Opinion ID: 2745077
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Contempt Findings

Text: [¶17] A civil contempt order must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. McAdam, ¶ 14, ___ P.3d ___; Shindell, ¶ 10, 322 P.3d at 1274. Clear and convincing evidence is “evidence that would persuade a finder of fact that the truth of the contention is highly probable.” Id. The elements of civil contempt are: “1) an effective court order that required certain conduct by the alleged contemnor; 2) the contemnor had knowledge of the order; and 3) the alleged contemnor disobeyed the order.” Id. Once these elements are proven, the burden shifts to the person charged with contempt to show he or she was unable to comply. Id.
[¶18] In its Order on Motion for Contempt, the district court found Father in contempt for failing to exercise visitation with CCB as required by the parties’ Agreement.2 Based on that finding, the court ordered Father to reimburse Mother for the day care costs she incurred during the period Father was supposed to be exercising visitation. We find no support for this ruling in the record. [¶19] The parties’ Agreement allows Father the opportunity to exercise visitation with the parties’ children. It does not mandate that visitation. In regard to summer visitation, the Agreement allows the parties to “opt to have the children for two consecutive weeks 1 Mother argues that Father’s appeal of the contempt order is moot because Father has already paid all amounts ordered by the district court as a result of the contempt findings and in doing so has purged himself of the contempt. We disagree. First, it is not clear from the district court’s ruling that payment of the amounts ordered operated to purge the entire contempt. The Order on Motion for Contempt provided that Father could purge his contempt on the insurance violation by providing proof of insurance, but it contained no similar provision on the other violations. Second, the contempt violations are based on findings that may affect the parties going forward. For these reasons, a dispute remains on which this Court’s decision will have an impact and the matter is not moot. See KO v. LDH (In re MEO), 2006 WY 87, ¶ 27, 138 P.3d 1145, 1153-54 (Wyo. 2006) (to remain a justiciable controversy, there must be “a sufficient prospect that the decision will have an impact on the parties.”). 2 The district court’s order did not explicitly state that the court was holding Father in contempt for failing to exercise his visitation with CCB. The finding that Father violated the Agreement, and the associated award of costs, were, however, in the contempt order, and we will therefore treat the court’s ruling as if it were a contempt holding. 6 during the summer visitation in order to accommodate longer trips.” If the parties choose to exercise this option, they must “make such arrangements before May 31 of every year.” Mother testified that she and Father discussed the two-week visitation option and scheduled a two-week period during the 2013 summer that Father would have the extended visitation with CCB. Even assuming, however, that the parties agreed upon and scheduled the extended visitation, the Agreement does not make that visitation mandatory or require Father to pay cancellation costs if his plans to exercise his visitation rights were to change. 3 [¶20] The record does not contain clear and convincing evidence that Father violated an order requiring visitation with CCB. We therefore reverse that portion of the court’s Order on Motion for Contempt that found Father in violation of the Agreement for failing to exercise visitation with CCB and vacate the award of day care costs associated with that finding.
[¶21] The district court ruled that the evidence Father submitted during the show cause hearing was not sufficient to prove that he had obtained the health insurance for KEB required by the parties’ Agreement. The court therefore held Father in contempt for failing to provide insurance for KEB and/or proof of insurance. We again find that the record does not support the court’s contempt finding. [¶22] Before turning to the proof of insurance question, we will first address Father’s contention that the district court impermissibly modified the divorce decree by requiring Father to submit insurance that is satisfactory to Mother. In particular, Father points to the contempt order’s language that allows Father to purge himself of the contempt related to the health insurance requirement “by presenting an acceptable health insurance policy to the Defendant and her attorney by January 1, 2014.” Father contends that this language imposes a requirement that Mother must approve the health insurance policy, that such a requirement is not contained in the parties’ Agreement, and that the court therefore modified the decree without a proper modification motion having been filed. [¶23] We disagree that the district court’s order operated to modify the divorce decree. Though the order is not as clear as it might have been, we believe that the court’s reference to an “acceptable health insurance policy” was not a reference to the terms of the policy or the insurer. During the show cause hearing, Mother had expressed concerns that the information submitted by Father showed not an insurance policy but rather membership in a healthcare discount club. The court itself was likewise troubled by 3 We note that the Agreement requires that any modification of the Agreement must be in writing and executed with the same formality as the Agreement. The parties did not testify to any such modification, and the record contains no such writing. 7 prescription cards that seemed to disavow that they were insurance related. Reading the court’s order in this context, we interpret the court’s language as a reference to the proof of insurance rather than as a reference to the terms of the policy or the insurer. The court thus did not modify the health insurance provision by requiring Mother’s approval of the policy. [¶24] We turn then to whether the record supports the district court’s contempt finding with respect to Father’s obligation to provide health insurance for KEB. The clear and convincing evidence standard for a contempt holding required a showing that it was highly probable that Father had not obtained the required health insurance for KEB by the time of the show cause hearing in October 2013. [¶25] Father testified that while he did not have the insurance in place when Mother filed her contempt motion on July 8, 2013, he had obtained the insurance by the end of July 2013. One of the exhibits received into evidence during the show cause hearing was Defendant’s Exhibit B, which included three documents. The first document was a Secured Care Short Term Medical Insurance Application, underwritten by Companion Life Insurance Company, listing Father as the primary insured and KEB as a dependent child on the application. That application was dated July 17, 2013. The second document in Exhibit B was a letter from Secured Care to KEB thanking her for purchasing the “Secured + Insurance Plan.” The last document in Exhibit B was a Schedule of Benefits, which identified Father as the insured and KEB as a covered dependent. The Schedule of Benefits provided a policy effective date of July 18, 2013, and contained a chart showing coverage and benefit amounts under the policy. [¶26] The Schedule of Benefits included in Exhibit B was an excerpt from the health insurance policy that was ultimately submitted to the court along with Father’s new trial motion. We are at a loss to understand why Father did not submit a copy of the entire health insurance policy during the show cause hearing, and it certainly left the court in the unenviable position of deciphering those documents that were submitted. Nonetheless, we cannot conclude, based on the record the court had before it at the show cause hearing, that Father’s contempt had been proven with clear and convincing evidence. The evidence instead showed that by the end of July 2013, over two months before the show cause hearing, Father had obtained the required insurance. We therefore reverse that portion of the district court’s Order on Motion for Contempt that held Father in contempt for failing to provide insurance for KEB and/or proof of insurance.4 4 The record also contained a document that was entered into evidence as Defendant’s Exhibit D. This document is a letter to KEB from Health Insurance Innovations and welcomes KEB as a member of the “Extra Care Package.” This appears to be the “discount club” that caused some confusion. The letter does include attached cards that state “THIS IS NOT INSURANCE.” While this is a confusing document, and it would have been helpful to have testimony explaining the letter and its referenced program, it does not by its terms negate the insurance documents that were submitted as Exhibit B. 8