Sign In
Free Newsletter
STATE OF MARYLAND v. ROMAINE WILSON
Listen to this articleCivil litigation — Constructive civil contempt — Show cause order
This case arises from an August 16, 2016, order of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, committing appellee Romaine Wilson to the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, after being found incompetent to stand trial. The order directed that appellee be transported to the Clifton T. Perkins Hospital Center immediately. On August 19, 2016, appellee filed a petition for constructive civil contempt against the Department, stating she had not been admitted to the hospital center. The court then issued a show cause order on August 22, 2016. Appellee was admitted to Perkins on August 24, 2016.
On September 9, 2016, the Department moved to dismiss the show cause order as moot. The court held a hearing on September 28, 2016, where it considered both the contempt petition and the motion to dismiss. Thereafter, the court issued a written opinion and order finding the Department in contempt. The order specified that the contempt could be purged if the Department immediately suspended application of its admissions policy and instead put in place “reasonable efforts to comply with court orders, including but not limited to seeking available bed space in appropriate hospitals outside of the geographic area of a given case or classification based on offense.” The Department noted a timely appeal. The circuit court stayed the contempt order pending final disposition of the appeal on November 22, 2016.
Appellant presents the following questions for our review:
1. Did the Circuit Court for Baltimore County err in refusing to dismiss the show cause order as moot when Ms. Wilson, the only subject of the order giving rise to the show cause order, had been admitted to Perkins more than a month before the hearing?
2. Did the Circuit Court for Baltimore County err in finding the Department in contempt when (a) the Department had complied with the only directive in the order – Ms. Wilson’s commitment to Perkins – before the finding of contempt; (b) the Department had no ability to comply with the commitment order before August 24, 2016 because it did not have an available bed; (c) the Department did not act willfully; and (d) the order was not sufficiently specific to support a contempt finding?
