The question of the burden of proof in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania regarding what constitutes contempt is pretty clear. In order to meet the burden of contempt, a party must have committed or not performed actions that are specifically directed by a court order. The party accusing the other party of contempt must satisfy that burden by a preponderance of the evidence. The accuser must prove that the person in contempt first, had notice of the specific order or decree which was disobeyed. This is typically satisfied by either proof that the order was sent to the parent or that the complaining parent has told the violating parent of the nature of the responsibility. The violation must be proven to be volitional – meaning within the violator’s control. This means that if unforeseen and uncontrollable circumstances cause the violation or violations, the violator can-not be punished for something that was not meant simply because of circumstances. Finally – and perhaps the most difficult of the requirements is to prove wrongful intent. Obviously no one is going to admit that they violated an order on purpose to hurt or anger the other party. There will always be some sort of excuse by the violating party including exigent circumstances. To prove the mindset of the violator, circumstances, emails, communications must be used in order to demonstrate the mental state of the violator.
J.M. v. K.W., 2017 PA Super 167, 164 A.3d 1260, 1264 (Pa. Super. 2017) (en banc) “[A] mere showing of noncompliance with a court order, or even misconduct, is never sufficient alone to prove civil contempt.” Lachat v. Hinchliffe, 2001 PA Super 50, 769 A.2d 481, 488 (Pa. Super. 2001).