FERREN, Associate Judge:
In this unfortunate dispute over child custody and visitation, Dr. Jean Elizabeth Morgan has hidden her minor daughter from the court and from the child’s father, Morgan’s former husband, Dr. Eric A. Foretich. As a consequence, Morgan has been in jail for over twenty-three months— since August 28, 1987 — for civil contempt of court. She appeals from a trial court order of December 16, 1988, denying her motion for release (filed September 22, 1988). Morgan does not seek to relitigate this court’s ruling that her confinement for contempt initially was lawful. See Morgan v. Foretich, 546 A.2d 407 (D.C.1988), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 790, 102 L.Ed.2d 781 (1989) (Morgan III). But she argued in the trial court, and stresses again on appeal, that her continued confine[2]*2ment violates her right to due process under the fifth amendment.
More specifically, Morgan contends that although jailing for civil contempt is a legitimate, coercive measure, it becomes punitive once there is no realistic possibility that it will induce compliance with a court order. Morgan stresses that she will never comply with the court’s order to produce her child because she is determined to protect the child from Foretich, who Morgan claims has sexually abused their daughter. Morgan argues that her incarceration, accordingly, has become punitive, and that further punishment for hiding her child can be justified only if she is duly convicted of criminal contempt or some other crime.
The trial court, after hearings and oral argument, agreed with Morgan’s understanding of the law but denied the motion, concluding on December 15, 1988, that despite incarceration for sixteen months, Morgan had not sustained her burden to show there was no “realistic possibility or substantial likelihood” that continued confinement would cause her to surrender her daughter. After oral argument on Morgan’s expedited appeal, we remanded the record on May 26, 1989, for supplemental findings and conclusions “based solely on relevant facts and circumstances occurring in the period after December 15, 1988.” The trial court on June 19, 1989, after further hearings and oral argument, again concluded that Morgan’s incarceration for civil contempt was still properly coercive, not punitive — that Morgan again had failed to carry her burden to show that, despite incarceration, “there is no reasonable possibility of compliance with the outstanding order to produce her child.”
We have reviewed the record, including the trial court’s findings and conclusions of December 16, 1988, and June 19, 1989. We conclude the trial court’s rulings are not supported by the record. We therefore must reverse and remand with an order to release Morgan from confinement.
In doing so, we recognize that the child’s best interests — while ultimately the controlling issue in the domestic relations proceeding over custody and visitation — cannot be the governing consideration in a civil contempt case that arises out of such a proceeding. Nor is vindication of the trial court’s authority ultimately at stake here. Important as these concerns are — and we believe that few can be more important in a society with laws intended to protect children from abusive parents — there is another concern that must prevail in this particular' proceeding: due process of law. Irrespective of context, once the civil contempt power is shown to have failed in its intended purpose — and that failure is manifest on this record — the court must release the contemnor from jail. The trial court and the prosecuting authorities, however, are not without recourse. They may turn to criminal sanctions for anyone, such as Morgan, who has taken the law into her own hands. The court, for example, may initiate a proceeding for criminal contempt subject to the right to a' jury trial before incarceration may be ordered for a term exceeding six months.
We elaborate our ruling below.
I.
In late 1984, the trial court awarded Morgan custody of her minor daughter and ordered liberal visitation rights for Fore-tich. In early 1985, Morgan alleged that Foretich was sexually abusing the child. In November 1985, the trial court held hearings on these allegations and related motions by both parties in connection with custody and visitation. In December 1985, the court denied all the motions except for a minor change in Foretich’s visitation rights. In February 1986, Morgan began to deny Foretich the right to visit his child. In response to more motions, the trial court concluded in July 1986 that Morgan had failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Foretich was sexually abusing the child. The court held Morgan in contempt of court for refusing to allow the visitation and issued an order of incarceration that was stayed pending appeal. After resolution of the issues on appeal, including affirmance of the judgment of contempt, Morgan was briefly incarcerated, then released. Thereafter, Foretich’s visi[3]*3tations resumed. On August 19, 1987, the court ordered a two-week, unsupervised visitation of the child with Foretich beginning August 22. This court denied Morgan’s motion for stay of that order pending appeal. On August 22, 1987, Morgan refused to make the child available for visitation. On August 26, 1987, the trial court held Morgan in contempt once again and ordered her incarcerated effective August 28, unless and until she either delivered the child to Foretich or to the court’s social services division.1
Thirteen months later, on September 22, 1988, Morgan filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, D.C.Code § 16-1901 (1981), in the Superior Court, naming as defendants Morgan’s jailers, William Plaut and Hallem Williams. Morgan argued that because she would never comply with the court order, the coercive purpose of civil contempt could not be served and, therefore, that her continued incarceration violated her right to due process. On November 8, 1988, the trial court, over Morgan’s objection, ordered merger of the habeas petition into the domestic relations proceeding, deeming the petition to be a motion for relief from the order of civil contempt. The court also ordered Morgan to serve Foretich with the habeas petition and to add Messrs. Plaut and Williams as defendants in the domestic relations proceeding solely on the issue of the incarceration.
