Donald C. Schiller, Schiller DuCanto & Fleck LLP, Chicago, Lake Forest, & Wheaton
Michelle A. Lawless, Law Office of Michelle A. Lawless LLC, Chicago
312-641-5560 | E-mail Donald Schiller | 312-741-1092 | E-mail Michelle Lawless
Appellate Court Affirms and Clarifies Direct Criminal Contempt Order from Civil Contempt Based on Fine Levied
In In re Parentage of A.C., 2024 IL App (1st) 232052, a father was held in direct civil contempt of court for a number of actions he committed in court, including but not limited to refusing to shut down his iPad, refusing to advise the court how to shut down the device once it was confiscated, and showing incivility and disrespect to the court. The trial court was concerned, among many things, that the father, who was self-represented, was using a device to improperly record the proceedings. The trial court issued ten direct contempt findings and fined him $250 per contempt for a total of $2,500. 2024 IL App (1st) 232052 at ¶26. He appealed, and the appellate court held that while the trial court labeled the contempt direct civil contempt, it was actually direct criminal contempt as it ordered ten $250 fines, which can be interpreted as criminal fines. 2024 IL App (1st) 232052 at ¶28. In dicta, the court also referenced Supreme Court Rule 44, which clearly prohibits audio recording in the court room, but cautioned against depriving self-represented litigants of the use of electronic devices in a courtroom when lawyers are regularly permitted to utilize such devices to present their cases.
Trial Court’s Order for Indirect Civil Contempt That Ordered Jail Time and a Monetary Purge Reversed
In Parentage of A.C., supra, in which a father was held in direct contempt of court (see above), the trial court entered a second order holding the father in indirect civil contempt of court and ordered the father to be committed to the Cook County Jail until such time as a $2,500 purge was paid. 2024 IL App (1st) 232052 at ¶26. He appealed, and the appellate court reversed due to the nature of the contempt actually being criminal contempt, not civil contempt. Also problematic was the fact that he was ordered to pay a $2,500 fine in the first contempt order, but in the second order it was repeatedly referred to as a purge rather than a fine. Id. While a period of jail time and a fine are valid punishments for criminal contempt, it is not acceptable to have an indefinite period of jail time subject to the payment of a purge for criminal contempt. Therefore, the appellate court reversed. The trial court also issued two further orders on the matter during the same court appearance, one a scheduling order, which was upheld, and the other a remand/commitment/release form order, which remanded the father into custody. The court reversed the incarceration order because the father was not sentenced to a valid incarceration term, and to the degree the court ordered a purge in connection with such sentence of incarceration, those portions of the orders were also reversed.
For more information about family law, see ADOPTION LAW (IICLE®, 2024). Online Library subscribers can view it for free by clicking here. If you don’t currently subscribe to the Online Library, visit www.iicle.com/subscriptions.