Summary
Judgment affirmed with direction. All the Justices concur.
Summary
Judgment affirmed with direction. All the Justices concur.
Text
Tom Strickland, for appellee.Guy B. Scott, Jr., for appellant.
1. The former husband filed a "complaint" praying that the former wife be held in contempt for depriving him of his child visitation rights. The trial judge did not err in treating the "complaint" as a motion for contempt citation filed in the divorce case. Code Ann. 81A-108 (f).
3. After finding the former wife to be in wilful contempt of court, the trial court entered an unconditional order that she spend two specified weekends in jail. The order finding the wife in contempt shows by its caption, content and purpose that it is a civil contempt order. For the differences between civil and criminal contempt orders, see Gompers v. Buck's Stove & Range Co., 221 U. S. 418 (31 SC 492, 55 LE 797) (1911); Penfield Co. v. S. E. C., 330 U. S. 585 (67 SC 918, 91 LE 1117) (1947). Civil contempt orders imposing a sentence to jail for violation of visitation rights should be conditioned upon compliance. Stanton v. Stanton,
1976
Sponsored links
This document cites
- U.S. Supreme Court - Penfield Co. of Cal. v. SEC, 330 U.S. 585 (1947)
- U.S. Supreme Court - Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418 (1911)
- Supreme Court of Georgia - STANTON v. STANTON., 223 Ga. 664, 157 S.E.2.d 453 (1967)
See other documents that cite the same legislation