Title: Ag v. Rmd
Citation: 730 S.W.2d 543
Docket Number: 68584
State: Missouri
Issuer: Missouri Supreme Court
Date: May 19, 1987

730 S.W.2d 543 (1987)
A.G., Respondent,
v.
R.M.D., Appellant.
No. 68584.

Supreme Court of Missouri, En Banc.
May 19, 1987.
Rehearing Denied June 16, 1987.
Robert D. Benjamin, Alan E. Freed, Clayton, for appellant.
Justin C. Cordonnier, Thomas B. Weaver, St. Louis, for respondent.
WELLIVER, Judge.
Appellant, R.M.D., appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County denying his motion for contempt against his ex-wife, A.G., for violation of provisions of their dissolution decree concerning R.M.D.'s visitation and temporary custody of their minor daughter, G.A.D. The Court of Appeals, Eastern District, reversed the circuit court and transferred the case to this Court due to the conflict which it perceived between its opinion and the Western District's opinion in Shanks v. Shanks, 603 S.W.2d 46 (Mo.App.1980). Mo. Const. art. V, § 10 and Rule 83.02. We reverse and remand.
This contempt action stems from the August 31, 1983, St. Louis County Circuit Court decree dissolving the marriage between R.M.D. and A.G., awarding A.G. custody of G.A.D. and awarding R.M.D. visitation rights. The decree specifically provided that:
A.G. complied with the order and allowed G.A.D. to visit R.M.D. in November and December of 1983 and in April and May of 1984. In two letters during the summer of 1984, A.G. refused R.M.D. his visitation rights. On August 22, 1984, R.M.D. filed a Motion for Contempt against A.G. for her violation of the court's order. On January 28, 1985, the court entered an Order and Stipulation on the Motion for Contempt, which provided in pertinent part:
In March 1985, R.M.D. attempted to exercise his visitation right. A.G. cut the visit short and did not allow an overnight visit, in contravention of the court's order. On March 6, 1985, R.M.D. filed this second *545 Motion for Contempt. Since March 1985, A.G. has repeatedly refused R.M.D. his visitation rights.
Since her parents' divorce in 1983, G.A.D. has had emotional problems. She began visiting a child psychiatrist, Dr. Chrisman, prior to R.M.D.'s first custodial visit in November 1983. After repeated visits, Dr. Chrisman determined that G.A.D.'s emotional problems were the result of the separation of her parents and the fear of being separated from her mother. He recommended that her visitation with R.M.D. be limited due to the stress associated with G.A.D.'s separation from her mother, A.G. While G.A.D. was visiting R.M.D. in December 1983, A.G. filed a child abuse hotline report against R.M.D. The Missouri Division of Family Services investigated the allegation and, on January 11, 1984, found the report to be unsubstantiated.
On March 18, 1985, less than two weeks after R.M.D. filed this second contempt motion, A.G. brought G.A.D. to see Dr. Cook a child psychologist. After repeated visits, Dr. Cook determined that G.A.D.'s emotional problems could have been the result of sexual abuse by her father, R.M.D.
On November 4, 1985, the circuit court found that A.G. had violated its order but denied the Motion for Contempt. The November 4, 1985 order provides:
The Court of Appeals, Eastern District, reversed and transferred the cause to this Court.
This judge-tried action is reviewable under the standard announced by this Court in Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. 1976). In Murphy, we held that a judgment must be affirmed "unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, unless it is against the weight of the evidence, unless it erroneously declares the law, or unless it erroneously applies the law." Murphy, 536 S.W.2d  at 32.
Appellant claims that the trial court erroneously declared and applied the law by excusing A.G.'s disobedience of its order because of her good faith belief that R.M.D. had sexually abused G.A.D. We agree.
Contempt may be either civil or criminal. A contempt action is civil if it is, as in this case, "instituted to preserve and enforce the rights of a private party to an action and to compel obedience to a judgment or decree intended to benefit such a private party litigant." State v. Koon, 356 Mo. 284, 201 S.W.2d 446 (1947). See also 17 C.J.S. Contempt § 62(6) (1963). Since R.M.D. brought this contempt action to compel A.G.'s obedience of the court order which benefited him, this is a civil contempt action.[1]
"For civil contempt `the general rule is that the defendant need not have acted wilfully....'" Chemical Fireproofing Corp. v. Bronska, 553 S.W.2d 710, 716 (Mo.App.1977), quoting Moskovitz, Contempt of Injunctions, Civil and Criminal, 43 Colum.L.Rev. 780, 795 (1943).
