Tuesday, December 16, 2025
Page 4
Holding Mother in Contempt for Sports Events During Other Parent’s Time Was Error—C.A.
Opinion Says Party Did Not Violate Order Prohibiting Guardians From Booking Activities for Son During Each Other’s Custodial Period Because Coach Sets Team Schedule
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Div. Three of the Fourth District Court of Appeal has held that a trial judge erred in finding a mother in contempt of court—and requiring her to pay thousands of dollars in sanctions—for violating a custody decree, that prohibits either side from booking events during the other parent’s time, by authorizing the former couple’s teenaged son to participate on sports teams that occasionally practice on weekends not assigned to her.
Saying that the sanctioned parent “did not schedule those events, the teams did, and thus she did not violate the letter of the order,” the court declared that “the act of ‘authorizing’ [her son] to join a team is not the same as ‘scheduling’ a specific practice or event.”
Acting Presiding Justice Maurice Sanchez authored the opinion, filed Nov. 19 and certified for publication on Friday, which additionally faults the court with wrongly finding that the parent breached a general “joint legal custody” determination by unilaterally moving forward with getting the minor braces. Sanchez wrote:
“[L]ife for a teenager involves sports, activities, and occasional medical needs. While co-parenting requires communication, a parent who facilitates these normal life activities for their child should not be held in contempt unless they have willfully violated the express and specific terms of a court order. The orders here lack the specificity required to support the court’s findings. We therefore…annul the judgment of contempt.”
Justices Martha K. Gooding and Nathan Scott joined in the opinion.
Writ Decision
Seeking review of the contempt determination was Julie Houser, who filed a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking annulment of the judgment. Houser has primary physical custody of a son she shares with Marlene Larsen, who has visitation rights one weekend per month.
In May 2019, an Orange Superior Court judge ordered that the parties “shall share joint legal custody” of their son, who was born in December 2007, and that “neither [side] shall schedule any school events, extracurricular or religious events, medical or therapeutic appointments, or other events during the other parent’s custodial time without approval of the other parent.”
Last April, Larsen filed an order to show cause for contempt, asserting 36 purported violations of the 2019 orders. After most of the counts were dismissed, a bench trial was held in October 2024 on the surviving allegations.
On Jan. 28, Orange Superior Court Judge Stephen T. Hicklin found Houser guilty on all five remaining counts and imposed a sanction of $10,000, representing $2,000 per violation. He said that Houser’s actions were “part and parcel of that same course of conduct” that had previously resulted in a $100,000 sanction against her and that her decisions were presented to Larsen as a “fait accompli.”
Sanchez’s opinion grants Houser’s petition for writ of certiorari and annuls the January order.
Power of Contempt
Saying that “[t]he power of contempt is the court’s” most serious weapon, the jurist said:
“Contempt of a court order is a quasi-criminal proceeding due to the potential for imprisonment….We must strictly construe the underlying order in favor of the accused and will annul the judgment unless there is substantial evidence of a willful violation of a lawful order that is both specific and unambiguous.”
He continued:
“The contempt findings regarding Houser’s unilateral decisions permitting [the minor] to join the ski team…, the basketball team…, and authorizing braces…fail because the underlying Joint Legal Custody Order does not prohibit those decisions.”
Opining that “[s]trictly construed, Houser did not violate th[e] order,” Sanchez remarked:
“In both instances involving the mountain bike event and the ski team practice, Houser did not personally set the dates and times of the events; the school and its coaches did. While Houser authorized Xander’s participation, the act of ‘authorizing’…is not the same as ‘scheduling’….To hold otherwise would be to expand the meaning of the order beyond its plain language, which is impermissible in a contempt proceeding.”
As to the braces decision, he noted that Family Code §3083 requires a court to “specify the circumstances under which the consent of both parents is required” when making an order of joint legal custody and said:
“The 2019 Order contains no such specifications. It does not require mutual consent before enrolling a child in sports or consenting to dental care. While the court believed that Houser’s pattern of presenting Larsen with a ‘fait accompli’ was poor co-parenting, that conduct does not violate the express terms of the court’s order. Because a finding of contempt requires a willful violation of a clear and specific command, these counts cannot stand.”
The case is Houser v. Superior Court of Orange County, 2025 S.O.S. 3664.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company