Ransome v. Super.
Filed 11/6/13 Ransome v.
Super. Ct. CA2/6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California
Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or
relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except
as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This
opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for
purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF
APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE
DISTRICT
DIVISION SIX
>
STACI MICHELLE RANSOME, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF VENTURA COUNTY, Respondent; ERIC BERZELLE RANSOME, SR., Real Party in Interest. | 2d Civil No. B249720 (Super. Ct. No. D349590) (Ventura County) |
THE COURT
The
trial court found petitioner Staci Michelle Ransome (Mother) in contempt for a
violation of a custody and visitation
order. We annul the trial court's finding
of contempt because the order is silent concerning resolution of disputes, if
any, regarding supervised visitation.
FACTS
On
February 5, 2013, the trial court awarded Mother
sole legal and physical custody of the parties' two-year-old child. The trial court's order permitted real party
in interest Eric Berzelle Ransome, Sr. (Father) one 4-hour supervised visit
each week. The court's February 5 order provided
that the supervised visitation could be with a professional, nonprofessional,
or "[a]ny other mutually agreed-upon third party as arranged." The order also specified that "[t]he
exact days and times of visitations will be coordinated through the supervisor."
On
March 17, 2013, Mother arrived at the
agreed-upon location with the professional supervisor of her choice; Father
arrived at the location with the professional supervisor of his choice. Father refused to utilize the services of
Mother's supervisor and Mother refused to utilize Father's supervisor. As a result, Father did not have his
visitation.
Father
initiated proceedings under Code of Civil Procedure section 1211.5 to hold
Mother in contempt for refusing to allow him to have his supervised
visitation. On June 14, 2013, the trial court found Mother in contempt for
violating its February 5 order because she "failed to turn the minor child
over for supervised visitation."
The trial court ordered Mother to complete 40 hours of community service
and placed her on formal probation for two years.
Mother
filed the instant petition for a writ of certiorari, challenging the trial
court's finding of contempt.
name="_ftnref2" title="">[1] (Code
Civ. Proc., §§ 904.1, 1222; McComb v.
Superior Court (1977) 68 Cal.App.3d 89, 93, fn.1 [judgment of contempt reviewable
by writ of certiorari].) We granted review
and stayed enforcement of the order pending resolution of this petition.
DISCUSSION
When
reviewing an adjudication of contempt, our inquiry is whether there was any
substantial evidence before the trial court to prove the elements of the
contempt. (Board of Supervisors v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1724,
1736-1737; see also In re Coleman
(1974) 12 Cal.3d 568, 572-573.) Absent
such evidence, the order must be annulled.
The
elements of contempt are: (1) a valid
court order; (2) the citee's knowledge of the order; and (3) the citee's
willful noncompliance with the order. (
396, 428.) Punishment for contempt "can
only rest upon clear, intentional violation of a specific, narrowly drawn
order. Specificity is an essential
prerequisite of a contempt citation.
[Citations & fn. omitted.]" (Wilson
v. Superior Court (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 1259, 1272-1273.) "Any ambiguity in a decree or order must
be resolved in favor of an alleged contemnor.
[Citation.]" (
212.)
The
trial court's order of February 5 is not specific. Nor is it narrowly drawn. If the parties cannot agree on a supervisor,
the custody and visitation order does not provide a method for resolving such
disputes. Mother may not be held in
contempt for a violation of an order that fails to provide a clear directive to
apprise the parties of what they may or may not do.
Accordingly,
we annul the trial court's order of June 14,
2013,
finding Mother guilty of contempt, and vacate our temporary stay order of July 9, 2013. Each party shall
bear their own costs.
NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED.
Roger L. Lund, Judge
Superior
Court County
of Ventura
_____________________________
Morgan Law Firm, Gina S.
Berry for Petitioner.
No appearance for
Respondent.
Law Office of Gary W.
Norris and Cameron T. Norris for Real Party in Interest.
P. J., Yegan, J., Perren, J.
also argued
the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by placing her on probation for two
years. Because we annul the contempt
conviction, we do not discuss this contention.
We also do not discuss Father's additional claims, raised in his
opposition. (Campbell v. Superior Court (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 904, 922 [a party
may not raise new issues for review in his opposition].)
