Shellhouse v. Bentley
Decision Date | 14 February 1997 |
Citation | 690 So.2d 401 |
Parties | Donald SHELLHOUSE v. Wanda BENTLEY. 2950790. |
Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Martha E. Williams, Cullman, for Appellant.
No brief filed for Appellee.
This is the second time this case has been before this court. See State ex rel. Shellhouse v. Bentley, 666 So.2d 517 (Ala.Civ.App.1995). The trial court divorced the parties on December 18, 1992, awarding custody of the parties' daughter to the father, with liberal visitation to the mother. In August 1994, the father petitioned for increased child support; the mother answered and counterclaimed, asking the court to hold the father in contempt for his failure to allow the mother visitation. In December 1994, the court ordered that "the child will not, under any circumstances, visit with the [mother]" and that "[the mother] is relieved of her child support obligations." The father appealed: this court reversed the judgment, holding that "parental support is a fundamental right" and that, therefore, "the waiver of rights of visitation in exchange for release from the duty of child support is a legal impossibility." Id. at 518.
On remand, the trial court, on October 23, 1995, ordered the mother to maintain medical and dental insurance on the child and to pay child support, in accordance with the child support guidelines. Further, the court ordered the parties to follow the visitation schedule as set out in the original divorce judgment. In December 1995, the mother asked the court to find the father in contempt, alleging that the father was "not allowing" the child to visit her. The father answered that he or the paternal grandmother had "delivered the minor child to the designated meeting place ... on each Friday of said visitation" and that
After a hearing, the court, on March 12, 1996, entered an order stating:
The next day, the court entered an order stating:
The father appeals, contending that the court erred in finding him in criminal contempt and in sentencing him to 36 days of hard labor.
Absent an abuse of discretion, or unless the judgment of the trial court is unsupported by the evidence so as to be plainly and palpably wrong, the determination of whether a party is in contempt of court is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Stack v. Stack, 646 So.2d 51 (Ala.Civ.App.1994). A party may be punished for criminal contempt of court only upon an adjudication based upon proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Ex parte J.R.W., 667 So.2d 88 (Ala.1995).
Contempt is divided into four classes: (1) direct, (2) indirect, or constructive, (3) criminal, and (4) civil. All civil and criminal contempt proceedings arising out of civil actions are now governed by Rule 70A, Ala. R. Civ. P., which defines "direct contempt" as "disorderly or insolent behavior or other misconduct committed in open court, in the presence of the judge, which disturbs the court's business," and which defines "criminal contempt" as:
Rule 70A(a)(2)(A) and (a)(2)(C)(i)-(ii); see also, Lyman v. Jackson, 600 So.2d 334 (Ala.Civ.App.1992). If the circuit court properly finds a person in criminal contempt, the punishment is limited to a $100 fine and/or 5 days' confinement. §§ 12-1-10 and 12-11-30, Ala.Code 1975; Taylor v. Taylor, 560 So.2d 768 (Ala.Civ.App.1990).
The mother and daughter have visited only one weekend since 1992; the daughter, now age 15, testified that she does not speak to the mother by telephone; that her mother ignored her during the one weekend visit they had had; that during the time her parents were married she had had a bad relationship with the mother; and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Goldman v. Goldman
...within the sound discretion of the trial court.’ Shonkwiler v. Kriska, 780 So.2d 703, 706 (Ala.Civ.App.2000) (citing Shellhouse v. Bentley, 690 So.2d 401 (Ala.Civ.App.1997) ). In order to find [a former spouse] guilty of contempt under either Rule 70A(a)(2)(C)(ii) (criminal contempt) or Rul......
-
Young v. Corrigan, 2160325
...the sound discretion of the trial court.’ Shonkwiler v. Kriska, 780 So.2d 703, 706 (Ala. Civ. App. 2000) (citing Shellhouse v. Bentley, 690 So.2d 401 (Ala. Civ. App. 1997) )." Carnes v. Carnes, 82 So.3d 704, 715 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011).Although there are several cases in which this court has ......
-
Marler v. Lambrianakos
...was no evidence to indicate that the father ha[d] willfully or intentionally interfered with the visitation schedule." Shellhouse v. Bentley, 690 So.2d at 403. In case, however, the parties agree that the child is generally a well-behaved, cheerful, and obedient child. The trial court deter......
-
Marler v. Lambrianakos
... ... "it was improper to hold the mother in contempt for [the ... child's] behavior." The mother cites Shellhouse ... v. Bentley , 690 So.2d 401, 402 (Ala. Civ. App. 1997), in ... which this court reversed a judgment finding a father in ... ...