49 So. 3d 601
La. Ct. App.2010Background
- David Garcia and Michelle Rushing Garcia, married in 1992, have two children and divorced in 2004 with a joint custody plan designating Michelle as domiciliary parent.
- A 2006 Rule to Change Custody and Contempt and a 2008 Consent Judgment split custody and set child support and counseling for Kelsey.
- Starting August 2008, David filed contempt and child-support modification motions; Michelle filed cross-claims alleging past-due support and other contempt allegations.
- A November 16, 2009 trial court judgment found Michelle in contempt for multiple acts and ordered changes to child support calculation, Bryson’s day care, and Kelsey’s schooling and meals, with visitation terms reinstated.
- Michelle appeals claiming errors on contempt findings, use of Obligation Worksheet B, allocation of school/medical expenses, visitation, and parenting classes, with the trial court’s authority and rationale at issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Michelle was properly found in contempt for specific acts. | Michelle contends no wilful disobedience occurred. | Garcia claims violations of the July 18, 2008 Judgment were established. | Affirmed in part; contempt findings sustained for several acts. |
| Whether Obligation Worksheet B was a valid basis to compute child support as a punishment for contempt. | Michelle argues Worksheet B is improper punishment. | Garcia asserts Worksheet B was authorized by the court as the contempt remedy. | Reversed; Worksheet B cannot be used to calculate child support as punishment. |
| Whether the allocation of all school/medical expenses to the parties was proper after reversing Worksheet B. | Michelle argues equal share or different allocation should stand. | David contends the original expense assignments were tied to the contempts and support rulings. | Reversed; trial court must address child-support motions anew post-reversal. |
| Whether reinstating the seven-and-seven visitation schedule for Kelsey was properly before the court on appeal. | Michelle contends the issue is improperly before the court. | David maintains the issue was adjudicated by the 2008 consent and 2009 judgment. | Not addressed on appeal; issue deemed not properly before the court. |
| Whether ordering parenting classes was proper given financial circumstances. | Michelle argues cost burden due to reduced support. | Court acted within statutory authority to promote parenting coordination. | Affirmed; no abuse of discretion in ordering parenting classes. |
Key Cases Cited
- LeBlanc v. LeBlanc, 953 So. 2d 115 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2007) (appellate standard of review in child custody uses deferential review)
- Stobart v. State, Through DOTD, 617 So. 2d 880 (La.1993) (manifest error standard of review for factual findings)
- Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So. 2d 840 (La.1989) (deference to trial court factual determinations in appellate review)
- Deason v. Deason, 759 So.2d 219 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2000) (best interest of child and trial court credibility determinations are given deference)
- State in the Interest of Sylvester, 525 So.2d 604 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1988) (custody determinations require substantial deference to trial court)
- Bagents v. Bagents, 419 So.2d 460 (La.1982) (general principle of appellate caution in custody disputes)
- Ezernack v. Ezernack, 899 So.2d 198 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2005) (trial court cannot impose punishment beyond statutory contempt remedies)
- George v. Nero, 839 So.2d 1085 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2003) (contempt procedures strictly construed; limits on remedies)
- Davis v. Harmony House Nursing Home, 800 So.2d 1143 (La.App. 2 Cir. 2002) (contempt seeks vindication of court dignity, not party benefit)