Skip child support pmnt? Charged with crime.

The court held that the trial court properly found plaintiff-Klamka in criminal contempt after he stopped payment on child support checks made payable to defendant-Morton. He argued, inter alia, that neither he nor his attorney was aware that the trial court was conducting a criminal contempt proceeding until near the conclusion of the hearing. Thus, convicting him of criminal contempt was a violation of his due process rights. He also argued that because the only sanction sought by defendant for his actions was remedial, the trial court abused its discretion by finding him in criminal contempt. The court held that neither issue had any merit. "Criminal contempt differs from civil contempt in that the sanctions are punitive rather than remedial." Further, a party accused of criminal contempt must "be informed of the nature of the charge against him or her and . . . be given adequate opportunity to prepare a defense[.]" Defendant brought her motion for an order to find plaintiff in contempt under MCR 3.606(A), which refers to "punishment" and allows for a "bench warrant" to be issued. These imply criminal contempt. "The sanctions sought by defendant were not merely remedial, but were also punitive" where she moved for "substantial sanctions" in her motion and not just the remedial sanction of receiving the money owed. Also, shortly after the show cause hearing began, plaintiff's counsel argued that plaintiff could not be held in criminal contempt because he acted on the advice of counsel. Thus, he appeared prepared for a criminal contempt hearing. Also, before plaintiff testified, his counsel directly inquired of the trial court whether the proceedings were criminal, and at that time plaintiff was informed by the trial court that it considered the contempt proceedings to be criminal. Thus, the court concluded that plaintiff had adequate notice of the proceedings against him and there was no plain error affecting his substantial rights. Affirmed.