On December 13, 1988, the trial court held a hearing on Morgan’s motion for relief from the order of civil contempt. At that hearing, Morgan testified that she refused to comply with the court’s orders because she believed that Foretich had sexually abused their child. She explained the basis for her belief, which included statements by the child, Morgan’s own observations, and opinions by lay persons and professionals who had interacted with the child. Morgan described her jail cell and her adjustment to prison life. She added that she was sustained in prison by the support of members of the community and of other inmates. Morgan acknowledged that she knew she could purge her contempt either by returning the child to Fore-tich or, short of that, by returning the child to the jurisdiction of the court. Morgan testified, however, that she would not comply With either of these options — that she believed going to jail was the only route available to protect her daughter. Three other witnesses testified on Morgan’s behalf. The Reverend Caroline Pyle, Morgan’s priest, Dr. Carol Kleinman, a psychiatrist, and the Honorable Paul Michel, Morgan’s fiance, all testified about Morgan’s adjustment to prison life and about her resolve to stay in jail as long as she believes necessary to protect the child. Fore-tich did not offer any evidence.
On December 15, 1988, the trial court issued an oral opinion denying the motion because Morgan had failed to show that “there is no realistic possibility or substantial likelihood that her continued confinement will cause her to relent” and, further, had failed to show that “Dr. Morgan’s con[4]*4finement no longer serves a coercive purpose and is now wholly punitive in nature in violation of her constitutional rights.” The trial court gave several reasons for this conclusion: the recent denial of relief by this court and by the federal courts, the likelihood that Morgan’s friends and supporters may desert her, the fact that Morgan increasingly will miss her child, and the probability that Morgan will realize the waste of her professional talents — all causing her to relent and produce the child.
Morgan filed a timely appeal. After oral argument, we remanded for additional findings and conclusions based solely on relevant facts and circumstances since the December 1988 hearing. In response, the trial court held additional hearings in June 1989, and, on June 19, once again, denied Morgan’s motion. The court reiterated its concern about the child’s welfare. The court then noted Morgan’s “public and litigation position” that she would never deliver the child to Foretich and added that Morgan had “avoided discussion” of her other alternative: she could purge her contempt by returning the child to the court’s division of social services or to the District of Columbia’s Department of Human Services (DHS). The court also emphasized that the child would not be placed with either parent on her return but would be •initially evaluated by a team of experts.
The court then found: “It is unlikely that continued incarceration will cause Dr. Morgan to deliver the child directly to Dr. Foretich at any time within the foreseeable future if for no other reason than Dr. Morgan’s personal pride.” Based on its decision not to turn over the child initially to Foretich upon her return, the trial court stated that this alternative “is no longer before the court.” The court then concluded that if this alternative “were the only issue, this court would order [Morgan’s] immediate release.” The trial court further found, however, that because Morgan had not addressed her second alternative— returning the child to the court’s social services division or to DHS — she still had not sustained her burden to show there was no “reasonable” possibility that incarceration would lead to compliance with the outstanding court order to produce her child. Therefore, said the court, the “remedial end sought to be achieved by [Morgan’s] incarceration as it exists is still viable.”
II.
A.
