Father jailed for contempt over son's marriage

[Quantum Windbag]

This is fascinating. Lots of question, not sure where I stand, I hope someone will come in and force me to actually think about the issues here.

There is an absolutely fascinating contempt finding in Florida where Millionaire Dan Rotta, 65, has been sent to jail for 180 days for criminal contempt in a divorce case — for allowing his 16 year old son to get married in Las Vegas. The court had ordered that the boy be sent to a special school in Utah — at the request of his mother Rene Rotta — in light of his problems with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and Oppositional Defiant Disorder. However, by marrying with the consent of one parent in Vegas, the boy is now legally treated as an adult and is no longer under the jurisdiction of the court as a child in the divorce case.
The teen had been ordered to enroll in the Logan River Academy in Utah. However, the day after he turned 16, he married Diana Esperanza Mendoza Guzman, the family’s housekeeper’s 18-year-old Colombian-born daughter. When confronted in court about the marriage, Rotta eventually admitted that he signed his consent — Vegas only requires the consent of one parent . . . or two Elvis impersonators.

Something Did Not Stay In Vegas: Florida Father Jailed For Contempt in Consenting To 16-Year-Old Son To Marry « JONATHAN TURLEY

 

[Kiki Cannoli]

'Tis interesting indeed. Intent to circumvent the court seems propbable and raises the question who has ulitmate authority the court or the parent? Poor choice buy the father and horrible life lesson, bad parenting all around.

 

[The Professor]

The guy should have gone with the two Elvis impersonators.

You knew that answer was coming.

This case is not that complex to me. During the divorce proceedings, the court had jurisdiction over the parties involved. While there may be some limitations on this jurisdiction, it appears the courts have always been allowed to resolve differences between the parties regarding where the child would reside, what school the child would attend and so forth. In this particular case, the mother wanted the child to go to a special school in Utah. According to your link:

“The court had ordered that the boy be sent to a special school in Utah — at the request of his mother Rene Rotta — in light of his problems with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and Oppositional Defiant Disorder."

The court, acting within the legal parameters of its authority, granted the mother's request. The father, by his actions thwarted the judge's order, making it impossible for the child to be accepted at the school (they don't accept married students), and removing the child from the jurisdiction of the court The father's conduct clearly constituted contempt of court. How the father accomplished the act of refusing to comply with the court's order is immaterial. The fact that he did so earns him a contempt charge.

The fact that the father had the legal right to give his consent under normal conditions is meaningless. There are many things that a person might legally do in normal circumstances; however, the courts have the power to modify those rights with respect to minor children when the parties cannot agree.

Some people have suggested that the father is not in contempt because the judge failed to give specific instructions that the father could not consent to the minor child's marriage. I don't agree and I doubt any court would agree. The judge very specifically ordered the child to be enrolled in a particular school. This could happen only if the child remained unmarried and the father know this or should have known this. Thus the father, knowing he was obligated by law to make sure the child attended the special school deliberately acted in such a way as to make that impossible. The father was in fact told that he could not consent to his minor child's marriage or do anything else which would keep the child from attending the school.

I will not condemn the judge. However, I think it is fair to say the father is a nut job who is accustomed to pushing people around and getting his own way. He needed some jail time to give him a reality check.

I do not know if the child's marriage will be overturned. That is a very complex issue and I need a lot more information before I could attempt a proper analysis.

You certainly presented an interesting case. It seems that opinions are very divided and more than a few people criticized the judge for overstepping his authority. That's what makes life interesting.

Good post.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I will not condemn the judge. However, I think it is fair to say the father is a nut job who is accustomed to pushing people around and getting his own way. He needed some jail time to give him a reality check.

I do not know if the child's marriage will be overturned. That is a very complex issue and I need a lot more information before I could attempt a proper analysis.

And yet you've already decided that the father is "a nut job who is accustomed to pushing people around and getting his own way" who "needed some jail time to give him a reality check" and you don't even know anything about the man or all the details of this family's situation.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Professor, that was a very well thought out well written post. You obviously don't belong here.