{ "id": 8525088, "name": "VALERIE A. GLESNER v. MICHAEL DEMBROSKY, JOHN DEMBROSKY and VIVIAN DEMBROSKY", "name_abbreviation": "Glesner v. Dembrosky", "decision_date": "1985-03-19", "docket_number": "No. 844DC716", "first_page": "594", "last_page": "599", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "73 N.C. App. 594" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "65 N.C. 518", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 1955511 ], "year": 1871, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/65/0518-01" ] }, { "cite": "197 S.E. 2d 880", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "283 N.C. 666", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8559840, 8559809, 8559848, 8559821, 8559860 ], "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/283/0666-03", "/nc/283/0666-01", "/nc/283/0666-04", "/nc/283/0666-02", "/nc/283/0666-05" ] }, { "cite": "196 S.E. 2d 598", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "18 N.C. App. 183", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8548013 ], "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/18/0183-01" ] }, { "cite": "323 S.E. 2d 920", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "per curiam" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "312 N.C. 620", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4749253 ], "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "per curiam" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/312/0620-01" ] }, { "cite": "317 S.E. 2d 402", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "69 N.C. App. 421", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8526396 ], "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/69/0421-01" ] }, { "cite": "253 S.E. 2d 616", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "40 N.C. App. 661", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8552583 ], "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/40/0661-01" ] }, { "cite": "216 S.E. 2d 911", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "287 N.C. 664", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8564448, 8564549, 8564589, 8564502, 8564473 ], "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/287/0664-01", "/nc/287/0664-04", "/nc/287/0664-05", "/nc/287/0664-03", "/nc/287/0664-02" ] }, { "cite": "214 S.E. 2d 288", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "25 N.C. App. 510", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8555070 ], "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/25/0510-01" ] }, { "cite": "239 S.E. 2d 305", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "34 N.C. App. 583", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8550674 ], "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/34/0583-01" ] }, { "cite": "263 S.E. 2d 624", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "only question in show cause hearing is whether order violated" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "45 N.C. App. 348", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8548878 ], "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "only question in show cause hearing is whether order violated" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/45/0348-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7\u00a7 50-13.5", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "298 S.E. 2d 345", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "307 N.C. 401", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8562530 ], "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/307/0401-01" ] }, { "cite": "265 S.E. 2d 135", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "300 N.C. 83", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8559792 ], "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/300/0083-01" ] }, { "cite": "316 S.E. 2d 315", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "69 N.C. App. 213", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8526022 ], "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/69/0213-01" ] }, { "cite": "243 S.E. 2d 129", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "294 N.C. 554", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8574089 ], "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/294/0554-01" ] }, { "cite": "273 S.E. 2d 247", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "appearance waives right to object to procedure" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "301 N.C. 561", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8569785 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "appearance waives right to object to procedure" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/301/0561-01" ] }, { "cite": "320 S.E. 2d 690", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "70 N.C. App. 566", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8523640 ], "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/70/0566-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1-75.7", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "235 S.E. 2d 484", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1985, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "312 N.C. 796", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4758339, 4749837, 4759214, 4754262, 4759069 ], "year": 1985, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/312/0796-02", "/nc/312/0796-01", "/nc/312/0796-05", "/nc/312/0796-04", "/nc/312/0796-03" ] }, { "cite": "319 S.E. 2d 329", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "70 N.C. App. 281", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8521629 ], "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/70/0281-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 627, "char_count": 11457, "ocr_confidence": 0.819, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.316342908106318e-07, "percentile": 0.9172135132202688 }, "sha256": "388ccb8301921439e165008e1db26afd1fc4daab583b2d94520f9f4a6ae1091c", "simhash": "1:42a96cebf1af9c5c", "word_count": 1869 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:55:13.639601+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges Whichard and Becton concur." ], "parties": [ "VALERIE A. GLESNER v. MICHAEL DEMBROSKY, JOHN DEMBROSKY and VIVIAN DEMBROSKY" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "WELLS, Judge.