Sencoa Damair Crawford v. Department of Revenue and Tanisha Charmia Watson

Citations: 219 So. 3d 224; 2017 WL 2130238; 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 6931Docket: 16-2059

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; May 15, 2017; Florida; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

An appeal was filed by Sencoa Damair Crawford challenging a circuit court order that found him in contempt for failing to pay child support and mandated his immediate incarceration until a $500 purge was paid. Crawford argued that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate his ability to pay the purge amount and contended that the hearing officer lacked authority to order his immediate arrest. The Department of Revenue conceded that the hearing officer's decision was erroneous, leading to the reversal of the contempt order.

The background includes a September 2014 order confirming Crawford as the legal parent of two children, requiring monthly child support payments of $511 and a retroactive amount of $3,066. In January 2016, the Department initiated contempt proceedings due to Crawford's lack of payments, aside from sporadic $500 purge payments from previous contempt actions. During a March 2016 hearing, Crawford testified about his unemployment and efforts to find work, indicating he had applied to 30 jobs and had recently done temporary work at a low wage. Despite his financial struggles, which included having only $15 in cash and relying on his girlfriend for support, the hearing officer determined he had the ability to pay based on his potential income. Crawford’s counsel objected to the lack of competent evidence for the contempt finding and the authority of the hearing officer to order incarceration, but the officer did not withdraw her order. Following his arrest, the purge amount was later reduced, and Crawford was released after payment. The hearing officer's written recommendation affirmed her earlier contempt finding, citing Crawford's limited work history and previous purges without regular payments.

A circuit court judge adopted an order on April 11, 2016, after the appellant filed a notice of appeal and was deemed indigent by the Clerk of Court. The appellant contested the hearing officer's determination that he had the present ability to pay a $500 purge amount, which was later upheld by the circuit court. The Department acknowledged this as an error, emphasizing that a judgment of contempt must be supported by competent evidence. Florida case law requires an affirmative finding of a party's present ability to pay support before imposing contempt, shifting the burden of proof to the defaulting party to demonstrate inability to meet obligations. If found in contempt, the order must specify the party's present ability to pay and may include sanctions such as incarceration, which must also set purge conditions tied to the contemnor’s ability to comply.

The purpose of civil contempt proceedings is compliance, and incarceration should only occur when the contemnor can comply. Alternative compliance methods exist, such as encouraging job searches for unemployed parties. In this case, the hearing officer's finding that the appellant could pay his obligations was unsupported by substantial evidence, as the appellant testified to having no income or assets. The trial judge's prior determination of the appellant's indigency confirmed his lack of ability to pay, leading to a reversal of the contempt order. Furthermore, the hearing officer's authority to incarcerate the appellant was questioned, with the Department conceding that the order lacked proper authority.

The Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure grant hearing officers the authority to conduct proceedings and issue recommended orders for circuit court review but do not empower them to order arrests. In contrast, circuit court judges can impose incarceration for civil contempt and have inherent constitutional authority to punish contempt, including incarceration. A hearing officer, not being a constitutional officer or part of the judiciary, cannot issue contempt orders or mandate incarceration. This principle is supported by case law, specifically Gray v. State, which ruled that a special master could not order arrest for non-payment of support. In the case at hand, the hearing officer erroneously found the appellant in contempt and ordered his immediate incarceration without proper authority. Although the Department argues this matter may be moot since the appellant has been released, the appellant contends that the issue is capable of repetition and would evade review. The court agrees, referencing State v. S.M. to highlight similar circumstances. Ultimately, the court finds insufficient evidence to support the appellant's ability to pay the child support obligation or purge amount, leading to a reversal of the contempt order. Judges Lewis and Wetherell concur.