Preview:

No. 105,505 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS IN THE INTEREST OF J.T.R., DATE OF BIRTH: XX/XX/2000 and J. M. R., DATE OF BIRTH: XX/XX/2002. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. An appeal will not be dismissed for mootness unless it is clearly and convincingly shown the actual controversy has ended, the only judgment that could be entered would be ineffectual for any purpose, and it would not impact any of the parties' rights.

2. Courts exercise contempt powers in order to maintain decorum in all court proceedings, punish those who show disrespect for the court or its orders, and enforce its judgments. Courts punish those acts, or failures to act, which obstruct the administration of justice.

3. If the district court imposes sanctions for contempt of court, the procedure under K.S.A. 20-1201 et seq. regulates that power. No inherent power to punish for contempt exists independent of K.S.A. 20-1201 et seq.

4. K.S.A. 20-1202 sets out two major classes of contempt: direct and indirect contempt. Direct contempt is committed during the sitting of the court or before a judge at chambers. All other instances of contempt are indirect. 1

5. There are two additional categories of contempt, denominated as civil and criminal contempt. They are distinguished by the intent of the penalty imposed and not necessarily the nature of the underlying legal or equitable action that the court is dealing with.

6. Civil contempt proceedings are remedial in nature and designed to advance the private right of a litigant won by court order. Any civil contempt penalty is intended to be coercive, and relief can be achieved only by compliance with the order. Any sentence imposed for a civil contempt violation must permit the contemnor to unlock the door of the jail and discharge himself or herself by doing what he or she has previously failed to do.

7. Criminal contempt is conduct directed against the dignity and authority of a court or a judge acting judicially, with punitive judgment to be imposed in vindication; its essence is that the conduct obstructs or tends to obstruct the administration of justice.

8. The procedure a court must follow for either criminal or civil indirect contempt of court is the same and found in K.S.A. 20-1204a.

Appeal from Sedgwick District Court; JAMES L. BURGESS, judge. Opinion filed February 24, 2012. Sentence vacated.

Roger Batt, of Haysville, for appellant natural mother.

Lesley A. Isherwood, assistant district attorney, Nola Tedesco Foulston, district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, for appellee.

2

Before GREENE, C.J., HILL, J., and MICHAEL E. WARD, District Judge, assigned.

HILL, J.: In this appeal we focus on how a court can use its contempt powers to enforce its orders. The mother of two minors failed to obey a no-contact court order by visiting her children who were the subjects of child in need of care petitions. As a result, the State accused her of indirect civil contempt of court. Civil contempt proceedings are remedial in nature, seeking the party's compliance with the court's orders. Here, the district court found her to be in contempt of court and simply sentenced her to serve 5 days in jail as punishment for violating the court's order. Because the court gave the contemnor no way to purge herself of contempt, we hold that sentence to be wholly punitive. The court failed to give the contemnor "the keys to the jail." The court had no authority to impose a criminal contempt sentence in a civil contempt proceeding. Therefore, we vacate the penalty.

If we view this action as an indirect criminal contempt of court proceeding, we must reverse the contempt finding because the contemnor was forced to testify against herself in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 10 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights.

The case history reveals a violation of the court's order. In two child in need of care cases, the district court found each child in need of care and ordered them to remain in the custody of the Secretary of Social and Rehabilitation Services. The court ordered V.R., their mother, not to contact either child. This included such contact as written, verbal, face-to-face, email, or contact through a third party. Any visits V.R. intended to have with the children had to be supervised. Later, the court amended the order, telling V.R. to not go to the father's house, his place of employment, the children's school, or the children's resource home.

3

Following that, the State filed an affidavit and accusation in contempt against V.R., alleging that she had twice violated the order by having unsupervised contact with her children--first at Youthville and then later at their school. The State asked the court to find V.R. guilty of indirect civil contempt and to order that she "be punished by detention in the Sedgwick County Adult Detention Facility." In turn, the court ordered V.R. to appear and show cause why she should not be punished for contempt.

V.R. was the only witness at the contempt hearing. At one point V.R.'s counsel objected upon the ground that she should not be required to testify against herself in violation of her Fifth Amendment privilege. The court overruled the objection and held this was a civil proceeding, and in such an inquiry, V.R. had no right against selfincrimination. After considering V.R.'s testimony, the district court ruled V.R. had, in both instances, violated its orders and found her in indirect civil contempt. The court ordered V.R. to serve 5 days in the county jail, noting:
"I don't know how much this is going to help. It may not--it probably won't help much at all. But we've had too many discussions during the course of this case saying you've got to stop doing these things and if you don't stop doing them something's going to happen. Well that's today."

The judge warned V.R. that he would start doubling the length of the jail term for each subsequent violation in which she was found in contempt. V.R. appeals.

This appeal is not moot. The State argues this appeal is moot because the court has terminated V.R.'s parental rights to both children. We do not agree for several reasons.

First, we were told at oral argument that the termination order is the subject of a different appeal and therefore is not final. Further, the status of the children is not material to the issues we must address. We are dealing with a contempt action. 4

True, the disobedience of the court's order arose from child in need of care cases but we are not determining the merits of the child in need of care decisions; we look only at the separate action of the contempt proceeding.

As a general rule, an appellate court does not decide moot questions. "An appeal will not be dismissed for mootness, unless it is clearly and convincingly shown the actual controversy has ended, the only judgment that could be entered would be ineffectual for any purpose, and it would not impact any of the parties' rights." McAlister v. City of Fairway, 289 Kan. 391, 400, 212 P.3d 184 (2009).

We are not convinced that this case is moot. V.R. has been sentenced to serve 5 days in jail. That order has not been modified or withdrawn in any way and can be enforced once we return jurisdiction of this case to the district court. Further, the court ordered that any future unsupervised contact with her children would lead to doubling or even redoubling the length of her incarceration. It is conceivable that V.R. may try to visit with her children even though her parental rights have been terminated. V.R.'s rights are still being affected by this court order.

We will proceed with the appeal.

We review some fundamental points of the law of contempt. Courts exercise contempt powers in order to maintain decorum in all court proceedings, punish those who show disrespect for the court or its orders, and enforce its judgments. Also, courts punish those acts, or failures to act, which obstruct the administration of justice. It has been said that the power of the courts to punish for contempt is one of the powers inherently belonging to the judiciary. It is necessary to the due exercise of the court function. See generally, 17 Am. Jur. 2d, Contempt

Download In re J.T.R..pdf

Kansas Law