Incarceration upon a finding of civil contempt is a remedial measure designed to enforce compliance with a court order. See Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364, 368, 86 S.Ct. 1531, 1534, 16 L.Ed.2d 622 (1966); D.D. v. M.T., 550 A.2d 37, 43 (D.C. 1988). A contemnor may purge herself of contempt and obtain release from jail at any time by complying with that order. See D.D., 550 A.2d at 44; In re Grand Jury Investigation, 600 F.2d 420, 423 (3d Cir.1979). This control over one’s imprisonment distinguishes a civil contempt proceeding from a criminal proceeding and, accordingly, justifies the state’s power to incarcerate without affording the usual safeguards of indictment and jury. Shillitani, 384 U.S. at 370-71, 86 S.Ct. at 1535-36. Once it becomes clear, however, that incarceration will not coerce compliance, the rationale for the imprisonment ceases— its character changes from remedial to punitive — and due process requires the con-temnor’s release. See In re Crededio, 759 F.2d 589, 590 (7th Cir.1985); Simkin v. United States, 715 F.2d 34, 36-37 (2d Cir.1983); Soobzokov v. CBS, Inc., 642 F.2d 28, 31 (2d. Cir.1981); Lambert v. Montana, 545 F.2d 87, 89-90 (9th Cir.1976).
The test to determine whether the confinement no longer is coercive is whether the contemnor has shown there is no “realistic possibility” or “substantial likelihood” that continued confinement will accomplish its coercive purpose. See, e.g., Simkin, 715 F.2d at 37, 38; Grand Jury Investigation, 600 F.2d at 425; In re Farr, 36 Cal.App.3d 577, 584, 111 Cal.Rptr. 649, 654 (2d Dist.1974); Catena v. Seidl, 65 N.J. 257, 262, 321 A.2d 225, 228 (1974) (Catena I). Determining whether incarceration no longer is coercive, and thus has become punitive, is not an easy task. Resolution of [5]*5this question is “inevitably far more speculative than [the] resolution of traditional factual issues” because “a prediction is involved and ... that prediction concerns such uncertain matters as the likely effect of continued confinement upon a particular individual_” Simkin, 715 F.2d at 38; see In re Parrish, 782 F.2d 325, 327 (2d Cir.1986).
“The contemnor may conscientiously believe at the time he [or she] testifies that incarceration will not coerce ... compliance,” but that prediction may be “altered by continued confinement.” Parrish, 782 F.2d at 327, 328. It follows that, although the contemnor’s testimony that he or she will not comply is relevant to the trial court’s determination, the trial court need not accept the contemnor’s testimony as conclusive. See Crededio, 759 F.2d at 592-93; Sanchez v. United States, 725 F.2d 29, 31 (2d Cir.1984); Simkin, 715 F.2d at 37; Grand Jury Investigation, 600 F.2d at 425; King v. Dep’t of Social & Health Servs., 110 Wash.2d 793, 802, 756 P.2d 1303, 1309-10 (1988) (en banc). Other factors, while none is determinative, are also relevant, such as the age and health of the contemnor, see Grand Jury Investigation, 600 F.2d at 425; Catena v. Seidl, 68 N.J. 224, 228, 343 A.2d 744, 747 (1975) (Catena II), the length of incarceration, see Grand Jury Investigation, 600 F.2d at 425; Catena II, 68 N.J. at 228, 343 A.2d at 747, and the contemnor’s own stated reasons for refusing to comply, see, e.g. In re Ford, 615 F.Supp. 259, 261-62 (S.D.N.Y. 1985); In re Thomas, 614 F.Supp. 983, 984 (S.D.N.Y.1985).2 Even these other factors, however, may not provide a clear indication whether there is no realistic possibility that continued incarceration will coerce compli-anee with the court's order. See Grand Jury Investigation, 600 F.2d at 425.
Given the predictive nature of the inquiry, it is hard enough for the trial court to make a sound judgment. In most circumstances, therefore, it is likely to be even harder for appellate judges, who have not observed the contemnor testify, to assess the likelihood of compliance with the trial court’s order. The critical issue at the outset, therefore, is our standard for reviewing the trial court’s ruling. See generally United States v. Felder, 548 A.2d 57, 60-65 (D.C.1988) (discussing standards for reviewing questions of fact, questions of law, mixed questions of fact and law, and matters committed to trial court discretion).
B.
Not all appellate courts have been careful to discuss the standards for reviewing trial court rulings on the effect of continued incarceration on civil contemnors. Some courts have addressed the critical distinction between coercive and punitive incarceration without indicating whether a constitutional question is at issue or not. See Catena II; Catena I; King. Others have acknowledged that due process or cruel and unusual punishment may be at issue but have failed to analyze whether a constitutional inquiry affects the degree of deference to be accorded the trial court’s own analysis. See Crededio (due process); Farr (cruel and unusual punishment). Still other courts have stated or implied that, when the federal statute fixing a ceiling on incarceration for civil contempt for refusing to testify before a grand jury (usually eighteen months) is involved, see 28 U.S.C. § 1826(a) (1982), due process con[6]*6cerns do not arise until incarceration exceeds the statutory maximum. See Sanchez, 725 F.2d at 31; Simkin, 715 F.2d at 37; Grand Jury Investigation, 600 F.2d at 427 & n. 26. These courts have reasoned that Congress has attempted to draw the line between coercion and punishment, that this line is not unreasonable, and that the courts, accordingly, should not substitute their judgment by drawing “finer lines than Congress has already drawn....” See Grand Jury Investigation, 600 F.2d at 427.
