Do judges in family court actions have the ability to jail parents who have not complied with parts of the custody order for contempt? Yes.
What are the limitations on the court’s contempt powers, and who decides if the parent had the ability to comply?
Yes, judges in Utah family court proceedings (domestic relations, divorce, child custody, etc.) who have issued child custody orders can—and do—jail parents who have not complied with those orders for contempt of court.
What is contempt of court? “Conduct that defies the authority or dignity of a court. Because such conduct interferes with the administration of justice, it is punishable, usually by fine or imprisonment.” (Black’s Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024))
Who decides if the parent had the ability to comply with the court’s orders? It is the burden of the party seeking to have the opposing party held in, and sanctioned for, contempt of court, but it is the judge who decides whether the accused party had the ability to comply with the order.
What must be proven to obtain a finding of contempt of court? To “prove contempt for failure to comply with a court order it must be shown that the person cited for contempt knew what was required, had the ability to comply, and intentionally failed or refused to do so.” (Utah Code § 78B-6-301(5); (Clarke v. Clarke, 2012 UT App 328, ¶ 24)
What is the purpose of contempt sanctions? Contrary to what many falsely believe, the primary purpose of civil contempt sanctions (there are two kinds of contempt: civil and criminal) is to motivate the contemnor (that’s the term for the person in contempt) to comply with the court’s orders in the future. The primary purpose of contempt sanctions is generally not to punish the contemnor.
The nature of a contempt “turns on the character and purpose of the sanction” issued in response to the contemptuous conduct. New York State Nat’l Org. for Women v. Terry, 159 F.3d 86, 93 (2d Cir.1998). Criminal sanctions “are intended primarily to punish the contemnor and vindicate the authority of the court.” Id. Civil sanctions have two purposes: to coerce compliance with a court order and to compensate a plaintiff. Local 28 of Sheet Metal Workers’ Int’l Ass’n v. E.E.O.C., 478 U.S. 421, 443, 106 S.Ct. 3019, 92 L.Ed.2d 344 (1986). A sanction coerces a defendant when it “force[s] the contemnor to conform his conduct to the court’s order.” Terry, 159 F.3d at 93. Where . . . a sanction does not compensate the party for an injury caused by the contemptuous act, a sanction is civil only if its purpose is to coerce the contemnor into compliance. Id. at 95.
What powers does a court have to sanction for civil contempt in Utah family law cases? See below.
Utah Code § 78B-6-310. Contempt — Action by court.
(1) The court shall determine whether the person proceeded against is guilty of the contempt charged. If the court finds the person is guilty of the contempt, the court may impose a fine not exceeding $1,000, order the person incarcerated in the county jail not exceeding 30 days, or both. However, a justice court judge or court commissioner may punish for contempt by a fine not to exceed $500 or by incarceration for five days or both.
(2) A fine imposed under this section is subject to the limitations of Subsection 76-3-301(2).
Utah Code § 78B-6-311. Damages to party aggrieved.
(1) If an actual loss or injury to a party in an action or special proceeding is caused by the contempt, the court:
(a) in lieu of or in addition to the fine or imprisonment imposed for the contempt, may order the person proceeded against to pay the party aggrieved a sum of money sufficient to indemnify and satisfy the aggrieved party’s costs and expenses; and
(b) may order that any bail posted by the person proceeded against be used to satisfy all or part of the money ordered to be paid to the aggrieved party.
(2) The order described in Subsection (1)(b), and the acceptance of money under the order, is a bar to an action by the aggrieved party for the loss and injury.
Utah Code § 78B-6-312. Imprisonment to compel performance.
When the contempt consists of the omission to perform an act enjoined by law, which is yet in the power of the person to perform, the person may be imprisoned until the act is performed, or until released by the court. The act shall be specified in the warrant of commitment.
Utah Code § 78B-6-315. Noncompliance with child support order.
(1) When a court of competent jurisdiction, or the Office of Recovery Services pursuant to an action under Title 63G, Chapter 4, Administrative Procedures Act, makes an order requiring a parent to furnish support or necessary food, clothing, shelter, medical care, or other remedial care for his child, and the parent fails to do so, proof of noncompliance shall be prima facie evidence of contempt of court.
