Upon the Petition of Todd Charles Johnson, and Concerning Karey Ann Bohr, N/K/A Karey Ann Greiner ( 2015 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 15-0416
Filed December 9, 2015
Upon the Petition of
TODD CHARLES JOHNSON,
Petitioner-Appellee,
And Concerning
KAREY ANN BOHR,
n/k/a KAREY ANN GREINER,
Respondent-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Mitchell E. Turner,
Judge.
Respondent appeals the district court ruling finding petitioner was not in
contempt for failing to provide visitation with the parties’ child. AFFIRMED.
Mark D. Fisher of Nidey, Erdahl, Tindal & Fisher, Cedar Rapids, for
appellant.
Melody J. Butz of Butz Law Offices, P.C., Cedar Rapids, for appellee.
Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ.
2
BOWER, Judge.
Respondent Karey Greiner, formerly known as Karey Bohr, appeals the
district court ruling finding petitioner Todd Johnson was not in contempt for failure
to provide visitation with the parties’ child. We affirm the district court’s decision
finding Todd did not intentionally violate a court order with an evil motive or in
reckless disregard of Karey’s rights.
Todd and Karey are the parents of a child. On May 27, 2008, the district
court entered a paternity decree incorporating the parties’ stipulation for joint
legal custody of the child, with the child placed in Todd’s physical care. They
agreed Karey would have reasonable visitation and pay child support. The
decree was modified on June 10, 2014, to adjust the visitation schedule and
increase Karey’s child support obligation.
The child has been diagnosed with mental health issues. In November
2014, the child’s therapist, Sandra Griffith, recommended that the child’s
visitation with the mother be supervised based on the child’s statements and
recent self-harming behavior. Griffith recommended Karey and the child attend
family therapy sessions. Todd sent a copy of Griffith’s recommendations to
Karey. Karey did not accept the recommendations and did not schedule an
appointment for family counseling with the child.
On December 8, 2014, Karey filed an application for rule to show cause
alleging Todd was in contempt because he had not permitted her to have
visitation with the child on four occasions. In a well-reasoned and well-written
opinion, the district court noted that rather than file this contempt action, there
3
was an “easy fix” for Karey—“do the family counseling as requested by [the child]
and recommended by the mental health professionals.” The court found:
Having considered the entirety of the evidence produced at
the time of hearing, the Court finds that Karey has utterly failed to
establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Todd is in contempt of
court for intentionally violating a known Court Order with an evil
motive, or in reckless disregard of Karey’s rights.
“A party alleging contempt has the burden to prove the contemner had a
duty to obey a court order and willfully failed to perform that duty.” Ary v. Iowa
Dist. Ct., 735 N.W.2d 621, 624 (Iowa 2007). Contempt has been defined as
“willful disobedience.” Id. A finding of “willful disobedience” “requires evidence of
conduct that is intentional and deliberate with a bad or evil purpose, or wanton
and in disregard of the rights of others, or contrary to a known duty, or
unauthorized, coupled with an unconcern whether the contemner had the right or
not.” State v. Lipcamon, 483 N.W.2d 605, 607 (Iowa 1992). A finding of
contempt must be established by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In re
Marriage of Stephens, 810 N.W.2d 523, 529 (Iowa 2012).
We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to
find Todd was in contempt. See In re Marriage of Swan, 526 N.W.2d 320, 327
(Iowa 1995). The child has serious mental health problems and was engaging in
self-harming behavior. Todd followed the recommendation of health care
professionals that Karey’s visitation should be supervised for a period of time
while Karey and the child attended family therapy sessions to improve their
relationship. We approve the reasons and conclusions in the district court’s
4
decision and further discussion would not augment or clarify existing case law.
See Iowa Ct. R. 21.26(1)(d), (e).
AFFIRMED.