NICOLE R. CURRY, APPELLANT,
v.
ANTHONY ROBBINS, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The appellate court reversed a contempt finding and custody modification against a former wife, holding that she could not be held in contempt for her mother's actions in violating a visitation order when she neither engaged in nor directed the behavior and was not present when it occurred.
The court held that the former wife cannot be held in contempt because she did not engage in the behavior that violated the visitation order and there is no record evidence of the intent necessary to support a contempt finding. Furthermore, absent a valid contempt finding, there is no statutory basis under section 61.13(4)(c) for a custody modification when the custodial parent did not refuse to honor visitation rights.
[1] A contempt order requires a finding of intent to violate a court order.
[2] A person cannot be held in contempt for the actions of another person unless the person directed or urged the objectionable behavior.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“For a person to be held in contempt of a court order, ... the behavior of the person must clearly violate the order.”
Establishes the requirement that the person's own conduct must violate the order for contempt to be appropriate.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe former wife was a custodial parent subject to a visitation order in favor of the noncustodial father. An incident involving violation of the visit…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Modification Of Custody cases and more on FLexlaw
SHEVIN, J.
We reverse the order under review as it is premised on an erroneous finding that the former wife was guilty of contempt for violating the visitation order. As stated by the trial court in the contempt order itself, the former wife did nothing. It was the former wife’s mother who engaged in the objectionable behavior — at no urging or direction from the former wife. The former wife was at work when the incident occurred. As a result, the former wife, impermissibly, is being held in contempt in the absence of any record evidence that she had the intent necessary to support the contempt order. See Wells v. State, 654 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)(intent essential element of contempt). “For a person to be held in contempt of a court order, ... the behavior of the person must clearly violate the order.” Paul v. Johnson, 604 So. 2d 883, 884 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)(emphasis added). In this case, the record demonstrates that the former wife was held in contempt for behavior in which she did not engage.
Section 61.13(4)(c), Florida Statutes (1997), provides alternative sanctions that a court may adopt when “a custodial parent refuses to honor a noncustodial parent’s” visitation rights. (Emphasis added). As stated above, there is no evidence that the former wife, the custodial parent, refused to honor the father’s visitation. Even absent a contempt finding, there is no basis under the statute for a change in custody. See Cummings v. Cummings, 723 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). That being the case, the trial court abused its discretion in changing custody, under section 61.13(4)(c)(5), for alleged noncompliance by the former wife.
Accordingly, we reverse the order on appeal and remand the cause with instructions to reinstate the custody arrangement set forth in the final dissolution judgment.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Konduko T. Bufford v. State, 803 So. 2d 914 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…fense must be vacated where he was also convicted of robbery with a firearm arising from the same act. See Cleveland v. State, 587 So. 2d 1145, 1146 (Fla.1991). See also Buffington v. State, 776 So. 2d 960, 961 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Thompson v. State, 744 So. 2d 527 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Cooper v. State, 727 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). Accordingly, we reverse with directions that the appellant’s conviction for unlawful [*915] possession of a firearm while engaged in a criminal offense be vacated. Reversed wi…
-
Sheldon v. Sheldon, 757 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…o therapy as a group. The former wife cannot be found in contempt on that date for failure to follow that order. “For a person to be held in contempt of a court order, ... the behavior of the person must clearly violate the order.” Curry v. Robbins, 744 So. 2d 527, 528 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (quoting Paul v. Johnson, 604 So. 2d 883, 884 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)). The former wife’s behavior, as described in the motion for contempt does not violate any court order entered before that motion. Based on the foregoing we r…
Authorities Cited
- Paul v. Johnson, 604 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)
- Wells v. State, 654 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Cummings v. Cummings, 723 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)