8 0 [8 3 O p . A tt ’y
F AM I LY LA W

D OMES T I C V I OLENCE

) C O U R T S A N D J UDGES

) U SE OF F ORC E T O R E T UR N C HI L D K E PT I N V I OL AT I ON OF C US T ODY O RDER

J anuary28, 1998

T racy A

. G i l m ore, E squir e D e p u ty S ta te’ s A tto rn e

y fo r C a rr o ll C o u n ty

Y ou hav e request ed ou r op i nion on t he m eaning of the ph ras e “r eas onabl e and ne ces s ar yfor ce, ” as us ed i n t he por t i on of t he dom es t i c vi ol enc e p rot ect i ve or derfor m t hatcal l s on l aw e n f o rc e m e n t o f

f ice rs to re tu rn to th e c u sto d ial p a re n t a c h ild k e p t in v io la tio n o f th e o rde r. Y o u r qu esti o n req u ir es u s to c o n side r a p red icate issue : w h ethe r th is p rov isi o n in the p rotec ti v e o rde r fo rm i s a u t h o r i z e d b yl a w. O u r o p in io n is t h a t c u rre n t law d o e s n o t au th o riz e a n o rd e r to l aw enfor cement offi cer s t o for ci bl y r etur n a m i nor chi l d t o the cus t odi al par ent

. I n l i ght of t hi s concl us i on, w e nee d not addr es s t he m e a n in g o f

th e p h ra s e “ re a s o n a b le a n d n e c e s s a ry f o rc e .”

I Scope of P rot ect i ve O rder U nder§4- 506( d) ( 6) of t he Fami l yL aw ( “F L ”) A r t i cl e, M ar y l and C ode, a prot ect i ve orde r i n a domest i c vi ol ence cas e may “aw ar d t empora r y cus t ody of a m i nor chi l d of t he r es pondentand a per s on el i gi bl e for r el i ef. ” T he s t andar d pr ot ect i ve or derfor m us ed i n the co u r t s , For m D V

- 3, r efl ect s t hi s gr antof author i t yby i ncl udi ng a par agr aph 7, i n w hi ch t he cour t or der s “t hatcus t odyof

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ is a w a rd e d to _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .”G en. 80] 81

Al th o u ghth e f

o c u s o f yo ur i n qu i r y i s th e p r o t e c t i v eo r d e r

fo rm , 1 DV-3, thesame languag e appe ars in F orm DV-2, “ Ex Part e Or d erfor Protection from Abuse ,” which implements F L §4-505. Our analy sis and conclusion ar e the same conc erningthis element of the e x part e orde r fo rm . Th e phra se “ c omp e l c omp lia nc e ” e vid e ntl y

re fe rs to t hea uth ority 2 of a c ourt to confine a

person who has committed civil contempt until the individual has purg ed the c ontempt th ro u gh compliancewith the order

. “ Th e [ci vil ] co nte mpt

po we r i s a

too l ava ila

bleto a co ur

t to c omp e l a person to ac t or not to act in a spec ified manne r.” Droney v. Drone y , 102 Md. App. 672, 683, 651 A.2d 415 (1995). Se e, e .g., Sta tev . R oll &Sc ho ll , 267 Md. 714, 728, 298 A.2d 867 (1973). This opinion is not an occ asion to discuss th e s ub s t anceor 3 (continued...) Yo u r q u e s t i o n f

o c u s e s o n l a n g u a g e t h a t i mm e d i a t e l yf o l l o ws t he port i on of par agr aph 7 aw ar di ng cus t ody

. T he for m or der i ncl udes a box t hatt he j udge maychec k for t he purpos e of i ncl udi ng th e f o llo w in g p ro v isio n : “L a w e n f o rc e m e n t o f

f ic e r s a re o rd e re d to us e al l r eas onabl e and ne ces s ar y for ce t o r etur n t he mi nor chi l d( r en) t o t he cus t odi al par ent at t i m e of s er vi ce or as s oon a pos s i bl e af t er e n tryo f th is O rd e r.” N o th in g in F L T itl e 4 , S u b tit le 5 , o n d o m e stic

1 v io le n c e , e x p re s s ly au th o ri z e s th is p ro v is io n .
II A n a ly sis C our t s have i nher entaut hor i t yt o puni s h forcont empt a per s on w h o h a s k n o w in g ly v io la te d a c o u rt o rd e r. See, e. g. , Hi t z el ber gerv. S ta te , 1 7 3 M d . 4 3 5 , 1 9 6 A . 2 8 8 (1 9 3 8 ). T h is in h e re n t au th o rityis r efl ect ed i n §1- 202( a) of t he C ou rt s and J udi ci al Pr ocee di ngs A r t i cl e: “A cour t m ayexer ci s e t he pow ert o puni s h cont empt of cour t or t o compel compl i ance w i t h i t s comm ands i n t he manner p re s c ri b e d b yth e M a ryla n d R u le s o r M a ryla n d D is tr ic t R u le s .” 2 M o reo v er, F L § 4 -50 8 ex p li cit lyd ir ec ts t h at do m esti c v iolen ce co u rt o rd e r s “ s h a l l s ta te th a t a v io la tio n o f th e o rd e r m a yre s u lt in ... a fi ndi ng of cont empt

