concurring.
I concur in the result because I agree the evidence was insufficient to support the contempt finding, even if the possibly ambiguous term “overnight” is construed to mean from evening until dawn.
However, I disagree with the conclusion that issue 1 was waived. Only interlocutory orders which may be appealed as of right, See Ind. Rules of Procedure, A.R. 4(B); See also finalized partial judgments in T.R. 54(B) and 56(C), are waived by failure to appeal within the prescribed time limit. Indiana High School Athletic Association v. Raike, (1975) 164 Ind.App. 169, 329 N.E.2d 66. The order in question was a provisional order pursuant to Ind. Code sec. 31-1-11.5-7 and not appealable as of right.
In addition, the trial court erred in imposing a sentence of imprisonment (which was entirely punitive) in a civil contempt proceeding. Although disobedience *1057of a court order may be indirect criminal contempt as well as civil contempt, Denny v. State, (1932), 203 Ind. 682, 182 N.E. 313, the court must accord the defendant the protections required by Ind.Code sec. 34-4-7-8, 9 before citing him or her for indirect criminal contempt. See Id.
Any remedy in a civil contempt proceeding must be coercive or remedial in nature, and for the benefit of the aggrieved party. Pickett v. Pelican Service Associates, (1986), Ind.App., 495 N.E.2d 245. See also I.L.E. Contempt sec. 8. Here, the sentence provided no benefit to Husband, and could have had no coercive effect. The disobedience, if any, had already occurred and could not be undone. Wife denied violating the order. The trial court improperly imposed the criminal contempt sentence of imprisonment as a remedy in a civil contempt action.