Opinion ID: 2196355
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Contempt Judgment

Text: I also disagree with the majority's determination that the Family Court did not err when it found the husband in contempt of the court's restraining order barring him from proceeding with the Dominican Republic divorce petition. First, as previously discussed, the restraining order itself was invalid because it should not have entered at all based upon a hearing that occurred before the court properly acquired jurisdiction over this dispute. Thus, the husband never should have been adjudged in contempt of an unlawful decree. See Durfee v. Ocean State Steel, Inc., 636 A.2d 698, 704 (R.I. 1994) (stating that `[c]ivil contempt    is established when it is proved by clear and convincing evidence that a lawful decree was violated') (emphasis added). Second, in a contempt proceeding, the burden of proof is on the complainant to prove contempt, not on the alleged contemnor to prove he or she has not violated a court order. See Williams v. Williams, 429 A.2d 450, 454 (R.I.1981) (holding that a complainant who seeks to invoke the court's contempt power must make a prima facie showing of contempt by introducing proof   ). And the burden of proof is a heavy one: that is, `clear and convincing evidence that a lawful decree was violated.' Durfee, 636 A.2d at 704. In this case, the Family Court found that the husband was in contempt of its restraining order barring him from pursuing the Dominican Republic divorce because, even though he obtained that divorce decree before it entered the restraining order, the husband let the Dominican Republic decree become final without taking any affirmative steps to prevent this event from occurring. According to the majority, the record is silent and his appellate counsel was unable to assure us that no one acting on Paul's behalf took any steps to secure the entry of the final decree. The law of contempt is clear, however, that the burden was not on the husband but on the moving party (the wife) to show by clear and convincing evidence that the husband had acted to obtain the Dominican Republic divorce after theissuance of the restraining order. Id. A mere absence of proof on the husband's part that no one acting on his behalf took any affirmative steps to enter the final decree was insufficient to find him in contempt, nor should he have been held in contempt merely by doing nothing and allowing the decree to become final. His conduct may well have been contemptible, but it was not contemptuous of the Family Court's specific restraining order.