Cynthia Morris, an attorney, appeals the order entered against her by the placePlaceNameJuvenilePlaceTypeCourtPlaceNameofPlaceNameBartow PlaceTypeCountyin which the juvenile court judged her to be in “per se” contempt for raising a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel against herself. The juvenile court imposed no sanctions against Morris. Because the per se rule imposed by the judge is inappropriate in a summary contempt proceeding, we reverse. “Juvenile courts are authorized to punish for contempt for disobedience of an order of the court or for obstructing or interfering with its proceedings.”1 “The question of whether a contempt has occurred is for the trial court, and its determination will be overturned only if there has been a gross abuse of discretion.”2 On appellate review of a criminal contempt conviction, this Court determines “whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”3
So viewed, the evidence reflects that Morris, representing the mother in a termination of parental rights proceeding, appeared before the juvenile court on behalf of her client on February 25, 2008, the date set for trial. The case had been pending since January 7, and the trial date had been specially set to accommodate the schedules of the various attorneys and the juvenile court’s calendar. Morris announced ready for trial in the morning, but when court reconvened in the afternoon, Morris asked for a continuance because she had not received certain psychological evaluations which the Department of Family and Children Services “the Department” intended to offer into evidence as exhibits at the hearing. Morris had requested the documents from the Department, in accordance with the informal policy the Department usually followed in juvenile court proceedings. The court acknowledged that “because we do things very informally in juvenile court, perhaps it was Morris’s expectation that documents would have been made available.” The juvenile court pointed out, however, that because a proceeding to terminate parental rights is a civil action, Morris should have followed the appropriate discovery procedures to obtain the documents, rather than ask for a continuance at the start of the trial. At that point, Morris stated on the record: “Then I would ask that my ineffectiveness —that I’m being ineffective to my client in that case, and it’s —” The court immediately asked her, “Ma’am, shall I hold you in contempt for that” Morris responded, “I guess,” and went on to explain that she had not known to seek the documents from the Department through a formal discovery request. Morris did not reiterate her comments with regard to ineffectiveness, nor did she make any other response to the court’s inquiry regarding contempt.
