In Re Marraige of Hartmann

Opinion

GILBERT, P. J.

An order restrains a party from interfering with a custody order. The restraining order is not overbroad. Like a stop sign, it requires no explanation. It simply tells a party to stop interfering with the custody order.

Victoria Hartmann (Wife) appeals the denial of her motion to vacate an order restraining her from interfering with Peter Hartmann’s (Husband) child custody time. We conclude the restraining order is neither ambiguous nor overbroad. It simply makes explicit what is implicit in every child custody order: a party may not interfere with the order. We affirm.

FACTS

The parties were married in January 1990. They have three daughters: one, age 17 years old, and twins, age 14 years old.

[1249]

The parties separated in July 2002. Wife filed for dissolution of the marriage six months later. The trial on the dissolution was held in August 2007. The parties reached a stipulation concerning their property, leaving child custody and support to be decided.

Wife wanted to send the oldest daughter to an out-of-state boarding school. The daughter previously attended the school and wanted to return. Husband opposed the plan because he wanted to be in his daughter’s life daily. In addition, Husband believed his daughter had developed behavioral problems during her previous attendance at the school and needed more supervision. He therefore requested that she attend a local public high school.

By order of August 15, 2007, the trial court determined that the parties have equal physical custody of the children on alternating weeks. The court also ordered that the oldest daughter attend a local public high school.

On September 7, 2007, Wife filed an ex parte application for an order permitting the oldest daughter to attend a local private school. The court denied the motion.

On September 24, 2007, Husband applied for an order restraining Wife from, among other matters, “interfering with [Husband’s] custodial time.” In part, Husband complained that Wife told the children every detail of the trial. The children reported to him that he won because he lied on the stand; that the parties do not have to follow the court’s custody or school placement orders; and that he obtained joint custody only to reduce his child support obligation.