Opinion ID: 1844465
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Period of Incarceration and Disposition.

Text: After establishing that Ahmed is in contempt, we must consider whether it is appropriate for Ahmed to be incarcerated. As discussed earlier, Ahmed's sentence is designed to coerce him into effecting the return of Mujahid. Ahmed will be released once he has purged himself of contempt. This was not an unconditional sentence for a definite period of time. When incarceration is used to coerce, we do not look to the statutory limits of Iowa Code sections 598.23 or 665.4. Instead, we consider whether the contemner carries the keys of their prison in their own pockets. Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364, 368, 86 S.Ct. 1531, 1534, 16 L.Ed.2d 622, 626 (1966); see also McNabb v. Osmundson, 315 N.W.2d 9, 15 (1982). If Ahmed is without any opportunity to take reasonable actions to obtain his release, then his incarceration until he has complied, is inappropriate. When the incarceration is used to coerce, the contemner has the burden of showing the inability to comply with the court order. See Lamb v. Eads, 346 N.W.2d 830, 832 (Iowa 1984) (The contemner then has the burden of showing he could not perform the duty, if he relies on that ground.); see also Wilson v. Fenton, 312 N.W.2d 524, 527 (Iowa 1981) (the alleged contemnor has the burden of proof on a defense of inability to comply); Foust v. Denato, 175 N.W.2d 403, 405 (Iowa 1970) (when the evidence clearly shows the order of court has been disobeyed, a party who seeks to purge himself of contempt by showing his inability to comply with the order of court has the burden to prove it). The evidence reflects several courses of action that Ahmed has not fully attempted, such as obtaining a duplicate passport and attempting to work with the Jordanian government. At this point, Ahmed has not made every reasonable effort at his disposal to return Mujahid. We recognize the possibility that Ahmed may eventually exhaust his courses of action and remain unsuccessful in returning Mujahid to the United States. At this time, however, we are not faced with that question. That question will not arise until Ahmed has exhausted all reasonable courses of action in his effort to return Mujahid to his mother. We are satisfied that there are reasonable courses of action available to Ahmed to comply with the court's order. The district court did not exceed its proper jurisdiction or otherwise act illegally. WRIT ANNULLED.