Court Opinion

ID: 9852386
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:29:35.400727+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:27.051083
License: Public Domain

R. B. Burns, J.
(concurring in result). I concur in the result reached by my colleagues but in my opinion it is not necessary to decide or discuss any constitutional issue.
Defendant was found guilty of contempt of court, by the trial judge, and sentenced to one year in the county jail. MCLA 552.201; MSA 25.161. Defendant appeals and we reverse the trial court.
The defendant was brought before the court because of his failure to pay for the support of his minor children. He read from a memo prepared by the Department of Social Services that he was presently receiving ADC for unemployed fathers and was enrolled in a work program, but was unable to find work. He was interrupted by the judge and informed that was not the issue but that "the issue is arrearage and physical ability to comply”, which by definition "means such things as being in reasonably good health, not being hospitalized, not being required by doctor’s directive or order to be unemployed because of physical hazard or physical danger to health”.
The contempt proceeding, for failure to obey a support order, is governed by MCLA 552.201; MSA 25.161, which reads as follows:
"Whenever the court shall be satisfied that the party is of sufficient ability to comply with said order, or by the exercise of diligence could be of sufficient ability, and has neglected or refused to do so, said court may forthwith punish such person for contempt of said court *744by making an order placing such person on probation or may commit him to the county jail * * * for such period as said party shall contrive to be in contempt, not to exceed 1 year, however.”
Before the court may punish a person for contempt for non-support, the trial judge must find that the party is or could be of "sufficient ability” to comply with the order. In the present case the trial judge inquired only to discover whether the defendant had the physical ability to comply with the order. He excluded from consideration other factors which might have affected defendant’s ability to comply with the order.
The statute contemplates the consideration of all relevant factors in determining the defendant’s ability to comply with the order, not just his physical capabilities.
In addition, the trial court exceeded its authority when it sentenced the defendant to an unconditional term of one year in jail. The statute provides for imprisonment while the defendant continues to be in contempt of court, not to exceed one year. In the present case the court did not allow the defendant any opportunity to purge himself.
Reversed and remanded for action consistent with this opinion.