VOLLMER v. HOVE (2026)

[¶1] Taylor Vollmer appeals two district court orders holding him in contempt. Vollmer claims the district court abused its discretion when it determined his conduct constituted an intentional disobedience of the judgment and supported contempt findings. We affirm the district court's orders.

I

[¶2] Taylor Vollmer and Kiah Hove have one daughter, SNRV, born in 2010. A 2015 judgment awarded Hove primary residential responsibility, with Vollmer receiving parenting time every other weekend, Wednesday evenings, alternating holidays, and on an extended basis during the summer. In April 2025, Hove moved for contempt sanctions, alleging Vollmer exceeded his parenting time. Vollmer subsequently moved to modify parental responsibility in May 2025. Hove also moved to modify parental responsibility in June 2025 and again to hold Vollmer in contempt. The district court held a hearing in July 2025 to address Hove's contempt motions. At the July hearing, SNRV testified she refused to visit her mother because she does not trust Hove, expressed fear, and described specific incidents of arguing and screaming. She submitted an affidavit describing a physical altercation at her mother's home. SNRV stated her refusal to honor her mother's parenting time was her own decision. Vollmer did not testify, but submitted an affidavit. The court orally held Vollmer in contempt, finding he failed to comply with the parenting plan. The court ordered Vollmer to pay Hove $1,000 in attorney's fees. The court filed a corresponding written order.

[¶3] In July 2025, Vollmer moved to reconsider. He claimed the district court should reconsider based on SNRV's reported safety concerns. He argued noncompliance was not his willful or intentional disobedience of the order. Hove again moved to hold Vollmer in contempt for continued noncompliance. The district court held a hearing on September 5, 2025, which resumed on September 9, 2025. At these hearings, SNRV, Vollmer, and Hove testified to their relationships and reasons Hove did not receive her parenting time. The district court found SNRV defiant and disrespectful, and found SNRV's testimony about fearing her mother was not credible. The court determined Vollmer needed to intercede, and by not doing so, he failed to comply with the court's order for Hove's parenting time. Outlining Vollmer's obligation, the court said he must:

[T]ell her, no, you have to go. Because there's nothing here that says that she's not. She can be on eggshells, she can hide herself in her room the whole time, but you have to be the father. You have to deal with that, and you're going to have to tell her what has to be done.

The court again found Vollmer in contempt, denied his motion to reconsider, and ordered him to pay Hove $1,000 in attorney's fees.

II

[¶4] Vollmer argues the district court abused its discretion when it found him in contempt on two occasions. He argues Hove did not clearly show the alleged contempt occurred and SNRV's actions are not attributable to him as willful violations of the judgment.

[¶5] “The district court has broad discretion in making contempt decisions.” Bedgar v. Wilson, 2026 ND 51, ¶ 13, 32 N.W.3d 296 (quoting Rath v. Rath, 2017 ND 128, ¶ 9, 895 N.W.2d 306). “[C]ontempt of court includes intentional disobedience, resistance, or obstruction of the authority, process, or order of a court or other officer. To warrant a remedial sanction for contempt, there must be a willful and inexcusable intent to violate a court order.” Prchal v. Prchal, 2011 ND 62, ¶ 5, 795 N.W.2d 693 (internal citations omitted). On appeal, a determination of contempt “lies within the district court's sound discretion, which will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion.” Id. “[A] court abuses its discretion when it acts in an arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable manner or when it misinterprets or misapplies the law.” Id. “This Court's review of a district court's determination on contempt is very limited.” Boyda v. Boyda, 2025 ND 193, ¶ 25, 27 N.W.3d 706 (citing Matter of Emelia Hirsch, 2025 ND 79, ¶ 5, 20 N.W.3d 154).

[¶6] Vollmer cites two cases to argue the district court abused its discretion in holding him in contempt. In each of these cases, this Court affirmed the district court's refusal to hold a parent in contempt based on a child's actions.

[¶7] In Lind v. Lind, Christopher Lind moved to find Karla Lind in contempt for denying access to their two children reducing his parenting time. 2014 ND 70, ¶¶ 2-3, 844 N.W.2d 907. The district court denied the motion and determined the 16- and 17-year-old children wanted “to see their father on their own terms, rather than being forced to see [him].” Id. ¶¶ 4, 13. The court determined Karla Lind did nothing to willfully violate the court order, and this Court affirmed, holding the district court did not abuse its discretion. Id. ¶ 16.

[¶8] In Votava v. Votava, Andrew Votava claimed Kelly Votava denied his parenting time on four occasions. 2015 ND 171, ¶ 3, 865 N.W.2d 821. The district court did not hold Kelly Votava in contempt, finding “there has really been no discouraging of the children visiting their father.” Id. ¶ 8. The court reasoned Kelly Votava did not intentionally violate the court order, because the children refused to go to their father's parenting time. Id. ¶¶ 9 -10. This Court affirmed, holding the record supported the district court's findings and the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining Kelly Votava did not intentionally violate the court order. Id. ¶ 10.

[¶9] In both Lind and Votava, the district court declined to find a party in contempt. Here, the district court held Vollmer in contempt. The question is whether the district court abused its discretion by holding Vollmer in contempt under circumstances similar to those in which other district courts declined to do so.

[¶10] The district court found Vollmer failed to ensure Hove received her parenting time and Vollmer “has not appropriately disciplined [SNRV] to satisfy her required participation in the visits as court ordered.” The court found SNRV's testimony about fear, anxiety, and conflict during Hove's parenting time was not credible. The court found although Vollmer had no obligation to bring SNRV to Hove's parenting time, he failed to apply the proper discipline to ensure SNRV complied with Hove's parenting time. In holding Vollmer in contempt, the court told Vollmer he must impose consequences on SNRV if she failed to go to Hove's parenting time, which he had failed to do up to that point. The court explained if adequate consequences are imposed but noncompliance continues, the court can hold SNRV, not Vollmer, in contempt of the judgment.

[¶11] Although an issue of first impression for this Court, several courts have affirmed a parental contempt finding under similar circumstances. See, e.g., In re Marriage of Rideout, 150 Wash.2d 337, 77 P.3d 1174, 1183 (2003) (affirming a contempt finding when a parent acquiesced or encouraged the child's refusal to visit); In re Marriage of Marez and Marshall, 377 Mont. 304, 340 P.3d 520, 527-28 (2014) (affirming a contempt finding where a parent encouraged a child's recalcitrance); MacIntosh v. MacIntosh, 749 N.E.2d 626, 630-31 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (affirming a contempt order and rejecting the argument that a parent may refuse to enforce the judgment based solely on the child's wishes); Smith v. Smith, 70 Ohio App.2d 87, 434 N.E.2d 749, 752 (1980) (affirming a contempt order noting a lack of proof the visitation would cause the child mental or physical harm); Ermel v. Ermel, 322 Pa.Super. 400, 469 A.2d 682, 685 (1983) (affirming a contempt order where a parent failed to uphold the obligation to assist the child in maintaining a relationship with the other parent). The district court did not abuse its discretion by holding Vollmer in contempt.

III

[¶12] We affirm the district court's orders.

Friese, Justice.

[¶13] Lisa Fair McEvers, C.J. Jerod E. Tufte Jon J. Jensen Douglas A. Bahr Daniel J. Crothers, S.J.