Due process protections depend on the nature of the hearing. Imminent danger of loss of liberty during court proceedings require due process protections.  Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25, 92 S.Ct. 2006 (1972); Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct.1019 (1938).

Other pertinent case law on contempt and related due process issues:

City of Belvue v. Acrey, 103 Wash.2d. 203, 691 P.2d 957 (1984)
Esmieu v. Schrag, 88 Wash.2d 490, 563 P.2d 203 (1977)
Ex parte Ballard, 632 S.W.2d 921 (Tex.Civ.App. 1982)
Ex parte Padron, 565 S.W.2d 921 (Tex. 1978)
Fosbre v. State, 70 Wash.2d 578, 424 P.2d 901 (1967)
In re Interest of ADF, 88 Wash.App. 21, 943 P.2d 689 (1997)
In re Marriage of Ebbighausen, 42 Wash.App. 99, 708 P.2d 1220 (1985)
In re Marriage of James, 79 Wash.App. 436, P.2d 470 (1995)
In re Marriage of Maxfield, 47 Wash.App. 699, 737 P.2d 671 (1987)
Johnson v. Beneficial Management Corp., 26 Wash.App. 671, 614 P.2d 661 (1980)
Karras v. Gannon, 345 N.W.2d 854 (S.D. 1984)
Marriage of Nielson, 38 Wash.App. 586, 687 P.2d 877 (1984)
Marriage of Wulfsberg, 42 Wash.App. 627, 713 P.2d 132 (1986)
Rinevault v. Rinevault, 91 Wash.App. 688, 959 P.2d 687 (1998)
Silvagni v. Superior (inferior) Court, 157 Cal.App.2d 287, 321 P.2d 1152 (1985)
State v. Boatman, 104 Wash.2d 44, 700 P.2d 1152 (1985)
State v. Estill, 55 Wash.2d 576, 349 P.2d 210 (1960)
State v. Hobble, 126 Wash.2d 283, 892 P.2d 85 (1995)
State v. John, 69 Wash.App. 615, 849 P.2d 1268 (1993)
State Ex. Rel. Herron v. Browett, Inc., 103 Wash.2d 215, 691 P.2d 571 (1984)
State v. Turner, 98 Wash.2d 731, 658 P.2d 658 (1983)
Tetro v. Tetro, 86 Wash.2d 252, 544 P.2d 17 (1975)
Westmoreland Co. v. Howell, 62 Wash. 146, 113 P. 281 (1911)

Constitutional references
U.S.: Amendments V, VI, XIV
State of Washington: Article I, Sections 3, 21, 22, 29, 32.