Rohr v. Rohr

Opinion

F !1)

URT

1 -

2 I9FE3 —7 05 cL:

3

4

5

6 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 7

8 TIMOTHY I. ROHR,

Plaintiff, Domestic Case No. DM0505-17 10 vs.

DECISION AND ORDER

11 LEONE R. WILLIAM$-ROHR 12 Defendant.

13

14

15 INTRODUCTION

16 The Court previously ordered Defendant to show cause why she should not be held in

17 contempt. Having heard Defendant’s testimony, the Court now addresses the issue. This matter

18 is before the Honorable Michael J. Bordallo. Plaintiff Timothy J. Rohr (“Plaintiff’) is

19 represented by Daniel S. Somerfieck, Esq. of Somerfieck & Associates, PLLC. Defendant 20 Leone R. Williams-Rohr (“Defendant”) is represented by Jeffrey A. Cook, Esq. of the Law 21 Offices of Cunliffe & Cook. Having reviewed the evidence, the Court hereby HOLDS 22 Defendant in contempt of court for failing to follow court orders.

23 BACKGROUND

24 On July 31, 2018 this Court ordered Defendant, living on the Virgin Islands, to provide 25 Plaintiff, living on Guam, liberal access to their minor children via video conferencing or skype, 1 as well as telephonic access. The Court also ordered Defendant to update Plaintiff on the

2 children’s school and medical issues and to allow the Plaintiff full access on other decisions

regarding the children’s needs. These orders will be referred to as “Orders.” On Sep. 28, 2018,

Plaintiff moved for an order to show cause why Defendant should not be held in contempt for 5 failing to follow the Orders. In response, the Court ordered Defendant to appear on Oct. 9, 2018 6 to show cause. The hearing was delayed until Oct. 19, 2018, when both parties testified about 7 Defendant’s level of compliance with the Orders. Afier the hearing, the court took the matter 8 under advisement.

9 FACTS

10 1. The parties were married on May 11, 1986 in St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands.

12 2. The parties had eleven children together, and then, afier 31 years of marriage, they

13 separated.

14 3. At the time of the Complaint For Divorce, Sep. 20, 2017, three children were minors and

one was an adult dependent due to developmental delays from autism. One of those 16 three minors has since turned 18 on Nov. 14, 2018.

17 4. In June 2017, Defendant and the youngest two children lefi Guam and relocated to the 18 U.S. Virgin Islands. Plaintiff claims that Defendant misled him to believe the trip would 19 be temporary and that she would later return to Guam. Defendant argues that Plaintiff 20 knew the move was permanent.

21 5. Each party has filed a complaint for divorce. Plaintiff filed in Guam on Sep. 20, 2017, 22 and Defendant filed in the U.S. Virgin Islands on Nov. 14, 2017.

23

24 6. Plaintiff travelled to visit the children in the Virgin Islands in August 2018. Plaintiff

25 alleges that during this visit, Defendant denied Plaintiff sufficient access to the children.

1 7. On Nov. 15, 2018 the Court ordered a call schedule for Plaintiff to speak with the

2 children four nights per week.

8. On Dec. 17, 2018, the Court ordered a holiday visitation schedule designating the days

and times each parent would have physical custody of the children from Dec. 20, 2018 5 to Jan. 7, 2019.

6 9. Presently, the Court has not issued a final divorce decree.

7 ISSUE

8 1. Whether Defendant should be found in contempt of court for failing to comply with the

Orders from the July 31, 2018 Decision and Order.

10

11 PRINCIPLES OF LAW

12 Contempt of court includes disobedience of any lawful court order. 7 Guam Code. Ann.

13 § 34101(a)(5). In 2003 the Supreme Court of Guam explained the elements required for a court 14 to find a party in contempt of a prior order. Rodriguez v. Rodriguez, 2003 Guam $ ¶ 15. The

Supreme Court held that, [t]he elements of contempt are generally: 1) a valid order, 2)

16 knowledge of the order, 3) ability to comply with the order, and 4) willful failure to comply 17 with the order.’ Id. (citing In re Ivey, 102 CaLRptr.2d 447, 451 (Ct. App. 2000)).

18

19 ANALYSIS

20 All four elements of the Supreme Court of Guam’s four-factor test must be satisfied for

21 the Court to find Defendant in contempt. If any element is absent, the party will not be found in

22 contempt. The first factor is the presence of a valid order. The Court issued valid Orders to

23 Defendant on July 31, 2018 as follows: 24 The Court orders the Defendant to provide liberal access by the Plaintiff to the children via video conferencing or skype as well as telephonic access. The Defendant shall also 25 update the Plaintiff on all school and medical issues and allow the Plaintiff full access 26 on other decisions regarding the children’s needs.

.

1 Decision and Order 4, July 31, 2018. The second factor is knowledge of the valid order.

2 Defendant had knowledge of the Orders, her attorney having been alerted to the decision in a

Notice of Entry on Docket. Defendant also testified to being aware of the Orders in the hearing

on Oct. 19, 2018. Hr’g, Oct. 19, 2018. The third factor is the party’s ability to comply with the 5 order. The Court received no evidence that Defendant was unable to comply with the Orders.

6 The fourth factor is willful failure to comply with the order. Defendant took the stand on 7 Oct. 19, 2018 to explain her level of compliance with the Orders. Id. She testified that Plaintiff 8 spoke with the minor children through video conference only once between the time the Orders

were issued and the Oct. 19, 2018 hearing. Id. Defendant also testified that Plaintiff spoke with

the children via telephone “several times” or “maybe seven or eight times” during that period.

12 Id. Defendant testified that during two-weeks of that period, the children were sick and school

13 started up, and for that reason, Plaintiff couldn’t speak with them. Id. Defendant testified that

14 Plaintiff called every day from Sep. 1 to Sep. 26 and left a voicemail asking to speak with the

15 children. Id. She testified that “it could easily be” that Plaintiff never spoke with the children 16 during that 26-day period. Id. Defendant also testified that “it could very easily be” that Plaintiff 17 called every day from Aug. 25, 2018 to Sep. 1, 2018 and that the children didn’t speak with him 18 on those days, which was the week after he returned from visiting the children in the Virgin 19 Islands. Id. Defendant testified that she “tempered” Plaintiffs ability to communicate with his 20 children. Id.

21 With regard to the order to update Plaintiff on school, medical, and other decisions, 22 Defendant testified that she did not contact Plaintiff about a behavior plan developed with the 23

24 school for their child William. Id. She also testified that she did not discuss with Plaintiff

25 decisions about which schools to enroll the children in, such as private schools. Defendant also

26 testified that there would be no reason Plaintiff couldn’t be present via videoconference in the 1 school meetings about his children. In light of the evidence presented at the hearing, the Court

2 finds that Defendant failed to comply with the Orders and that she did so willfully. Therefore,

all four elements to find contempt are present, and the Court will find Defendant in contempt of 4 court.

5 CONCLUSION AND ORDER

6 for the above reasons, the Court HOLDS Defendant in contempt of court. At this time, 7 the Court will not order sanctions but will await additional information about Defendant’s 8 compliance with other Court orders.

SO ORDERED this day of________________ 2019

15 HO RABLE MICHAEL J. BORDALLO Judge, Superior Court of Guam 16

17

18

19

20

21

22 SERViCE VIA aCkmwkdge that a copy of th nmnai flereto was placed

fl the

23 ::ourL bx of:

24

25 ty Clerk, Superior Coed of Guam 26 Page 5 015