In operating from the premise that, when 26 U.S.C. § 1826(a) is applicable, due process concerns do not arise until eighteen months of imprisonment have passed, these federal courts have adopted an abuse-of-discretion standard of review for the period up to eighteen months. Sanchez, 725 F.2d at 31; Simkin, 715 F.2d at 37; Grand Jury Investigation, 600 F.2d at 428. See also Parrish, 782 F.2d at 328 (no abuse of trial court discretion to release civil con-temnor from prison after seven months).3 We do not confront a statutory ceiling in this case, however. Congress has not defined a period of time within which incarceration for civil contempt of the District of Columbia courts arguably does not evoke concerns about due process.
We therefore need not decide the question whether there lawfully can be a period of incarceration for civil contempt immune from a due process attack. But, even if such a period were permissible, we are satisfied that Morgan’s incarceration for 23 months — 5 months longer than a congres-sionally-imposed ceiling in another context — has been sufficiently long to require us to address the fifth amendment issue. We agree with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: “Where it is alleged that the duration of an individual’s confinement no longer bears a reasonable relationship to the purpose for which he [or she] is committed a substantial federal constitutional claim relating to denial of due process is present.” Lambert, 545 F.2d at 89 (citing Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715, 92 S.Ct. 1845, 32 L.Ed.2d 435 (1972); McNeil v. Director, Patuxent Inst., 407 U.S. 245, 92 S.Ct. 2083, 32 L.Ed.2d 719 (1972)). In short, under the circumstances of this case, absent a legislatively-created presumption against a denial of due process during a particular time frame for incarceration, the question whether Morgan’s incarceration for civil contempt is no longer coercive, but punitive, presents a substantial constitutional concern.
Given this constitutional concern, we do not confront a situation, as in Sanchez, Simkin, and Grand Jury Investigation, where the determination whether a remedial incarceration has become punitive is committed to the trial court’s sound discretion, reversible only for abuse of discretion.4 Trial court discretion implies the “ 'right to be wrong without incurring reversal,’ ” Johnson v. United States, 398 A.2d 354, 367 (D.C.1979) (citation omitted); a discretionary ruling “does not ‘inevitably’ lead to only one acceptable result.” Wright v. United States, 508 A.2d 915, 920 (D.C.1986) (citing Johnson, 398 A.2d at 363-64)). A sustainable discretionary ruling, therefore, is not unquestionably correct; it is simply not demonstrably incorrect. It “requires the appellate court to assure itself only that certain ‘indicia of rationality and fairness’ have been met.” Felder, 548 A.2d at 62 (citing Johnson, 398 A.2d at 362). In contrast, our review of an alleged violation of due process cannot tolerate a range of acceptable results, including one or more that may be “wrong.” As [7]*7to constitutional issues, therefore, we review for trial court error (with appropriate deference to the trial court’s fact-finding role) with a view to “only one possible outcome.” Wright, 508 A.2d at 920.5
C.
In reviewing for trial court error when a case is tried without a jury, we may set aside the court’s order for errors of law but may not reverse for factual errors unless the court’s findings are “plainly wrong” or “without evidence to support” them. D.C.Code § 17-305(a) (1981). This means that, even in reviewing for errors of law, we must defer to the trial court’s findings of fact unless they are “clearly erroneous,” Super.Ct.Civ.R. 52(a), or “unsupported by the record.”6
We therefore confront the issue whether the trial court’s determination — that Dr. Morgan has failed to carry her burden to show there is no realistic possibility or substantial likelihood that continued incarceration will cause her to surrender her daughter — is a question of fact or of law.7 This outcome-determinative question may at first appear to be a factual inquiry, involving as it does a particularized determination about the circumstances relevant to one contemnor. See Simkin, 715 F.2d at 37. However, in other instances of seemingly factual determinations about particular individuals, such as whether an act was “voluntary” or a person was “seized” or “arrested,” these ultimate issues are deemed questions of law, especially because the answer implicates a constitutional right.8 Conceptually, perhaps, these is[8]*8sues are best characterized as mixed questions of fact and law. See supra note 7. In these instances, too, we defer to the trial court’s resolution of the underlying factual issues (unless clearly erroneous),9 but in applying the correct legal standard to these subsidiary facts we say we are answering a question of law.
