es. T H E C O U R T : - - bef

or e. M S. SPE N C E R : Y es , ther e w er e. M R. KRAM ER: Ye s , ma ’ a m. T H E C O U R T : G o ahead and getthe s ubpoenas i s s ued. I don’ thave a pr obl em w ith th a t. C ouns el f

orthe f atherw as notpr es entatthi s hear i ng. Spencernextcaus ed f ours ubpoenas
en ti tl ed “T ri al S u b p o en a a n d S u b p o en a D u ce s T ec u m ” to issu e fro m the c h an ce ry c o u rt di r ect ed atf

ourD H S empl oyees : ( 1) Jac ki e O dom ; (2) John W ebb O ’ B ryant , D H S r egi onal

### 24

di r ect or ; ( 3) Li s a R obi ns on; a nd ( 4) Brune t t e J ones , the cas ew or kerf orthe daught er. T he
s ubpoenas comm anded them t o be pr es entattr i al and t o pr oduce doc um ent s . T he s ubpoenas d e s c r i b e d th e d o c u m e n t s a s “ [ t ] h e J u l y 2 0 0 4 i n v e s t i g a t i o n f i l e m a i n t a i n e d b y th e DHS
c o n c e rn in g [th e d a u g h ter ’s] se x u a l ab u se w h ich o c c u rre d in a p p ro x im a te ly J u n e a n d Ju ly 2004, i ncl udi ng butnotl i m i t ed t o the i nves t i gat i on, any conc l us i ons , the or i gi nal ora copy of [ the daught er ’ s ] not e and dr aw i ng of an e rectp eni s w hi ch s t at ed, ‘ ForM amm a’ s eyes onl y; m y pr i vat es hur tr eal ba d’ , a nd al l otherdocument s cont ai ned i n the f i l e and a copy of the D H S fi l e con cerni ng [ the dau gh t er] and [ the son] bei ng pl aced i n fost er car e. ” S he als o c a u s e d o n e s u b p o e n a to is s u e fo r t h e Q u itm a n S c h o o l D is tr ic t. ¶51. I n hol di ng Spenceri n cont empt , the cha ncel l orhel d the f ol l ow i ng: I n i s s ui ng the above subpoena s duces t ecum, A t t orney Spence rm ade a mat er i al m i s r epr es ent at i on t o thi s Courta nd vi ol at ed thi s Court ’ s or derthat Subpoena D uces T ecum be s ubm i t t ed t o the C ourtfor r evi ew and appr oval pr i ort o thei ri s s uance . B y i ncl udi ng the gr aphi c l anguage i n [ the exhi bi tt o the su m m o n s], sh e a lso d iss e m in a ted c o n fid e n tial in fo rm a tio n fro m th is c iv il a c tio n in v io la tio n o f § 4 3 -2 1 -1 5 1 (1 )( c ). She expos ed thati nf

or m at i on notonl y t o t he subpoe naed w i tnes s es , but also the p roc ess s erv er h ir ed to serv e the su b p o en as. S u ch co n d u ct on the p art of an att orney of

l aw cannotgo unpuni s hed. I ts houl d al s o be not ed thatthe “dr aw i ng of the er ectpeni s ” i s A t t orney K ar en Spence r ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of the dau gh t er’ s draw i ng o n the no t e she gav e h er m other . D on na M oo re, the fi rs t couns el orthatt al ked t o the daught er , r eport ed thatthe chi l d d escr i bed t he d raw ing as a g ir l w ith lon g h air. T h e d au g h ter ha d d raw n tears o n the g ir l’ s f ace , and w as af

r ai d s he w oul d ups etherm others o s he bl acke d outthe f ace and dr ew s m i l ey f

ace s ar ound the dr aw i ng. ¶52. T he cha ncel l orf

i ned Sp e nc e r$1 00 f

orc a us i ng a s ub po e na di r e ct ed t o Q ui t m an School D i s tr i ctt o i s s ue w i thoutpr i orc our tr evi ew ora ppr oval , butw hi ch di d notr evea l conf i dent i al i nf or m at i on. T he chancel l orf i ned Spence r$500 and s ent ence d hert o ni nety days

