Millet v. Braud
179 So. 3d 849
La. Ct. App.2015Background
- Parents Jonathan Millet and Carey Braud Fornaris are biological parents of a male child born in 2001; they were never married.
- Consent judgments establish paternity, custody, visitation, and a 2006 child support order; Fornaris pays private school tuition and can claim the child as a dependent.
- In 2014 Millet sought custody changes and modification of child support, citing potential benefits of public schooling in St. Charles Parish where he resides.
- August 4, 2014 consent judgment provides joint shared custody with a near 50-50 physical custody split and 8th grade attendance at St. Christopher School, with child support to be set later.
- October 17, 2014 Fornaris moved to increase child support, urging inclusion of private school tuition, registration, books, and tutoring/extracurricular expenses under La. RS 9:315.6; hearing held February 9, 2015.
- February 25, 2015 judgment: Millet ordered to pay $298/month in child support, excluding private school tuition but including $50 monthly extraordinary expenses; reasons stated private school cannot be added absent a showing of a need met only by private school.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether private school tuition may be added to the basic support | Fornaris asserts tuition should be added as extraordinary expense under La. RS 9:315.6. | Millet contends there is no basis to add tuition absent a need met uniquely by private school. | Trial court did not err; discretion to exclude tuition affirmed. |
| Whether consent to attend St. Christopher obligates Millet to pay tuition | Since parties consented to 8th grade at St. Christopher, Millet should share private school costs. | Consent judgment silent on Millet’s tuition obligation; no binding payment duty established. | Assignment of error meritless; no clear contractual requirement to pay tuition. |
| Whether private school attendance meets the child’s needs to warrant tuition | Private school provides stability and necessary accommodations for ADD and social development. | Public school can meet needs with appropriate accommodations; no exclusive necessity shown. | Court found no abuse of discretion; private school not shown as only means to meet needs. |
| Whether proportional extracurricular/tutoring expenses should be allocated differently | Fornaris seeks Millet to pay his pro rata share of tutoring and extracurriculars. | Court correctly treated tutoring/extracurricular as shared via a $50 monthly line item reflecting both parents’ costs, not a fixed pro rata split. | Court did not abuse discretion; no error in handling $50 extraordinary expenses. |
Key Cases Cited
- Campbell v. Campbell, 682 So.2d 312 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1996) (the word 'may' in RS 9:315.6 is permissive in adding private school costs)
- State Dept. of Social Servs. ex rel. K.L. v. Lesley, 975 So.2d 657 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2007) (amended statute broadly covers needs of the child, not just particular needs)
- Ficarra v. Ficarra, 88 So.3d 548 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2012) (trial court’s determination on adding private school expenses is discretionary)
- Short v. Short, 77 So.3d 405 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2011) (needs of the child may support education in private school; parental intent examined)
- Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La.1989) (standard for reviewing factual findings is manifest error)