. ” Ther efor e, vi ol at i on of t he cus t odypor t i on of a domest i c vi ol ence pr ot ect i ve or ders ubj ect s t he v iolatort o t he sa n c tio n o f

c o n tem p t. 38 2 [8 3 O p . A tt ’y

(...continued) 3 proce dure of

the law of

contempt. Se ege ne ra lly Title 15, Chapter 200 of theMary land Rul e s. Th e langua g e is a s f

oll ow s: “ A p e rs on wh o f a ils to c omp ly

wi th 4 the re lief grante d in ... a protective orde r under §4-506(d) (1), ( 2), (3) , (4), or (5 ) o f t his su bti tleis guil ty

of a mis de me ano r and on convic tio n is subject, for

eac h offe nse, to a finenot exceeding$500 or imprisonment not exceeding90 day s or both.” This criminal s anction does not ex tend to failure to c omply

with relief grante d under F L§4 -5 0 6 (d)(6), which authorizes the awa

rd of tempor ary

custody of a minor c hild. This opinion does not address the c ircumstance s under which a 5 c hil d mi ght b e re mov e d fr om a hou se ho ld duringan inve sti g atio n o f c hil d abuse or neg lect. SeeFL

§5-709. In a d d it i on t o co ntem pt, viol at i on of a c ou rtorder m ayres u lt i n cons equenc es s peci fi ed bys t atut e. I ndeed, t he domest i c vi ol ence s ubt i t l e spec i fi es cer t ai n cons equenc es for vi ol at i on of a pr ot ect i ve o rd e r. F L § 4 -5 0 9 (a ) c re a tes a m is d e m e a n o r o f f e n se f o r c e rta in vi ol at i ons . FL §4- 509( b) s t at es t hatvi ol at i on of a pr ot ect i ve or der

4 m ays ubj ectt he vi ol at or t o ar r es t : “A n offi cers hal l ar r es t w i t h or w i t hout a w ar r antand t ake i nt o cus t odya per s on w hom t he off i cer has pr obabl e ca us e t o bel i eve i s i n vi ol at i on of an ex par t e or deror pr ot ect i ve or deri n eff

ectatt he t i m e of the vi ol at ion

. ” FL §4- 508 r equi r es l anguage in the or der“t hata vi ol at i on of t he or derm ay r es ul t i n . . . cr i m i nal pr os ec u ti o n . . . and .

. . i m pr i s onm entor fi ne or b o th .” N ow here in the domest i c vi ol ence s ubt i t l e, how ever , has t he G ener al A s s embl yaut hor i zed the for ci bl e t aki ng of a chi l d fr om t he phy s i cal cus t odyof s om eone al l eged t o have vi ol at ed an or derabout cus t ody

. B ycont r as t , i n anot her comm on t ype of c as e, t he G ener al

5 A s s embl yhas expl i ci t l yaut hor i zed di r ect , for ci bl e r emedi al act i on in f u rth e ra n c e o f a c o u rt o rd e r: A c o u rt is e m p o w e re d u n d e r c e rta in ci r cumst ance s t o “i s s ue an or deraut hor i zi ng [an] offi cert o ent ert he pr emi s es by for ce” t o l evy goods i n an act i on of di s t r es s . §8- 317 of t he R eal Pr oper t yA r t i cl e. T her e i s no s t atut or ycount erpar t her e, and, w i t hout i t , w e di s cern no bas i s for t he cour t ’ s aut hor i t yt o or der t he for ci bl e t aki ng of a c hi l d. B eca us e curr entl aw does no t aut hor i ze the l anguage found a f t e r t h e c h e c k b o x i n p a r a g r a p h 7 o f t h e p r o t e c t i v e o r d e r f o r m, weG en. 80] 83

r ecomm end t hatt he cour ts reconsi deri ncl us i on of t hi s pr ovi s i on. A ltern a tiv e ly , o f

c o u rse , the G e n e ra l A ss e m b ly m ig h t b e a sk e d to a u th o ri z e th e p ro v is io n .
J. Jo sep h C u rran , Jr. A t t or ney G ener al Ja c k S c h w a rtz C hi ef C ouns el O pi ni ons and A dvi ce

E di tor ’s N

ote: T he ques t i on or i gi nal l ypos ed i n t hi s op ini on w as l at er addr es s ed i n 84 Opinions of the Attorney Gene ral 1 0 5 (19 9 9 ).