Rule 1910.25-7.Indirect Criminal Contempt. Incarceration.
Adopted June 11, 2007 · Not amended since adoption · Last verified June 30, 2026
Full Text of Rule 1910.25-7
Plain-English Summary
Beyond civil contempt, a support obligor may face indirect criminal contempt for defying an order. This rule addresses that remedy and the court's authority over incarceration, and lets the court order the obligor to obtain employment with income that can be verified and subjected to withholding — aiming the sanction at producing actual support rather than only punishment.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is indirect criminal contempt in a support case?
A contempt remedy for defying a support order; the court may address incarceration and order the obligor to obtain verifiable, attachable employment.
Official Note
Explanatory Comment. —2007 Parental support of children is a fundamental requirement of law and public policy. Absent an inability to maintain employment or acquire other income or assets, sanction in the form of incarceration may be imposed by the court to compel compliance and provide an incentive to obey the law. The contempt process, which should be used as a last resort, is necessary to impose coercive sanctions upon those obligors whose circumstances provide no recourse to the court to compel payment or a good faith effort to comply. Appellate opinions have made it clear that an obligor who is in civil contempt cannot be incarcerated without the present ability to fulfill the conditions the court imposes for release. However, the courts also have noted that recalcitrant obligors may be imprisoned for indirect criminal contempt if afforded the proper procedural safeguards. See Godfrey v. Godfrey, 894 A.2d 776 (Pa. Super. 2006); Hyle v. Hyle, 868 A.2d 601 (Pa. Super. 2005).
Amendment History
The provisions of this Rule 1910.25-7 adopted June 11, 2007, effective immediately, 37 Pa.B. 2800.