\nPlaintiff first challenges the jurisdiction of the trial court, on the grounds that no order or notice commanding her to appear and show cause was ever issued. Such an order or notice is required by N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 5A-23(a) (1981):\n(a) Proceedings for civil contempt are either by the order of a judicial official directing the alleged contemnor to appear at a specified reasonable time and show cause why he should not be held in civil contempt or by the notice of a judicial official that the alleged contemnor will be held in contempt unless he appears at a specified reasonable time and shows cause why he should not be held in contempt. The order or notice must be given at least five days in advance of the hearing unless good cause is shown. . . .\nSubject matter jurisdiction is conferred on the district court elsewhere, N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 5A-23(b) (1981); the quoted provisions clearly govern exercise of jurisdiction over the person. Compare N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 4 of the Rules of Civil Procedure (summons to appear); Childress v. Forsyth County Hospital Auth., 70 N.C. App. 281, 319 S.E. 2d 329 (1984), disc. rev. denied, 312 N.C. 796, 235 S.E. 2d 484 (1985). Objections to lack of jurisdiction over the person may be waived by voluntary appearance. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1-75.7 (1983). We have recently held that this includes objections to the notice required by G.S. \u00a7 5A-23. Bethea v. McDonald, 70 N.C. App. 566, 320 S.E. 2d 690 (1984). See also Lowder v. Mills, Inc., 301 N.C. 561, 273 S.E. 2d 247 (1981) (appearance waives right to object to procedure). Plaintiff never objected below to lack of an order or notice. Plaintiff appeared at hearing and presented substantial evidence on the issues of which she claims no notice; in addition, she stipulated to jurisdiction in the record on appeal. She thereby waived her objection to the lack of notice. Bethea v. McDonald, supra. The assignment is overruled.\nWith one exception, plaintiffs remaining assignments of error challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court\u2019s findings of fact and in turn the conclusions of law. It is well settled that in contempt proceedings the trial court\u2019s findings of fact are conclusive on appeal when supported by any competent evidence and are reviewable only for the purpose of passing on their sufficiency to warrant the judgment. Clark v. Clark, 294 N.C. 554, 243 S.E. 2d 129 (1978); Foy v. Foy, 69 N.C. App. 213, 316 S.E. 2d 315 (1984). The trial court is not required to make separate conclusions of law. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 5A-23(e) (1981). Compare N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 52(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Contempt proceedings are not a form of punishment, but serve to ensure obedience to orders of the court. Jolly v. Wright, 300 N.C. 83, 265 S.E. 2d 135 (1980). Therefore, it is essential that the alleged contemnor have the means to comply, and that the court so find, before she can be found in contempt. Henderson v. Henderson, 307 N.C. 401, 298 S.E. 2d 345 (1983).\nWe have reviewed the record and conclude that the findings are supported by the evidence and that they support the order. There was evidence that plaintiff never gave defendants a useful telephone number, and that after defendants discovered the correct number when they called, plaintiff refused to let them talk to Michael. These actions effectively and completely frustrated the court-ordered telephone visitation. The court\u2019s finding that plaintiff refused to allow in-person visitation as ordered is amply supported by the evidence. Compliance with the literal terms of the order was clearly within plaintiffs physical ability, as the court found. Nothing else appearing, the order adjudging plaintiff in contempt was entirely proper.\nThe thrust of plaintiffs arguments, on appeal and below, is that defendants\u2019 conduct justified non-compliance or justified insisting on additional conditions of compliance. Such an argument should properly have been brought before the court by a motion for change in visitation due to changed circumstances. See N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7\u00a7 50-13.5, 50-13.7 (1984). Plaintiff made no such motion. The trial court could properly have refused to hear her evidence. See Lowder v. Mills, Inc., 45 N.C. App. 348, 263 S.E. 2d 624 (1980) (only question in show cause hearing is whether order violated), rev\u2019d on other grounds, 301 N.C. 561, 273 S.E. 2d 247 (1981). Nevertheless, the court heard the evidence and made findings accordingly. Again, these findings are conclusive if supported by any competent evidence. Searl v. Searl, 34 N.C. App. 583, 239 S.E. 2d 305 (1977).\nThe trial judge heard a great deal of evidence concerning defendants\u2019 behavior with Michael, including extensive psychiatric testimony. We find that there was competent evidence that defendants recognized the inappropriateness of their behavior and would not continue it in the future. This supports the court\u2019s finding that defendants were willing to cease the objectionable behavior.\nThe real problem, from plaintiffs perspective, is that the court ordered in-person visitation to continue despite defendants\u2019 past behavior. We recognize that courts of law cannot hope to regulate ongoing domestic relationships in a manner satisfactory to all concerned. See Clark v. Clark, supra. Nevertheless, the trial courts have the duty to decide domestic disputes, guided always by the best interests of the child and judicial objectivity. Id. To that end, trial courts possess broad discretion to fashion custodial and visitation arrangements appropriate to the particular, often difficult, domestic situations before them. Pruneau v. Sanders, 25 N.C. App. 510, 214 S.E. 2d 288, cert. denied, 287 N.C. 664, 216 S.E. 2d 911 (1975). The decision of the trial judge, who sees and hears the witnesses and observes their demeanor, ought not to be upset on appeal absent a clear showing of abuse of that discretion. King v. Demo, 40 N.C. App. 661, 253 S.E. 2d 616 (1979). On this record, we conclude that plaintiff has failed to make such a showing.