Michael Bertin Addresses Right-to-Counsel Protections in Pennsylvania Support Contempt Matters

In a June 16, 2026, article for The Legal Intelligencer, Michael Bertin, partner and co-chair of Obermayer’s Family Law Group, examines the Pennsylvania Superior Court’s decision in Sawyer v. Anusionwu, __ A.3d __, 2026 Pa. Super. 83 (Pa. Super. 2026), which establishes important procedural protections for support obligors facing possible incarceration in contempt proceedings.

The court held that trial courts must conduct a waiver-of-counsel colloquy before proceeding with a contempt hearing where imprisonment may result, ensuring that any decision to proceed without counsel is made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. The ruling also reinforces the obligation of courts to assess whether an individual who cannot afford an attorney is entitled to court-appointed counsel.

Bertin notes that the decision builds upon the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Bredbenner v. Hall, 353 A.3d 683 (Pa. 2026), which emphasized the need for a thorough evidentiary record when setting purge conditions in support contempt cases. Together, the decisions underscore the heightened procedural safeguards that courts must provide before imposing incarceration for support-related contempt.

Rule 121 sets forth requirements to ensure that a defendant’s waiver-of-counsel is knowing, intelligent and voluntary.

This decision provides important guidance for both family law practitioners and the courts in support contempt matters involving the potential for incarceration. While the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Bredbenner emphasized the need for a thorough inquiry and a well-developed record to support a contemnor’s ability to satisfy a purge condition, the Superior Court’s ruling in Sawyer adds another critical procedural safeguard by requiring trial courts to conduct a waiver-of-counsel colloquy whenever imprisonment is a possible outcome of the contempt proceeding.

Read the full article here.