Respondent cites several cases which seem to apply a different standard by denying contempt for lack of "willful and intentional" violation of a court order. These cases merely mislabel the recognized defense of inability to comply with the court order.
For example, in Bopp v. Bopp, 671 S.W.2d 348 (Mo.App.1984), cited by Respondent, the ex-husband sought to have his wife cited for contempt for permitting their seventeen year old daughter to move *546 out of Missouri to attend school elsewhere, in violation of the court order. That court's denial of the contempt recognized the reality of the mother's inability to absolutely control the movement of a seventeen year old child. Similarly, in Shanks v. Shanks, 603 S.W.2d 46 (Mo.App.1980), also cited by Respondent, the court said there was not a "willful and intentional" violation, but recognized the inability of the custodial parent to exercise absolute control over her twelve year old child. In Shanks, the boy absolutely refused to board an airplane to visit his father, even though his mother repeatedly instructed him that he must do so.
In Durbin v. Durbin, 573 S.W.2d 146 (Mo.App.1978), the court refused to find in contempt a mother who requested a postponement of a custodial visit when the child was recovering from surgery.
In Blair v. Blair, 600 S.W.2d 143 (Mo. App.1980), the court concluded that
Blair, 600 S.W.2d  at 146.
We agree. The standard for contempt in maintenance and support cases is the proper standard here. In State ex rel. Stanhope v. Pratt, 533 S.W.2d 567 (Mo. banc 1976), a maintenance and support case, we found that contempt would lie if (1) there was an actual violation of the court's order and either (2) the alleged contemner was able to comply with the court order or (3) the alleged contemner "intentionally and contumaciously placed himself in a position so that he could not comply with the court's orders." Stanhope, 533 S.W.2d  at 575. The movant bears the burden of demonstrating a violation of the court's orders. Then, the alleged contemner must prove the inability defense by showing inability which was not intentionally and contumaciously brought about. The courts in Bopp, Shanks, and Durbin properly denied the motions for contempt after finding that the party sought to be cited for contempt had proved an inability to comply and finding that the inability was neither intentional or contumacious.
Here, respondent has admitted to violating the court's orders. She claims, in essence, that her good faith belief that R.M.D. had abused G.A.D. and that the further communication and contact between R.M.D. and G.A.D. would be harmful to G.A.D. amounts to an inability to comply with the court's orders, as in Durbin, supra. Durbin is distinguishable since it involves a verifiable and documented illness which was not contemplated by the court issuing the order. Here, the trial court issued its Stipulation and Order with full knowledge that communication with the father would be stressful for the child. Durbin is also distinguishable since there the medical illness was documented while here the allegations of sexual abuse have not been proven and were even found to be unsubstantiated by the Missouri Division of Family Services on January 11, 1984. We cannot allow the decision of the trial judge, which considers both the fundamental parental rights of the father[2] and the interests of the child, to be supplanted by mental health professionals of Respondent's choice who consider only the child's interests.
If Respondent truly fears that her ex-husband may abuse her daughter, the proper remedy is for her to seek modification of *547 the court's orders. To hold otherwise would allow Respondent to sever R.M.D.'s parental rights unilaterally.
We find no conflict between our holding and the result reached on the facts in Shanks. To the extent that Shanks may be interpreted to have held that in child custody and visitation cases the sanction of civil contempt will not be imposed upon a party unless his disobedience is willful and intentional, Shanks conflicts with this opinion and should not be followed.
We reverse and remand to the circuit court.
All concur.
[1]  For this reason, Hofmeister v. Tod, 349 S.W.2d 5 (Mo. banc 1961), which was cited by Respondent and which involves criminal contempt is not applicable.
[2]  "The fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care, custody, and management of their child does not evaporate simply because they have not been model parents.... Even when blood relationships are strained, parents retain a vital interest in preventing the irretrievable destruction of their family life." Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753, 102 S. Ct. 1388, 1394, 71 L. Ed. 2d 599 (1982).