In post-dissolution proceedings, securing a court order for alimony, child support, or parenting arrangements is often only half the battle. When an obligor fails to comply with a final judgment, the obligee must seek judicial enforcement. In domestic relations law, civil contempt serves as the primary mechanism to compel compliance. However, the legal boundary between coercive civil enforcement and punitive criminal sanctions requires strict adherence to constitutional due process, specific evidentiary findings, and proper contractual drafting. For families in Lakeland, Tampa, and throughout Florida, understanding these rules is essential when unpaid child support or alimony begins to affect financial stability.
Florida jurisprudence draws a fundamental distinction between civil and criminal contempt. As established by the Florida Supreme Court in Bowen v. Bowen, the sole purpose of a civil contempt proceeding is to obtain compliance with a court order. Because civil contempt is coercive rather than punitive, it may be utilized only when the contemnor possesses the present ability to comply.
In contrast, indirect criminal contempt proceedings are designed to punish an individual for an intentional, willful violation of a judicial decree and to vindicate the court’s authority. When a defaulting party continually and willfully neglects support obligations or takes affirmative steps to divest himself of assets, criminal contempt—with its attendant constitutional safeguards—is the appropriate legal remedy.
To establish civil contempt in family support matters, trial courts must execute a mandatory two-step procedure:
If the trial court orders incarceration as a remedy for a willful violation, it must make a separate, affirmative finding that the defaulting party possesses the present ability to pay the designated purge condition. The purge amount represents the financial “key” to the contemnor’s cell; without the present ability to pay it, incarceration ceases to be coercive and unlawfully becomes punitive.
The necessity of proving a present ability to pay is strikingly illustrated in Aburos v. Aburos, 34 So. 3d 131 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010). In Aburos, an ex-husband was held in civil contempt for accumulating over $319,000 in support arrearages. The trial court ordered his incarceration subject to a $25,000 purge condition, relying on the fact that he had access to a jewelry store bank account owned by his sister and possessed a corporate signature stamp.
The Third District Court of Appeal reversed the incarceration order, holding that there was no competent substantial evidence that the former husband had present legal access to those funds. The court established that a purge amount cannot be predicated on the financial resources or goodwill of close family members unless unique exceptions apply.
Under rare precedents such as Sibley v. Sibley, 833 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002), or Mendana v. Mendana, 911 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005), third-party assets may be considered only if the contemnor can command those funds upon request or if family members regularly cover personal living expenses. Crucially, Aburos reaffirmed that even if a trial court finds a contemnor’s testimony non-credible, the court is still legally required to identify an explicit, available source of funds before imposing a purge condition and ordering incarceration.
Enforcement issues also extend beyond support arrearages to structural settlement covenants and parenting plans. In Neira v. Acosta, 432 So. 3d 669 (Fla. 3d DCA 2026), a wife sought to enforce a marital settlement agreement (MSA) as a parental relocation agreement under section 61.13001(2), Florida Statutes. The trial court granted the motion, but the appellate court reversed on de novo review because the agreement failed to define a specific time-sharing schedule or transportation arrangements required by statute.
Neira demonstrates that marital settlement covenants cannot be enforced via motion unless they strictly satisfy statutory prerequisites. Additionally, Neira highlights that while the absence of an evidentiary hearing transcript is often fatal under an abuse of discretion standard, appellate courts will reverse an enforcement order if reversible error appears on the face of the record.
Litigators drafting motions for contempt or enforcement must adhere to refined stylistic and formal conventions. Under William Strunk Jr. and E.B. White’s The Elements of Style, advocates should write in the active voice, make positive assertions, and eliminate redundant phrasing to maintain directness and vigor.
Simultaneously, court filings and legal analyses must follow The Bluebook standards. Case names and introductory signals must be properly italicized, citation sentences must end with periods, and pinpoint references should be formatted precisely (e.g., Aburos v. Aburos, 34 So. 3d 131, 133–34 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)).
Is a former spouse falling behind on child support or alimony? Our child support enforcement attorneys in Lakeland serve families throughout Polk County and Central Florida and can help you evaluate the right enforcement strategy for your case.
Anthony Meehan Genova, Esq., B.C.S., is a legal professional specialized in family law, particularly known for his extensive experience in trial law and his commitment to community service.
Mr. Genova is Board Certified in Marital & Family Law. This certification, widely regarded as the “gold standard” for Florida lawyers, signifies Florida’s official, independent determination of a lawyer’s expertise to practice in a specialty field of law. The Board Certification program, overseen by The Florida Supreme Court and administered by The Florida Bar, rigorously evaluates all board-certified lawyers for credibility, expertise, professionalism, and ethics.
To achieve this esteemed certification, Mr. Genova demonstrated a dedication to achieving a heightened level of excellence through character, professionalism, ethics, and credibility. The rigorous process requires at least five years of practice, substantial involvement in the chosen area, successful passing of a comprehensive examination, and a rigorous peer-review process. Additionally, board-certified lawyers must satisfy continuing legal education requirements that are more robust than those for general licensure. This certification is valid for five years and requires continued practice and attendance of Florida Bar-approved continuing legal education courses for recertification. As of 2023, only 260 lawyers in Florida (less than 1% of the 114,000 eligible Florida Bar members) have earned board certification in Marital and Family Law. Clients retaining a board-certified lawyer like Mr. Genova gain access to specialized expertise, professionalism & ethics, credibility, and a heightened dedication to excellence, offering assurance of a heightened level of proficiency in Marital & Family Law.
In addition to his board certification, Mr. Genova has been a Supreme Court Certified Marital & Family Law Mediator since 2019.
Mr. Genova is also trained in Collaborative family law since 2017.
He has been a dedicated member of the Executive Council of the Family Law Section of the Florida Bar since 2016. His significant involvement within this section includes various leadership and committee roles, demonstrating a deep engagement with the evolution and practice of family law. Mr. Genova is currently the 2025-26 Chairman of the Domestic Violence Committee and has a “Stand Your Ground” article published in the September/October 2026 Florida Bar Journal.