In the present case, as it turns out, we need not decide whether the trial court’s ultimate determination resolves a question of fact or of law or a mixed question of fact and law. Even if it were best characterized as a question of “ultimate fact” 10 that may not be set aside unless “clearly erroneous” or “unsupported by the record,” see D.C.Code § 17-305(a); Super. Cit.Civ.R. 52(a), supra note 6,11 we would have to reverse because, as elaborated below, several of the subsidiary facts found by the trial court are themselves unsupported by the record and thus do not support the court’s ultimate ruling. In such circumstances, after setting aside the unsupported findings, the appellate court itself may decide the case upon the entire record. See Dayton Bd. of Educ. v. Brinkman, 443 U.S. 526, 534-37, 539-40, 99 S.Ct. 2971, 2977-79, 2980, 61 L.Ed.2d 720 (1979); United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 394-99, 68 S.Ct. 525, 541-44, 92 L.Ed. 746 (1948); cf. United States v. Shakur, 817 F.2d 189, 197 (2d Cir.) (in reviewing trial court finding under Bail Reform Act of 1984 that conditions could be imposed that reasonably would assure defendant’s presence at trial, appellate court may weigh record evidence itself [9]*9if trial court relied primarily on factor or factors not specified by Congress for evaluating defendant’s propensity to flee), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 840, 108 S.Ct. 128, 98 L.Ed.2d 85 (1987).
III.
We turn to the merits. In the second set of findings, dated June 19, 1989, after Morgan had been incarcerated for twenty-two months, the trial court reviewed the evidence of Morgan’s stated intentions not to comply with its order, as well as her reasons for refusing to comply and her adjustment to conditions in the jail. The court correctly noted that it was not required to accept Morgan’s avowed intention never to comply with the court order. See, e.g., Crededio, 759 F.2d at 592-98; Sanchez, 725 F.2d at 31. The court then found, however, that it “is unlikely that continued incarceration will cause Dr. Morgan to deliver the child directly to Dr. Foretich at any time within the foreseeable future, if for no other reason than Dr. Morgan’s personal pride.” The court added that if this were the only way in which Morgan could purge the contempt, the court would order her immediate release.
The court also went on to find, however, that “[n]o evidence of an unambiguous nature has been presented that Morgan will not produce her child to court social services or the Department of Human Services” —Morgan’s second alternative for purging her contempt. Based on this finding, the trial court concluded that the remedial purposes of incarceration could still be served and that the motion for relief from confinement should accordingly be denied. The record does not support this conclusion.
First, we find unsupported by the record most of the reasons the trial court gave in December 1988 for disbelieving Morgan’s testimony that she would not comply with the court’s August 1987 order. In this set of findings, the trial court gave four reasons for concluding — sixteen months after Morgan had gone to jail — that “coercion had just begun”: Morgan was just beginning to feel the impact of litigation losses in this court and in the federal courts; her friends and supporters might desert her; she would come to regret abandoning her medical practice; and she would miss her daughter too much to stay in jail. We will not second-guess the trial court’s perception about the impact of Morgan’s litigation losses; but, this finding by itself is clearly insufficient to support the trial court’s conclusion, and we see no record basis for the other three findings, which were not derived from discernible evidence and thus were speculative. The record reflects that Morgan’s community support system was strong in December 1988; that she had closed her medical practice by December 1988 and, according to friends and acquaintances, appeared to be at peace about it; and that her claim that her daughter is in danger cuts in favor of Morgan’s announced intention to remain incarcerated rather than comply with the court’s order.
