Goldstein v. Goldstein
| Decision Date | 28 January 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 1395-A,1395-A |
| Citation | 286 A.2d 589,109 R.I. 428 |
| Parties | Claire GOLDSTEIN v. Edward GOLDSTEIN. ppeal. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
This is an appeal from an order of the Family Court which adjudged Edward Goldstein, the respondent, in contempt for violating the terms of an interlocutory divorce decree of that court.
On August 4, 1970, the Family Court entered an interlocutory divorce decree in which respondent was awarded custody of his daughter who is a minor. This award was without prejudicie to petitioner if she sought modification of the decree as it regarded the custody of the child. The decree stated that
Soon thereafter, respondent, without notifying the court or petitioner, removed the child from the jurisdiction of the Family Court by traveling to Israel where he and his daughter were living at the time of this appeal.
No November 24, 1970, petitioner filed a motion to adjudge respondent in contempt. The motion stated that petitioner was being denied the reasonable visitation rights granted her under the interlocutory decree. In its order adjudging respondent in deliberate contempt of the decree of August 4, 1970, the Family Court stated that respondent could purge himself of contempt by immediately returning the minor child of the parties to the State of Rhode Island and to the jurisdiction of the court; and that until respondent purged himself of contempt, he was enjoined and restrained from presenting any final decree of divorce for entry in that court.
The principal issue before us is whether respondent was properly adjudged in contempt of court after he removed the child from the State of Rhode Island.
The respondent contends that removal of the child to Israel does not constitute contempt of the order of the court with reference to the visitation rights of petitioner since the purpose of removal was to obtain employment in Israel and to avoid harassment by petitioner; that the Family Court cannot require the return of a minor to its jurisdiction where no prior restraints were set forth in the court's interlocutory decree; and that the court has no jurisdiction to enjoin entry of the final decree.
We do not agree with these...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McCullough v. Hudspeth
...be necessary or proper to carry into full effect all the powers and jurisdiction conferred upon it by law." Goldstein v. Goldstein, 109 R.I. 428, 430, 286 A.2d 589, 591 (1972). So, too, does the father fail to take into account that the practice has long prevailed in this state of requiring......
-
Britt v. Britt
...Sections 8-6-1, 8-10-38. Only in very limited circumstances may a contempt order be enforced by an injunction. See Goldstein v. Goldstein, 109 R.I. 428, 286 A.2d 589 (1972). In any case, the contempt power does not comprehend the power to deprive one of his property and convey it to another......
-
Brown v. Brown
...and to prevent the child support issue from being sidetracked by respondent's actions in another jurisdiction. Cf. Goldstein v. Goldstein, 109 R.I. 428, 286 A.2d 589 (1972) (no abuse of discretion in enjoining entry of final divorce decree to insure compliance with an interlocutory divorce ......
-
Lembo v. Lembo
...be necessary or proper to carry into full effect all the powers and jurisdiction conferred upon it by law." Goldstein v. Goldstein, 109 R.I. 428, 430, 286 A.2d 589, 591 (1972) (discussing the Family Court's power to hold an individual in contempt). In the instant case the Family Court, mind......