(2) Proof of noncompliance may be demonstrated by showing that:
(a) the order was made, and filed with the district court; and
(b) the parent knew of the order because:
(i) the order was mailed to the parent at his last-known address as shown on the court records;
(ii) the parent was present in court at the time the order was pronounced;
(iii) the parent entered into a written stipulation and the parent or counsel for the parent was sent a copy of the order;
(iv) counsel was present in court and entered into a stipulation which was accepted and the order based upon the stipulation was then sent to counsel for the parent; or
(v) the parent was properly served and failed to answer.
(3) Upon establishment of a prima facie case of contempt under Subsection (2), the obligor under the child support order has the burden of proving inability to comply with the child support order.
(4) A court may, in addition to other available sanctions, withhold, suspend, or restrict the use of driver’s licenses, professional and occupational licenses, and recreational licenses and impose conditions for reinstatement upon a finding that:
(a) an obligor has:
(i) made no payment for 60 days on a current obligation of support as set forth in an administrative or court order and, thereafter, has failed to make a good faith effort under the circumstances to make payment on the support obligation in accordance with the order; or
(ii) made no payment for 60 days on an arrearage obligation of support as set forth in a payment schedule, written agreement with the Office of Recovery Services, or an administrative or judicial order and, thereafter, has failed to make a good faith effort under the circumstances to make payment on the arrearage obligation in accordance with the payment schedule, agreement, or order; and
(iii) not obtained a judicial order staying enforcement of the support or arrearage obligation for which the obligor would be otherwise delinquent;
(b) a custodial parent has:
(i) violated a parent-time order by denying contact for 60 days between a noncustodial parent and a child and, thereafter, has failed to make a good faith effort under the circumstances to comply with a parent-time order; and
(ii) not obtained a judicial order staying enforcement of the parent-time order; or
(c) an obligor or obligee, after receiving appropriate notice, has failed to comply with a subpoena or order relating to a paternity or child support proceeding.
(1) As used in this section, “obligor” means the same as that term is defined in Section 81-6-101.
(2) If a court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that a parent has refused to comply with the minimum amount of parent-time ordered in a decree of divorce, the court shall order the parent to:
(a) perform a minimum of 10 hours of compensatory service; and
(b) participate in workshops, classes, or individual counseling to educate the parent about the importance of complying with the court order and providing a child a continuing relationship with both parents.
(3) If a custodial parent is ordered to perform compensatory service or undergo court-ordered education, there is a rebuttable presumption that the noncustodial parent be granted parent-time by the court to provide child care during the time the custodial parent is complying with compensatory service or education in order to recompense him for parent-time wrongfully denied by the custodial parent under the divorce decree.
(4) If a noncustodial parent is ordered to perform compensatory service or undergo court-ordered education, the court shall attempt to schedule the compensatory service or education at times that will not interfere with the noncustodial parent’s parent-time with the child.
(5) The person ordered to participate in court-ordered education is responsible for expenses of workshops, classes, and individual counseling.
(6) If a court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that an obligor has refused to pay child support as ordered by a court in accordance with Title 81, Chapter 6, Child Support, the court shall order the obligor to:
(a) perform a minimum of 10 hours of compensatory service; and
(b) participate in workshops, classes, or individual counseling to educate the obligor about the importance of complying with the court order and providing the children with a regular and stable source of support.
(7) The obligor is responsible for the expenses of workshops, classes, and individual counseling ordered by the court.
(8) If a court orders an obligor to perform compensatory service or undergo court-ordered education, the court shall attempt to schedule the compensatory service or education at times that will not interfere with the obligor’s parent-time with the child.
(9) The sanctions that the court shall impose under this section do not prevent the court from imposing other sanctions or prevent any person from bringing a cause of action allowed under state or federal law.
(10) The Legislature shall allocate the money from the Children’s Legal Defense Account to the judiciary to defray the cost of enforcing and administering this section.
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277
