Father further argues that the trial court erred by failing to hold Mother in contempt for violating the circuit court’s order with regard to father’s visitation of the minor children. Further, Father alleges that the circuit court erred in finding him in contempt for failing to satisfy his child support obligation. For the reasons that follow, the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider whether the trial court erred in failing to find mother in contempt. Further, we hold the circuit court did not err in finding Father to be in contempt. A. This Court Lacks Jurisdiction to Consider Whether Mother Should Have Been Held In Contempt. Father avers that the circuit court erred in failing to hold Mother in contempt. Indeed, Father asserts that “[Mother’s] conduct warranted a finding of contempt, and it was erroneous for the trial court to rule otherwise.” The scope of our review of the trial court’s failure to find Father in contempt is as follows:
(a) Scope of review. –Any person may appeal
…show more content…
The contempt power is possessed by all courts, and exists as a tool employed to maintain the integrity, independence, and existence of the judiciary. Muskus v. State, 14 Md. App. 348, 358 (1972). The contempt power, then, is generally not intended to affirmatively cloak litigants with any substantive rights, but rather to assist the courts in exercising its necessary functions. Id. In recognition of this principle, we perceive no basis for this Court’s jurisdiction to consider Father’s appeal of the denial of his petition for contempt because he “was not held in contempt, however closely related and intertwined it is with other orders or judgments” in this case. Pack Shack, Inc., supra, 371 Md. at 260. Accordingly, we hold that we lack jurisdiction to review the circuit court’s failure to hold Mother in