Even if the court’s findings were supportable at the time of the first hearing, the additional six months of incarceration, coupled with the testimony of Morgan and others at the June 1989 hearing, give rise to solid inferences that three of the court’s four reasons for believing continued incarceration will cause Morgan to relent are simply not sustainable now. Morgan shows no signs of yielding to pressure on account of missing her daughter or her medical practice, and the trial court itself found that Morgan’s community support system had increased by June 1989, not fallen off.12 Furthermore, in its supplementary ruling of June 19, 1989, the trial court mentioned none of these reasons. This presents a problem. In its December 1988 order, the trial court did not differentiate between the likelihood of Morgan’s acceding to one or the other of her two alternatives for complying with the court’s 1987 order if incarceration were to continue. The trial court’s reasons for believing at the time that Morgan might comply with [10]*10the order, therefore, apparently applied equally to either alternative. During the past six months something has changed, for the trial court now believes that Morgan will never deliver the child to Foretich; and yet, except for referring to Morgan’s “personal pride,” the trial court did not explain this conclusion. Given the terms of our remand, however, we must assume the trial court intends its previous findings to remain in force, absent modification. Thus, we must assume the trial court still believes they reflect sufficiently powerful pressure to coerce Morgan’s compliance with the second alternative.
Neither the trial court nor this court is obliged to believe Morgan, but because the reasons on which the trial court relied for discounting Morgan’s resolve six months ago are no longer strong enough to overcome Morgan’s refusal, as a matter of “personal pride,” to turn the child over to Foretich, and because three of the four reasons are no longer operative in any event (if they ever were), we are hard pressed to sustain the trial court’s rejection of Morgan’s testimony that she will comply with no part of the court order, including her second option.
In December 1988, Morgan testified that she equated the two alternatives for purging her contempt because she believed turning the child over to the court was tantamount to turning her over to Foretich. We therefore address, more specifically, the trial court’s June 1989 finding that Morgan failed to demonstrate there is no realistic possibility, if incarceration continues, that Morgan will elect to free herself by exercising her option to turn her child over to a designated social service agency.
As the trial court’s supplemental findings make clear, two alternative methods of purging the contempt have been available to Morgan since she was jailed in August 1987. In fact, the trial court conducted a hearing on September 11, 1987, to make sure that Morgan fully understood these two options. It may be true, as the trial court stated in its June 1989 findings, that Morgan has emphasized to the public and to the court that she would never deliver the child to Foretich. It may also be true that, to sustain public support for her position, Morgan has deliberately avoided public discussion of her option, to turn the child over to one of the designated social service agencies. But Morgan testified at the December 13, 1988, hearing that she clearly understands her two options; that she equates the two because of the risk that unconditionally turning the child over to the court will result in eventually turning the child over to Foretich; and that she will therefore not produce the child as required.
In light of Morgan’s testimony, we see two problems with the trial court’s June 1989 finding. In the first place, the court found “[n]o evidence of an unambiguous nature ... that Morgan will not produce her child to court social services or the Department of Human Services.” But the only basis we can see for this finding is the court’s statement that it had “experienced an obvious degree of difficulty in determining whether Dr. Morgan objected to the child having supervised visitation by her father ... [;] it appears that she wanted to avoid saying ‘yes,’ ‘no,’ or T don’t know.’ ” These two issues are not the same; and, in any event, contrary to the trial court’s indication, we observe that Dr. Morgan’s position concerning supervised visitation by Dr. Foretich is consistently stated and crystal clear from the hearing record.
It is true that in June 1989, in response to the court’s questions, Morgan did testify that she might agree to her daughter’s supervised visitation with Foretich if Fore-tich admitted he had abused the child, if the child (now seven) was willing to visit with her father, and if such visitation was part of a therapy regime that Morgan considered “safe.” But, at no time did Morgan even intimate, let alone testify, that she would turn the child over to the court’s social services division or to DHS absent these conditions.
In finding that Morgan might do so if incarceration continued, the court did not advert to Morgan’s testimony in December [11]*111988 to the contrary. More importantly, the court inexplicably equated the issue of supervised visitation with the issue of turning the child over to court social services or to DHS. Morgan clearly does not equate these two issues, and, in the context of the questions asked at the June 1989 hearing, these issues potentially are quite different. Morgan has adamantly refused to return the child either to Foretich or to the jurisdiction of the court. While Morgan acknowledged the possibility of the child’s supervised visitation with Foretich, with specified conditions, she was not speaking in the context of unconditional control by the court. Morgan’s testimony does not suggest that she might exercise the option to purge her contempt by unconditionally surrendering her child to a designated public agency, thereby losing all control over the child’s visitation. The court therefore had no record basis for finding Morgan might relent under her second option.
