David argues that he was required to prove only that Jodi violated an order of the trial court and the burden then shifted to Jodi to show that her conduct in doing so was not willful and contumacious. See In re Marriage of Tatham, 293 Ill.App.3d 471, 480, 228 Ill.Dec. 166, 688 N.E.2d 864 (1997). David argues that he proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Jodi violated the provisions of the parenting agreement by not requiring the children to participate in visitation with David; by failing to cooperate with David to reschedule visitation when conflicts arose; by discussing with the children issues regarding the marital conflict and communicating "inappropriate, inaccurate, and derogatory information" about David to the children; by failing to require the children to attend psychological counseling; by scheduling the children's extracurricular activities without consulting David; and by interfering with David's ability to be informed as to the children's progress in school.

¶ 29 Generally, civil contempt occurs when a party fails to do something ordered by the court, resulting in the loss of a benefit or advantage to the opposing party. In re Marriage of Tatham, 293 Ill. App. 3d 471, 479, 688 N.E.2d 864, 871 (1997). Contempt which occurs outside the presence of the court is classified as indirect contempt.

The burden is on the alleged contemnor to show that her noncompliance was not contumacious and that she had a valid excuse for not complying. In re Marriage of Tatham, 293 Ill. App. 3d 471, 480 (1997). Here, it is clear that respondent was responsible for creating the condition — the Louisiana order — that she now claims makes her compliance with the Illinois order impossible.

Civil contempt occurs when a party fails to do something ordered by the court, resulting in the loss of a benefit to the opposing party. In re Marriage of Virgin, 2021 IL App (3d) 190650, ¶ 58 (citing In re Marriage of Tatham, 293 Ill.App.3d 471, 479 (1997)). The contempt is indirect if it occurs outside the presence of the court.

When they again failed to appear, the circuit court, after a hearing, found the plaintiffs in civil contempt for their refusal to comply with its discovery order, and awarded attorney fees and costs as a fine. ¶ 67 Civil contempt generally occurs when a party fails to do something ordered by the circuit court, resulting in the loss of a benefit or advantage to the opposing party. In re Marriage of Tatham, 293 Ill. App. 3d 471, 479 (1997). Contempt that occurs outside of the presence of the trial court is classified as indirect contempt.

When they again failed to appear, the circuit court, after a hearing, found the plaintiffs in civil contempt for their refusal to comply with its discovery order, and awarded attorney fees and costs as a fine. ¶ 67 Civil contempt generally occurs when a party fails to do something ordered by the circuit court, resulting in the loss of a benefit or advantage to the opposing party. In re Marriage of Tatham, 293 Ill. App. 3d 471, 479 (1997). Contempt that occurs outside of the presence of the trial court is classified as indirect contempt.

Respondent indicates she had a compelling reason to not sell the Troy residence as she and her children continued to reside at the residence after the trial court's order was entered. ¶ 107 Proof of willful disobedience of a court order is essential to any finding of indirect civil contempt. In re Marriage of Tatham, 293 Ill. App. 3d 471, 480, 688 N.E.2d 864, 871 (1997). The burden rests upon the alleged contemnor to show that noncompliance was not willful and that he or she has a valid reason for failure to follow the court order.

Robinson, 166 W.Va. at 670, 276 S.E.2d at 818;Westinghouse, 648 F.2d at 651;see also Slauenwhite v. Slauenwhite, 679 A.2d 93, 94 (Me.1996); Ohio Dept. of Taxation v. Kunkle, 179 Ohio App.3d 747, 903 N.E.2d 692, 696 (2008). It is often said, somewhat literally in the case of imprisonment and metaphorically in the case of a monetary sanction, that the contemner “has the keys to the cell in his or her own hands.” In re Marriage of Tatham, 293 Ill.App.3d 471, 228 Ill.Dec. 166, 688 N.E.2d 864, 871 (1997); see also Varley v. Varley, 934 S.W.2d 659, 664 (Tenn.Ct.App.1996) (to same effect). Petitioner claims that her contempt cannot be classified as civil in nature because the nunc pro tunc imposition of a $50.00 per diem sanction did not allow her to purge herself of the contempt, since the time for purging had already elapsed at the time the sanction was imposed.

¶ 25 Indirect civil contempt is the failure to do something ordered by a court to be done outside the presence of the court. In re Marriage of Tatham, 293 Ill.App.3d 471, 480 (1997). Civil contempt is prospective in nature and designed to coerce future compliance with a court order; it is not intended to punish.

The alleged contemnor must establish that his noncompliance with the trial court's order was not willful, i.e., that he has a valid reason for failing to comply with the court's order. In re Marriage of Tatham, 293 Ill.App.3d 471, 480 (1997).