or order or for reversal on appeal, unless refusal to take such action appears to the court inconsistent with substantial justice. The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties. “The essential purpose of a verification is that the statements be made under penalty or perjury.” Austin v. Sanders, 492 N.E.2d 8, 9 (Ind.1986). As a result of the amended contempt motion, the trial court had before it almost identical verified allegations against Benson, and the essential purpose of the verification requirement was satisfied. We cannot say that any error in the verification process affected Benson’s substantial rights. See Mariga v. Flint, 822 N.E.2d 620, 632-33 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (<HOLDING>), trans. denied; Wabash Valley Hosp., 827
holding that if trial courts verdict was based on hearsay statements of victim admitted in violation of the confrontation clause the error clearly would not only affect substantial rights but would seriously affect the fairness and integrity of the proceedings holding that sentencing error did not affect defendants substantial rights because error did not result in longer term of imprisonment holding that apprendi error did not affect substantial rights where in the absence of the error the application of section 5g12d of the guidelines would have resulted in the same term of imprisonment holding that the juror misconduct did not have a substantial and injurious affect holding that the failure to properly caption and verify a petition did not affect the substantial rights of the parties