## Facts

- Edith Anyanwu and Longy Anyanwu, Nigerian citizens living in the United States for over twenty years, married in 1984 and had two daughters born in the United States.
- After serious marital conflict, plaintiff obtained and later dismissed a domestic-violence restraining order; defendant filed for divorce in Nigeria in 1996.
- In 1997 the family traveled to Nigeria; plaintiff alleged defendant ended the marriage, took her passport, and prevented her from accessing the children.
- Plaintiff returned alone to the United States; defendant later returned without the children, who remained in Nigeria with defendant’s family.
- Plaintiff obtained a New Jersey temporary restraining order requiring defendant to return the children; defendant appeared in court without them and asserted his father would not return them.
- The Family Part jailed defendant for civil contempt on August 14, 1997 for failing to comply; the contempt obligation was later clarified to require “best efforts” to secure the children’s return rather than guaranteed physical return.
- During the period of confinement, one child died in Nigeria in November 1997, reportedly from malnutrition; the surviving child remained in Nigeria.
- In February 2001, the Family Part released defendant from custody, relying largely on the length of confinement and written materials suggesting Nigerian authorities and family members would not permit the child’s return.

## Issues

1. Whether the Family Part applied the correct legal standard in deciding that continued civil contempt confinement had ceased to be coercive and had become punitive.
2. Whether the record supporting release from civil confinement was competent and sufficient, including whether a plenary evidentiary hearing was required.
3. Whether defendant, as the contemnor, met his burden to show he could not comply with the “best efforts” requirements and that further incarceration had no realistic coercive effect.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division reversed the February 9, 2001 order releasing defendant from civil contempt confinement.
- The court remanded for a plenary hearing to develop a competent evidentiary record and to apply the proper coercive-versus-punitive analysis.
- The court held the Family Part misapplied the standard for discharge from civil confinement and relied on an inadequate record lacking live testimony and competent proofs.
- The court indicated the Family Part should consider appointing a guardian ad litem to represent the surviving child’s interests in the remand proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Civil contempt confinement is permissible when it is remedial and coercive; it becomes impermissibly punitive when it no longer presents a realistic prospect of coercing compliance.
- The contemnor seeking release bears the burden to prove that confinement has lost its coercive effect and effectively functions as punishment.
- The length of confinement alone does not establish that incarceration has become punitive, and a contemnor’s assertion of inability to comply does not by itself warrant discharge.
- When compliance is framed as “best efforts,” the coercive-effect inquiry centers on whether the contemnor has actually undertaken all reasonable, good-faith, documentable steps required by prior orders.
- Determinations about continued coercive confinement must be case-specific and grounded in competent evidence; complex international custody circumstances heighten, rather than eliminate, the need for structured fact-finding.

## Conclusion

The Appellate Division required a full evidentiary hearing before a contemnor may be released from long-running civil contempt confinement, holding that the contemnor must prove with competent evidence that further incarceration cannot realistically coerce compliance with court-ordered “best efforts” to secure a child’s return.


Anyanwu v. Anyanwu, 339 N.J. Super. 278, 771 A.2d 672 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2001)