In People v. King Bail Bond Agency (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 1120, the defendant (and bailee) was on trial for "child detention with right to custody" in violation of Penal Code section 278.5, subdivision (b). (King, supra, at p. 1122.) During her trial, the defendant violated a court order by accusing her former husband, in the presence of the jury, of molesting their child. The court found her in contempt and ordered her to serve five days in jail, but stayed her sentence until after the jury returned with a verdict on the child detention charge. The jury found the defendant not guilty and was excused. Defendant was ordered to return to court three days later to serve her contempt sentence, but she failed to appear. The court ordered the bail forfeited, and the surety's motion to exonerate the bail on grounds that its obligation did not extend to the contempt proceedings was denied. The court of appeal reversed, finding the contempt proceedings against the defendant were " 'separate and distinct and no part of the original case out of which they arise.' " (King, supra, 224 Cal.App.3d at p. 1124, quoting Bank of America v. Carr (1956) 138 Cal.App.2d 727, 733.) By providing bail, a "surety undertakes that the defendant will appear to answer any charge in any accusatory pleading based upon the acts supporting the complaint." (King, supra, at p. 1124.) Because the acts supporting the complaint against the defendant were those related to her allegedly illegal detention of her child, the court's finding of contempt based on her violation of its in limine order was not related to that charge. "When the contract states that the defendant will hold himself or herself 'amenable to the orders and process of the court,' it means that the surety insures the defendant's ongoing attendance to answer the charges against him or her. It does not contemplate the imposition of sanctions upon the surety for the defendant's failure to obey a court order not directly involving the defendant's nonappearance." (Ibid.) Consequently, the appellate court reversed, holding that a contempt proceeding, even when the contempt occurs within an ongoing criminal proceeding, is a separate and distinct action from that criminal proceeding and therefore does not fall within the terms of the bond undertaking.