Opinion ID: 2602265
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: was there sufficient evidence to warrant a finding of contempt of court?

Text: ¶ 17 The trial court found Clary guilty of contempt of court for not paying certain sums of child care and medical expenses. On appeal, Clary questions the documentation and legitimacy of child care and medical expenses attributed to him by the trial court. In addition, Clary argues that his failure to perform his financial obligations was not willful, and therefore his failure to pay on his obligations can not be punished by the court. See Webber v. Webber, 1936 OK 720, ¶ 8, 62 P.2d 490, 491. ¶ 18 As this Court has previously held, The trial court was the trier of the facts. The credibility of the witnesses and the effect and weight to be given to conflicting or inconsistent testimony are questions of fact to be determined by the trier of facts, whether court or jury, and are not questions of law for this Court on appeal. Clark v. Addison, 311 P.2d 256 at 263 (Okla.1957). The standard of review is clear; in a contempt proceeding, questions of fact will not be reviewed. Seifried v. State, 1939 OK 28, ¶ 20, 86 P.2d 1008, 1011. An examination of the record reveals that the trial court acted within its discretion in holding that Clary owed child support and medical expenses, as well as in finding Clary guilty of contempt of court. ¶ 19 Further, that Clary acted willfully in failing to perform his financial obligations on behalf of his minor son is supported by the record. Clary knew of the financial obligations owed to his son. His failure to fulfill those obligations, which proposition is supported by evidence introduced at trial, is properly actionable.