## Facts

- Following a divorce, the mother had physical custody of the parties’ minor child in Michigan; the father lived out of state.
- Parenting-time disputes generated extensive post-judgment litigation.
- The trial court appointed a parenting-time coordinator, then a guardian ad litem, and held an evidentiary hearing.
- The court entered an order requiring (among other terms) two weeks of summer parenting time beginning June 30, 2007, weekly telephone contact, and mental-health therapy for the child.
- The summer parenting time and weekly calls did not occur; the father moved for an order to show cause.
- After a hearing, the trial court found the mother in contempt, ordered makeup parenting time, and imposed a $1,000 sanction; the mother did not pay and did not ensure the makeup visitation occurred.
- The father later sought additional contempt findings for continued noncompliance, including missed holiday parenting time.
- The trial court entered a second contempt order reiterating the $1,000 obligation, awarding $3,100 in attorney’s fees, ordering Christmas parenting time, and ordering the mother to participate in counseling.
- After further noncompliance, the trial court entered a third contempt-related order awarding an additional $4,100 in attorney’s fees and warning of possible jail if the mother still failed to comply.
- The mother pursued consolidated appeals challenging the contempt orders as criminal in nature and procedurally deficient.

## Issues

1. Whether the contempt sanctions were civil (coercive/compensatory) or criminal (punitive).
2. Whether the mother received the process required for the type of contempt imposed.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by using contempt, monetary sanctions, and attorney-fee awards to enforce parenting-time orders.

## Decision

- The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the challenged contempt orders.
- The contempt sanctions were primarily civil because they were directed at compelling future compliance with parenting-time requirements and compensating the father for costs caused by noncompliance.
- Civil-contempt procedures were sufficient, and the mother received notice and opportunities to be heard through show-cause motions, orders, and hearings.
- The attorney-fee and monetary awards were within the trial court’s discretion as remedial measures tied to enforcement efforts.

## Legal Principles

- Contempt is civil when the sanction is conditional and designed to coerce compliance and/or compensate the opposing party; contempt is criminal when it imposes a fixed, unconditional punishment for past disobedience.
- In civil contempt, due process generally requires notice of the alleged violation and an opportunity to be heard at a hearing; criminal-procedure safeguards are not required when the sanction is civil.
- Courts may enforce parenting-time orders through civil contempt and may award attorney’s fees and other monetary relief when reasonably connected to coercing compliance or compensating the aggrieved parent for enforcement expenses.
- A custodial parent can be held in contempt for failing to make reasonable, good-faith efforts to comply with ordered parenting time.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the trial court’s use of contempt to enforce parenting time, concluding the sanctions and fee awards were civil and remedial, supported by adequate notice and hearings, and within the trial court’s discretion.


Porter v. Porter, 776 N.W.2d 377 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009)