## Facts

- Following a divorce, the mother was awarded custody of the parties’ daughter (born 1982), and the father received liberal visitation under a 1984 order.
- The mother alleged the father sexually abused the child during visitation and repeatedly sought to restrict or suspend visitation; the father sought enforcement and later sought a change of custody.
- After extensive evidentiary hearings in 1985–1986, the trial court found the mother failed to prove abuse by a preponderance of the evidence and found she had disobeyed visitation orders without lawful justification.
- In 1986, the mother was found in contempt and an incarceration order issued; enforcement was stayed on appeal on conditions that included posting a $200,000 security.
- While custody and visitation motions remained pending, the trial court expanded the father’s visitation to include overnights and weekends.
- In August 1987, the trial court ordered a two-week summer visitation for the father; appellate relief from that order was denied.
- The mother refused to comply, concealed the child’s whereabouts, and declined to disclose the child’s location.
- The trial court again held the mother in civil contempt and ordered incarceration, and it also ordered forfeiture of the previously posted $200,000 security.
- The appeal challenged (1) the two-week visitation order, (2) the civil contempt/incarceration order, and (3) the bond forfeiture order.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by ordering a two-week summer visitation in light of the mother’s abuse allegations and the litigation history.
2. Whether the mother could avoid civil contempt by asserting a necessity justification for violating the visitation order.
3. Whether the trial court had authority to forfeit the $200,000 security posted as a condition of an appellate stay in earlier contempt proceedings.

## Decision

- The visitation order was affirmed; the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the two-week summer visitation.
- The civil contempt and incarceration order were affirmed; the mother’s necessity justification did not excuse her deliberate noncompliance.
- The bond forfeiture order was reversed; the security was posted for a limited purpose tied to an earlier stay, and the record did not establish a lawful basis to forfeit it for later disobedience.

## Legal Principles

- Visitation determinations are reviewed deferentially; absent a clear abuse of discretion, appellate courts uphold trial-court visitation orders supported by prior evidentiary findings and credibility assessments.
- A necessity justification does not excuse civil contempt where the contemnor had reasonable lawful alternatives to disobedience and the asserted danger has been addressed and rejected in prior judicial findings.
- Security posted to obtain a stay is governed by the stay’s purpose and conditions; a trial court may not forfeit such security as a general coercive or punitive device for later conduct without a valid basis tied to the bond’s terms and the record.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the trial court’s expanded visitation and contempt sanctions because the mother’s self-help defiance lacked legal justification, but it limited remedial authority by reversing forfeiture of the stay security where the bond’s purpose and forfeiture conditions were not satisfied.


Morgan v. Foretich, 546 A.2d 407 (D.C. 1988)