Hawkins v. Mullins, No. 3818.
| Court | Court of Appeals of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM |
| Citation | 359 S.C. 497,597 S.E.2d 897 |
| Parties | Julie C. HAWKINS, Respondent, v. William Mark MULLINS, Appellant. |
| Docket Number | No. 3818. |
| Decision Date | 07 June 2004 |
359 S.C. 497
597 S.E.2d 897
v.
William Mark MULLINS, Appellant
No. 3818.
Court of Appeals of South Carolina.
Heard March 10, 2004.
Decided June 7, 2004.
Gary Hudson Smith, III, of Aiken; for Respondent.
William Mark Mullins appeals the decision of the family court, asserting the trial judge erred in failing to find Julie C. Hawkins in contempt of court for various violations of previous court orders relating to visitation with the parties' minor child. We reverse and remand for the consideration of sanctions, if appropriate.
FACTS
In 1998, Mullins, a resident of Virginia, brought an action against Hawkins, then a resident of North Carolina, seeking visitation with the parties' minor child. In May 1999, the North Carolina District Court issued an order awarding Mullins visitation.
In August 1999, the North Carolina District Court held Hawkins in contempt for leaving the state of North Carolina and withholding the minor child's address from Mullins in violation of the court's order. The court also ordered that Hawkins' brother-in-law, Jim Jackson, not be present for pick-up or drop-off of the minor child or in any way interfere with Mullins' visitation with the minor child. In March 2000, the North Carolina District Court transferred the case to South Carolina.
In December 2000, the family court in Aiken County convened a hearing pursuant to Mullins' Order and Rule to Show Cause, which again alleged Hawkins' noncompliance with court-ordered visitation. Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a final agreement, which granted Mullins monthly visitation, Christmas visitation, and extensive summer visitation.
In April 2001, alleging the prior visitation agreement was not in the best interest of the child, Hawkins sought and received an ex parte order suspending visitation between Mullins and the parties' child. After a May 8, 2001 hearing, the court issued an order lifting the ex parte order, changing the location of the visitation exchange, granting make-up visitation to Mullins, and reinstating summer visitation.
In January 2002, Hawkins contacted Mullins, requesting that his monthly visitation be rescheduled because of their
In July 2002, Mullins filed an Order and Rule To Show Cause seeking to have Hawkins found in contempt of court for denial of summer 2002 visitation, for denial of weekend visitation for January 2002, for allowing a prohibited third party to be present during a visitation exchange in July 2001, and to show cause as to why a restraining order should not be issued restraining and enjoining Hawkins or any of her agents from telephone harassment during summer visitation.
The court declined to hold Hawkins in contempt for refusing to participate in summer visitation in 2002. The court also detailed the frequency with which the parties' child could be called while in the possession of the other party, which included a provision limiting phone calls from the child's maternal grandparents.
ISSUES
1. Did the trial court err in failing to find Hawkins in contempt because of Hawkins' willful failure to produce minor child for visitation in January 2002 and July 2002?
2. Did the trial court err in failing to award attorney's fees and costs stemming from Hawkins' contempt?
STANDARD OF REVIEW
On appeal from the family court, this Court has jurisdiction to find facts in accordance with our own view of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. Davis, No. 4188.
...must show the existence of a court order and the facts establishing the respondent's noncompliance with the order." Hawkins v. Mullins, 359 S.C. 497, 501, 597 S.E.2d 897, 899 (Ct.App.2004). "[B]efore a court may find a person in contempt, the record must clearly and specifically reflect the......
-
Floyd v. Floyd, No. 3997.
...demonstrate the acts or conduct upon which such finding is based. Curlee at 382, 287 S.E.2d at 918; accord Hawkins v. Mullins, 359 S.C. 497, 501, 597 S.E.2d 897, 899 (Ct.App.2004); Cheap-O's Truck Stop, Inc. v. Cloyd, 350 S.C. 596, 606, 567 S.E.2d 514, Page 475 (Ct.App.2002). Civil contempt......
-
Jones v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 3964.
...not explicitly rule on an argument and the appellant does not make a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment. Hawkins v. Mullins, 359 S.C. 497, 597 S.E.2d 897 (Ct. App.2004). Jones did not present an estoppel argument to the trial judge; therefore, this issue is not Second, as to t......
-
Miller v. Miller, No. 4299.
...must show the existence of a court order and the facts establishing the respondent's noncompliance with the order." Hawkins v. Mullins, 359 S.C. 497, 501, 597 S.E.2d 897, 899 (Ct.App. 2004); Eaddy v. Oliver, 345 S.C. 39, 42, 545 S.E.2d 830, 832 (Ct.App.2001). "[B]efore a court may find a pe......
-
Davis v. Davis, No. 4188.
...must show the existence of a court order and the facts establishing the respondent's noncompliance with the order." Hawkins v. Mullins, 359 S.C. 497, 501, 597 S.E.2d 897, 899 (Ct.App.2004). "[B]efore a court may find a person in contempt, the record must clearly and specifically reflect the......
-
Floyd v. Floyd, No. 3997.
...demonstrate the acts or conduct upon which such finding is based. Curlee at 382, 287 S.E.2d at 918; accord Hawkins v. Mullins, 359 S.C. 497, 501, 597 S.E.2d 897, 899 (Ct.App.2004); Cheap-O's Truck Stop, Inc. v. Cloyd, 350 S.C. 596, 606, 567 S.E.2d 514, Page 475 (Ct.App.2002). Civil contempt......
-
Jones v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 3964.
...not explicitly rule on an argument and the appellant does not make a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment. Hawkins v. Mullins, 359 S.C. 497, 597 S.E.2d 897 (Ct. App.2004). Jones did not present an estoppel argument to the trial judge; therefore, this issue is not Second, as to t......
-
Miller v. Miller, No. 4299.
...must show the existence of a court order and the facts establishing the respondent's noncompliance with the order." Hawkins v. Mullins, 359 S.C. 497, 501, 597 S.E.2d 897, 899 (Ct.App. 2004); Eaddy v. Oliver, 345 S.C. 39, 42, 545 S.E.2d 830, 832 (Ct.App.2001). "[B]efore a court may find a pe......