Under RCW 7.21.030(b), contempt is defined as the intentional disobedience of a court order.
Contempt is a severe remedy, and judges do not find people in contempt unless the violation is serious. For example, in family law cases, serious violations typically arise when: (1) one parent refuses the other the court-ordered visitation they are entitled to; (2) one parent refuses to return the child at the expiration of the allotted time for visitation; (3) one parent refuses to take reasonable efforts to require a child to visit the other parent at the time the parenting plan states; (4) one ex-spouse does not deliver property to the other as ordered; (5) a parent fails to pay child support; and (6) a parent refuses to enforce temporary family law and restraining orders.
The main goal in issuing contempt orders is to incentivize the party in contempt to follow the original court-order in the future. To accomplish this goal, judges often order people to go to counseling, require them to complete parenting classes, order the person in contempt to work a certain number of hours a week, and order future hearings to confirm that the person is now obeying the order. However, if the person in contempt has violated a parenting plan, judges sometimes order that a parent get make-up residential time with their children. Equally important, under RCW 26.09.160(2), judges can also order greater penalties for the second contempt violation if it occurs within three years of the initial violation.
To prove contempt, one must prove: (1) there is a valid court order in effect; (2) the other person is aware about the court order; (3) the facts show a plain violation of the order; (4) the non-violating party has given notice to the person in contempt regarding a contempt hearing; and (5) content is the appropriate remedy for the violation of the court-order.
Because contempt of a parenting plan comes with greater consequences, the non-violating party must also prove three additional elements: (1) the violation was in bad faith; (2) the person intentionally violated the parenting plan; and (3) past sanctions have not caused the person to obey the order.
Family law courts are courts of equity and strive to maintain fairness. Because contempt orders cost a lot and hard to prove, judges frequently refrain from issuing them. However, sometimes they are the best remedy, especially when the person in contempt has violated a parenting plan. Parenting a child is a fundamental right in the United States, and holding a parent in contempt for violating a parenting plan is sometimes the best way to maintain this fundamental right. The reason for this is because as stated earlier, the sole purpose of contempt orders is to ensure the person in violation abide by the court-order in the future. Therefore, when deciding whether to fill out contempt form, the non-violating party should consider whether the court order is still in effect, whether they know about the court order, and because family law courts are courts of equity, whether the person has a reasonable excuse for the violation.
After weighing all these options, filing a contempt order is sometimes the best way in forcing the other party to obey the original court-order. When it comes to violation of a parenting plan, filing contempt papers is sometimes the best and only way in ensuring that parents can see their children as required by the court-ordered parenting plan.
Karan's Family Law Blog 