### 25

i m pr i s onm entf

oreac h s ubpoena, f

orcaus i ng s ubpoenas t o i s s ue w hi ch w er e di r ect ed t o t he DHS e mp l o y e e s . F i n a l l y , th e c h a n c e l l o r ’ s o r d e rwa s t o b e s e n tt o th e M i s s i s s i p p i Ba r . On
r econs i der at i on, the c ha nc e l l orva c a t e d tha tpo rt i on of he rj ud gmen tw hi c h s e nt e nc e d Spencer to im p ri s o n m e n t. ¶53. Pr i ort o t he hear i ng on cont empt , nei therthe f athernorthe guar di an ad l i t em r eques t ed the cha ncel l orhol d Spenceri n cont empt forvi ol at i ng the cha ncel l or ’ s or derr egar di ng s ubpoenas . W hi l e S pen cerw ai ved not i ce of thi s cont empt char ge by appe ar i ng and def end i ng he r s e l f

t hr ou gh s e pa r a t e c ou ns e l , i ta pp e a r s f r om t he r e c or d tha tthe c ha nc e l l or in stig a ted a n d p ro se c u ted th is c o n tem p t ch a rg e . It w a s im p ro p e r fo r th e ch a n c e llo r to sit in j udgm entw her e s he had s ubs t ant i al pe r s onal i nvol vementi n the pr os ecut i on of thi s char ge. I n re W il liam s on , 838 So. 2d 226, 237 ( M i s s . 2002) . T her efor e, w e f i nd the cha ncel l or s houl d have r ecus ed her s el f fr om hear i ng thi s cont empt m att er . T he cha ncel l or ’ s cont empt ju d g m e n t fin d in g S p e n c e r v io late d th e o rd e r re g a rd in g su b p o e n a s is h e re b y rev ers e d , an d th is
c h a rg e is re m a n d e d fo r a n e w tr ia l. I d. CO NC L US I ON ¶54. Forthe r eas ons di s cus s ed above, w e f i nd the chanc el l or abus ed herdi s cr et i on w hen
aw ar di ng m onet ary s anct i ons a gai ns tK ar en Spenceri n e xces s of the amount author i zed by the L it igation A cc o u n tabili ty A ct an d R u le 11 an d aw ard ing th o se sa n cti o n s t o th e fa ther’s att orney i ns t ead of

t o the f ather . W e vac at e the s anct i on j udgm entand r emand t hi s m att er f ora f i ndi ng as t o t he r eas onabl e am ountof a t t orneys ’ f ees and cos t s i ncurr ed by couns el f or th e fa th e r a n d th e g u a rd ian a d lit e m fo r re sp o n d in g to the cla im s a n d p lea d in g s e x a m in e d in the cha ncel l or ’ s or der . T he r eas onabl e amountof att orneys ’ f

ees s hal l be aw ar ded t o the

### 26

f at her . The j ud gmen th ol di ng Sp e nc e ri n c on t e mptf orf a i l i ng t o a pp e a ra tthe J anuary 9 hear i ng i s af

f i r m ed. T he j udgm enthol di ng Spenceri n cont empt f orvi ol at i ng the gag or der is n o t su p p o rte d b y th e s u b sta n tial e v id e n c e a n d is re v e rse d . Ju d g m e n t is h e re b y e n ter e d in fa v o r o f K a re n S p e n c e r o n th is c h a rg e . S in c e it w a s e rro r fo r th e c h a n c e llo r to sit in j ud gm ent on the cha r ge of cont em pt f

or vi olat i ng the ch ancell or’ s orderregar ding subp oen as, th is ju d g m e n t is re v e rse d a n d th is c h a rg e is re m a n d e d fo r a n e w trial. ¶ 5 5 . AFF I RM ED I N PART; REVERSED AND RENDE RED I N PART; REVERSED AND REM AND ED I N PART; AND VAC ATED AND REM AND ED I N PART. S M IT H , C .J ., C A R L S O N , G R A V E S , D IC K IN S O N A N D L A M A R , J J ., CO NC UR. EA S LE Y, J . , CONCURS I N P ART AND DI S S EN TS I N P ART W I THOUT S E P AR AT E W RI T T E N O P I NI ON . DI AZ , P . J . , AN D R ANDOL P H, J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG .