Michael Bertin Discusses Purge Conditions in Child Support Contempt
In an April 7, 2026 article for The Legal Intelligencer, Michael Bertin, partner and co-chair of the family law group, examines the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Bredbenner v. Hall, ___ A.3d ___, 53 MAP 2024 (Pa. 2025), which addresses how courts must set purge conditions in child support contempt cases.
Under 23 Pa.C.S. Section 4321, parents must support unemancipated children under 18, and failure to comply with a support order may result in a parent being adjudged in contempt.
Under the statute for contempt for noncompliance with a support order, the punishment for civil contempt is “any one or more of the following: imprisonment not to exceed six months; a fine not to exceed $1,000; probation for a period not to exceed one year.” Further, under the statute, it provides: “An order committing a defendant to jail under this section shall specify the condition the fulfillment of which will result in the release of the obligor.”
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that, to impose jail for civil contempt in child support cases, the petitioner must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the contemnor has the present ability to satisfy the purge condition, reinforcing the principle that civil contempt must not be punitive.
The Bredbenner case is very important to both family law practitioners and the bench. The case sends a clear message that an in-depth inquiry is needed for a developed record at the contempt hearing to support whether the purge condition can be met. As expressed by the Supreme Court, lawyers, parties (if self-represented), and the court should make these inquiries at the hearing regarding income and assets to substantiate the record.
