Mathias, J.
Kristin Roush (“Mother”) appeals the Elkhart Superior Court’s order finding her in contempt and imposing sanctions on her, including incarceration. Mother presents several issues for our review, but we address a single dispositive issue, namely, whether the trial court abused its discretion when it granted Mother’s attorney’s motion to withdraw in violation of Trial Rule 3.1(H).
We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
….
Here, Mother contends that the trial court erred when it granted her attorney’s motion to withdraw despite her attorney’s failure to comply with the ten-day notice requirement under Trial Rule 3.1(H). We review the trial court’s grant of the motion under an abuse of discretion standard.
it is undisputed that Mother’s attorney did not provide any notice to Mother of her intent to withdraw her representation prior to September 18, 2023. Mother points out that the court’s grant of the motion to withdraw “left Mother unrepresented at a hearing that resulted in an order for her incarceration and payment of thousands of dollars in fines and fees.” Appellant’s Br. at 22.
….
Likewise here, the September 18 hearing was a critical stage in the proceedings, as Mother risked incarceration and significant financial penalties. While there is no question that Mother had notice of the hearing and failed to appear, her attorney was in court and could have, at least, cross-examined Father’s witnesses and made argument on Mother’s behalf. [Footnote omitted.] The prejudice to Mother by the court’s grant of the attorney’s last-minute motion to withdraw is clear. In contrast, there would have been no prejudice to Father had the trial court continued the hearing by ten days to give Mother the required notice of her attorney’s intent to withdraw.
For all these reasons, we hold that the trial court abused its discretion when it granted Mother’s attorney’s motion to withdraw and held the evidentiary hearing without her, and we reverse the trial court’s judgment on the motions it heard at that hearing. On remand, the trial court shall hold a new hearing on the motions that were pending at the time of the September 18 hearing.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Tavitas, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.