Second, the trial court’s own findings support Morgan’s announced fear of unconditionally turning the child over to a social services agency. They accordingly reinforce the inference that Morgan will continue to defy the 1987 trial court order. While the trial court has stated that the child, upon her return, would not initially be placed with either parent, the court has made clear that this decision will be in force only until the child has been “evaluated by a neutral team of appointed experts.” This leaves open the possibility that the court, once again, could make the child available to Foretich, as well as to Morgan — a concern that Morgan has consistently expressed as the reason for refusing to surrender their child. That concern is corroborated, not alleviated, by the trial court’s statement in a footnote to its June 1989 findings, calling it “not inconceivable that appointed experts might initially recommend only supervised visits with either parent....” This statement implies that, to the trial court, unsupervised visits are also conceivable. And, in any event, it does not suggest the kind of supervised visits, on conditions, that Morgan said she might consider.13
Because the trial court itself has recognized on this record that there is no realistic possibility Morgan will deliver the child directly to Foretich, and because there is no record basis for concluding that Morgan has ever believed that unconditionally surrendering her child to a designated social services agency is a less troubling alternative, we are compelled by the record to conclude there is no realistic possibility or substantial likelihood that further incarceration will coerce Morgan into complying with the trial court’s order to produce her child.
Although a court need not accept a con-temnor’s own testimony as a true predictor of her behavior, Morgan has steadfastly refused to comply with the court’s order after twenty-three months of incarceration, has supplied clear reasons for doing so, has received increasing support from some members of the community to shore up her resolve, has dismantled her medical practice, has convinced friends and acquaintances that she will not yield, and has even convinced the trial court that she will not deliver the child to Foretich. We see no room for believing that further incarceration will coerce Morgan into delivering the child to the court social services division or to DHS; the trial court’s reasons for so believing are based on erroneous analysis and otherwise find no factual support in the record.
[12]*12We recognize that we necessarily are venturing into the elusive area of prediction, and, that, without the benefit of observing witness demeanor, we lack access to important data that the record cannot easily reflect, if at all. On the other hand, we do have a voluminous record that clearly reflects a consistent, convincing stand by Morgan that she will not budge. We are therefore convinced that Morgan's incarceration no longer can be said, after twenty-three months, to have a coercive effect. Due process requires her release from jail.14
In ordering Morgan’s release, we do not condone her conduct and do not express any view on where the child’s best interest lies — with Morgan, Foretich, both, or neither. Nor do we address the availability of other civil contempt remedies, such as a fine. Morgan’s refusal to comply with the trial court’s order, moreover, is subject to a properly lodged charge of criminal contempt, D.C.Code § 11-944 (1981), entitling her, however, to a jury trial, see Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 194, 88 S.Ct. 1477, 20 L.Ed.2d 522 (1968), if she would be subject to incarceration for more than six months, see Baldwin v. New York, 399 U.S. 66, 90 S.Ct. 1886, 26 L.Ed.2d 437 (1970). Moreover, other criminal sanctions may be available. Morgan’s actions, for example, may amount to a violation of the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act of 1985, D.C.Code §§ 16-1021 to 16-1026 (1988 Supp.) or its federal counterpart, 18 U.S.C. § 1073 (1982). The point is, however, that Morgan is entitled to due process of law. Judge Posner, dissenting in Crededio in another context, has well summarized our concern:
We should keep a bright line between civil and criminal contempt. Putting a person in prison for up to 18 months (which is almost as much time as the average federal criminal defendant serves who is sentenced to 5 years in prison), without a full trial, and with none of the safeguards of the criminal process, see 3 Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure: Criminal 2d § 705 (1982), is an anomaly in our system, and is permitted only when the purpose is not to punish for past miscreancy but to induce a specific act that the law has a right to coerce, in this ease testifying before the grand jury. See id. § 704, at pp. 823-24. As soon as it is clear that the inducement won’t work, the purpose of civil contempt lapses, and the continued imprisonment of the [person] becomes penal, and requires a criminal proceeding.
759 F.2d at 594. Furthermore, while we hold that Morgan must be released from jail, we share the trial court’s concern about the welfare of the child. We assume the trial court will take whatever steps are available to find her, and we expect the appropriate executive agencies will assist as well since the courts do not have law enforcement resources at their disposal. [13]*13Finally, although we are compelled to reverse the trial court’s ruling, we note that the court has shown remarkable fortitude in the face of long and gruelling proceedings. We commend the court’s efforts.
IV.
We reverse the trial court’s order denying Morgan’s motion for relief from civil contempt and remand the case to the trial court for entry of an order to release Morgan from the District of Columbia jail.15
So ordered.