Court Opinion

ID: 9524315
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:51:45.300464+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:09:31.525661
License: Public Domain

KIRSCH, Judge,
dissenting.
I interpret the trial court proceedings in this case very differently than my colleagues, and, accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
It is undisputed that this case involves an eight-year boy who has no relationship with his Father because of ongoing disputes over parenting time and support. It is also undisputed that Father filed a request with the trial court to enforce parenting time with his son. It is undisputed that the trial court ordered Mother to appear for a hearing on Father’s request on January 31, 2007. Finally, it is undisputed that Mother received the order to appear before the trial court on that date because she sent a letter to the court requesting a continuance.
At the hearing on January 31, 2007, Mother was held in contempt not only for her failure to make the parties’ son available for visitation, but also for her failure to appear at the hearing. The majority correctly notes that a litigant’s failure to appear at a hearing has been deemed to be an indirect contempt. Op., n. 5. While the trial court also found Mother in contempt for her failure to comply with the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines, it stayed such finding and ordered Mother to show cause why the order should not be carried out at a hearing to be held on February 7, 2007. In so doing, I believe the trial court fully complied with Indiana Code Section 34-47-3-5.