contempt hearing in Indiana

2015Id. at 450-451 (citing Lasater v. Lasater, 809 N.E.2d 380, 385-386 (Ind.Ct.

2014See Lasater v. Lasater, 809 N.E.2d 380, 385-86 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004); Mitchell v. Stevenson, 677 N.E.2d 551, 560-61 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997), trans. denied.

2015See id.

2014We have held “that where the possibility exists that an indigent defendant may be incarcerated for contempt for failure to pay child support he or she has a right to appointed counsel and to be informed of that right prior to commencement of the contempt hearing.” In re Marriage of Stariha, 509 N.E.2d 1117, 1121 (Ind.Ct.App.1987).

2016Id. [16] We have also held: It lies within the inherent power of the trial court to fashion an appropriate punishment for the disobedience of its order.

2016Id. at 450-51 .

2016Nevertheless, “[s]trict compliance with the rule to show cause may be excused if it is clear the alleged contemnor had clear notice of the accusations against him, for example because he received a copy of an original contempt information that contained detailed factual allegations, or if he appears at the contempt hearing and admits to the factual basis for a contempt finding.” Id.

2016In Stanke v. Swickard, 43 N.E.3d 245, 248 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), we noted that: Strict compliance with the rule to show cause statute may be excused if it is clear the alleged contemnor had clear notice of the accusations against him, for example because he received a copy of an original contempt information that contained detailed factual allegations, or if he appears at the contempt hearing and admits to the factual basis for a contempt finding.

2023See Buford, 139 N.E.3d at 1080 (vacating criminal contempt finding: “[h]aving found that the contempt sanction was punitive and thus that the sanction of ninety days in the Marion County jail constituted a punishment, we find that the State’s filing [of a count for invasion of privacy] on the same day as the contempt hearing … constitutes double jeopardy concerns.”); see also Hunter v. State, 802 N.E.2d 480, 483 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (noting test for determining whether a sanction, other than a criminal sentence, constitutes jeopardy is whether the sanction constitutes a punishment), trans. den

2020See, e.g., Meade v. Levett, 671 N.E.2d 1172, 1180 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (trial court had authority to hold a contempt hearing and punish the mother for failing to return child to the father even though issue of modification of custody was pending on appeal). [14] Here, while Mother was appealing the trial court’s April 2019 Order and the grant to Father of sole legal custody as to medical decisions, she disobeyed the order by objecting to A.B.’s vaccinations at the June 28, 2019 appointment.

2020“Even an erroneous order must still be obeyed.” D.G. v. W.M., 118 N.E.3d 26, 31 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans. denied.

2019The State does not dispute this characterization. [12] Contempt is a “sui generis proceeding neither civil nor criminal in nature, although both of those labels are used to describe certain categories of contempt.” State v. Heltzel, 552 N.E.2d 31, 33 (Ind. 1990).

2018Husband alleges that the decree is not ambiguous, and thus the court’s order fell within its discretion “to use its coercive and remedial powers in a contempt hearing to move Wife into action to protect [] Husband from further damage[.]” Appellee’s Br. at 11. [10] Whether or not a party is in contempt is a determination left to the discretion of the trial court.3 Reynolds v. Reynolds, 64 N.E.3d 829, 832 (Ind. 2016).

2016See In re Paternity of Pickett, 44 N.E.3d 756, 771 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). [13] During the contempt hearing, Foster’s trial attorney testified that he had first become aware of Foster’s request for his case file only in January 2015, and that he immediately had the paralegal from the Marion County Public Defender Agency send the file to Foster.

2014See Lasater v. Lasater, 809 N.E.2d 380, 385-86 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004); Mitchell v. Stevenson, 677 N.E.2d 551, 560-61 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997), trans. denied.

2014Lesh v. Chandler, 944 N.E.2d 942, 954 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). 7.

2012See id.

2005In Branum v. State, 822 N.E.2d 1102, 1104 (Ind.Ct.App.2005), we remanded for a new contempt hearing.

2005And we instructed the trial court that if it should find Bra-num in contempt and impose a sentence upon remand, it must specify "that Bra-num can obtain his release from incarceration upon complying with the child support order." Id. at 1105 .

1984See Cooke v. United States, (1925) 267 U.S. 517 , 45 S.Ct. 390 , 69 L.Ed. 767 ; Johnson, supra. Although the need for an impartial judge is more readily apparent at a contempt hearing involving vituperative behavior directed toward the trial judge, "contemptuous conduct, though short of personal attack, may still provoke a trial judge and so embroil him in controversy that he cannot 'hold the balance nice, clear and true between the State and the accused....'" Taylor v. Hayes, (1974) 418 U.S. 488, 501 , 94 S.Ct. 2697, 2704 , 41 L.Ed.2d 897 citing Tumey v. Ohio, (1927) 273 U.S. 510, 532 , 47 S.

1984See Cooke v. United States, (1925) 267 U.S. 517 , 45 S.Ct. 390 , 69 L.Ed. 767 ; Johnson, supra. Although the need for an impartial judge is more readily apparent at a contempt hearing involving vituperative behavior directed toward the trial judge, "contemptuous conduct, though short of personal attack, may still provoke a trial judge and so embroil him in controversy that he cannot 'hold the balance nice, clear and true between the State and the accused....'" Taylor v. Hayes, (1974) 418 U.S. 488, 501 , 94 S.Ct. 2697, 2704 , 41 L.Ed.2d 897 citing Tumey v. Ohio, (1927) 273 U.S. 510, 532 , 47 S.