\nLike the trial court, we find persuasive the facts that plaintiff had allowed visitation previously, despite admitted knowledge of the grounds now raised, and that plaintiff waited to the last minute to deny visitation. The integrity of the court system and its judgments demands that parties may not cease compliance with judgments at whatever times they may see fit. Gates v. Gates, 69 N.C. App. 421, 317 S.E. 2d 402 (1984), aff'd, 312 N.C. 620, 323 S.E. 2d 920 (1985) (per curiam). Under compelling equitable circumstances, we have remanded for further proceedings where literal compliance with a contempt order would result in injustice. Id. The present record does not disclose such circumstances.\nThe only assignment requiring further discussion involves the court\u2019s directive that plaintiff pay into court defendants\u2019 travel expenses, in attending the hearing on defendants\u2019 motion, for reimbursement to defendants. A North Carolina court has no authority to award damages to a private party in a contempt proceeding. Records v. Tape Corp. and Broadcasting System v. Tape Corp., 18 N.C. App. 183, 196 S.E. 2d 598, cert. denied, 283 N.C. 666, 197 S.E. 2d 880 (1973). Compare 17 Am. Jur. 2d Contempt \u00a7 113 (1964) (majority rule apparently contra). Contempt is a wrong against the state, and moneys collected for contempt go to the state alone. In the matter of Rhodes, 65 N.C. 518 (1871). That portion of the order accordingly constituted error and must be vacated.\nThe record before us reflects a conscientious and objective effort by the trial judge to reach a fair result in a trying situation. We conclude that the order represents a reasonable solution in the best interests of the child. The order appealed from is therefore affirmed, except for the one erroneous directive requiring plaintiff to pay defendants\u2019 travel expenses, which is vacated.\nAffirmed in part; vacated in part.\nJudges Whichard and Becton concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "WELLS, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Warlick, Milsted, Dotson & Carter, by John T. Carter, Jr., for plaintiff.", "Collins and Howard, by Jill R. Howard, for defendants." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "VALERIE A. GLESNER v. MICHAEL DEMBROSKY, JOHN DEMBROSKY and VIVIAN DEMBROSKY\nNo. 844DC716\n(Filed 19 March 1985)\n1. Contempt of Court \u00a7 5.1; Appearance g 2\u2014 civil contempt \u2014 show cause order waived by appearance\nIn a child visitation action in which plaintiff was held in contempt for failure to obey a prior court order, plaintiff waived her objection to the lack of a show cause order or notice by appearing at the hearing, presenting substantial evidence on the issues of which she claims no notice, and stipulating to jurisdiction in the record on appeal. G.S. 5A-23(a) (1981).\n2. Contempt of Court 8 6.2\u2014 disobedience of child visitation order \u2014sufficiency of the evidence\nIn a child visitation dispute in which plaintiff was found in contempt for not obeying a prior court order, the evidence supported the court\u2019s findings that plaintiff had the ability to comply with the terms of a prior order; had never given defendants, the paternal grandparents, a useful telephone number; had refused to let them talk to the child when they discovered the correct number; had refused to allow in-person visitation; and that defendants recognized the inappropriateness of their behavior with the child and would not continue it in the future. Plaintiff did not move for a change in visitation due to changed circumstances, but waited until the last minute to deny visitation; the parties may not cease compliance with judgments at whatever time they may see fit. G.S. 50-13.5 (1984), G.S. 50-13.7 (1984).\n3. Contempt of Court \u00a7 6.3\u2014 civil contempt \u2014 no authority to award damages\nThe court did not have the authority to direct plaintiff to pay the out of state defendants\u2019 travel costs in an order holding plaintiff in contempt for not obeying a prior visitation order. Contempt is a wrong against the State, and monies collected for contempt go to the State alone.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Martin, Judge. Judgment entered 11 April 1984 in ONSLOW County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 15 February 1985.\nUnder an order entered by a New Jersey court, defendants John and Vivian Dembrosky, the paternal grandparents of Michael Mullen, were given certain visitation rights with Michael.\nSubsequent to the entry of the New Jersey order, plaintiff sought to have defendants\u2019 visitation rights terminated. The Onslow County District Court entered an order on 13 December 1982 giving the New Jersey order full faith and credit and continuing defendants\u2019 visitation rights. In that order, plaintiff was also ordered to keep defendants advised as to her telephone number so that defendants might exercise telephone visitations with Michael.\nOn 12 January 1984, defendants filed a motion in Onslow County District Court in which they alleged that plaintiff was denying defendants\u2019 visitation rights and prayed that the court hold plaintiff in civil contempt. At a hearing held pursuant to defendants\u2019 motion on 15 March 1984, both sides presented extensive evidence. The trial court found that plaintiff had wrongfully denied defendants\u2019 visitation rights and that plaintiffs disobedience to the court\u2019s prior order was wilful. The court\u2019s order stated that plaintiff was in wilful contempt and ordered plaintiff to serve a jail sentence of thirty days, suspended on stated terms of compliance.\nFrom that order, plaintiff has appealed.\nWarlick, Milsted, Dotson & Carter, by John T. Carter, Jr., for plaintiff.\nCollins and Howard, by Jill R. Howard, for defendants." }, "file_name": "0594-01", "first_page_order": 626, "last_page_order": 631 }