Committee note: Sanctions for attorneys found to be in contempt for failure to pay child support may include referral to Bar Counsel pursuant to Rule 19-711. See Code, Family Law Article, § 10-119.3.
Cross reference: Code, Family Law Article, § 10-102.
Committee note: Section (e) modifies the holding in Lynch v. Lynch, 342 Md. 509 (1996), by allowing a court to make a finding of constructive civil contempt in a support enforcement action even if the alleged contemnor does not have the present ability to purge. In support enforcement cases, as in other civil contempt cases, after making a finding of contempt, the court may specify imprisonment as the sanction if the contemnor has the present ability to purge the contempt.
If the contemnor does not have the present ability to purge the contempt, an example of a direction to perform specified acts that a court may include in an order under subsection (e)(4) is a provision that an unemployed, able-bodied contemnor look for work and periodically provide evidence of the efforts made. If the contemnor fails, without just cause, to comply with any provision of the order, a criminal contempt proceeding may be brought based on a violation of that provision.
Md. R. Spec. Proc. 15-207
This Rule is derived in part from former Rule P4 c and d 2 and is in part new.
HISTORICAL NOTES
2002 Orders
The January 8, 2002, order, in section (b), substituted "Criminal Procedure Article, § 11-601(g) for "Article 27, § 805A(i).
2009 Orders
The September 10, 2009, order, added the cross reference following section (e).
Derivation:
Maryland Rule of Procedure P4, adopted Sept. 15, 1961, eff. Jan. 1, 1962, amended Sept. 23, 1968, eff. Oct. 1, 1968; April 6, 1984, eff. July 1, 1984, related to constructive contempt, rescinded June 5, 1996, eff. Jan. 1, 1997.
2015 Orders
The September 17, 2015, order, changed the term "master to "magistrate.
2016 Orders
The June 6, 2016, order revised an internal reference in the Rule.
See Arrington v. Department of Human Resources, 402 Md. 79 (2007).