221 So. 3d 231
La. Ct. App.2017Background
- Custody dispute over C.E.K., born 2013, with divorce filed 2014; interim orders in 2015 granted Ms. Kaptein sole custody and limited, supervised visitation for Mr. Kaptein, plus FaceTime visitation and substantial support obligations.
- Contempt proceedings in 2015-2016 found Mr. Kaptein in arrears and noncompliant with court orders; a 2016 judgment suspended FaceTime visitation pending further orders.
- Final custody hearing held July 1, 2016; trial court granted Ms. Kaptein sole custody, maintained suspension of FaceTime visitation, and found reasonable visitation not in the child’s best interest.
- Appellant, Mr. Kaptein, appealed challenging: (1) sole custody award to Kaptein; (2) suspension of FaceTime visitation; (3) admissibility of Dr. Bauer’s deposition.
- Louisiana Article 136 visitation framework applies; trial court cited stability, moral fitness, and parental involvement when weighing best interests; record showed Mr. Kaptein had limited contact and travel abroad.
- Court ultimately affirms custody award to Ms. Kaptein but reverses the suspension of FaceTime visitation and reinstates FaceTime rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sole custody to Kaptein was in the child’s best interests | Kaptein argues joint custody should be preferred or sole custody not warranted | Kaptein contends there was not clear error to award sole custody | No reversible error; sole custody to Kaptein’s mother supported by clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether suspension of FaceTime visitation was in the child’s best interests | Kaptein claims suspension was punitive and not necessary for best interests | Kaptein argues continued digital contact is beneficial for child | Reversed; FaceTime visitation reinstated to prior rights |
| Whether Dr. Bauer’s deposition was admissible under La. C.C.P. art. 1429/804 | Kaptein objected to deposition under 1429; argued improper perpetuation | Kaptein’s counsel received notice; deposition should be allowed or live testimony required | Deposition properly admitted; any error harmless; 1429 not applicable to ongoing litigation |
Key Cases Cited
- Palazzolo v. Mire, 10 So.3d 748 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2009) (nonexclusive factors; weight given at court’s discretion)
- Hodges v. Hodges, 181 So.3d 700 (La. 2015) (child custody best interests; trial judge’s discretion given deference)
- Leard v. Schenker, 35 So.3d 1152 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2010) (custody determinations reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Boutte v. ABC Ins. Companies, 811 So.2d 30 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2002) (discretion in admitting deposition testimony)
- Reynier v. Reynier, 545 So.2d 663 (La. App. 5th Cir. 1989) ( visitation restrictions may be lifted when in child’s best interest)