State ex rel. Department of Children & Family Services, Child Support Enforcement ex rel. Bushman v. Knapp
216 So. 3d 130
La. Ct. App.2017Background
- Messrs. Knapp and Bushman dispute Christopher’s custody, with Bushman designated domiciliary parent in prior orders.
- Knapp sought more visitation and advocated joint custody; over years, multiple contempt and custody motions were litigated.
- A 2011 consent judgment set joint custody with Bushman as domiciliary parent and detailed co-parenting guidelines.
- A 2015 custody evaluation by Dr. Klein and related orders adjusted visitation, added a parenting coordinator, and required Our Family Wizard communications.
- In 2016, after a three-day trial, the court granted Knapp domiciliary status and specific custody/visitation terms, and sanctioned Bushman for contempt related to summer visitation and other conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Contempt for denying summer visitation | Bushman willfully disobeyed August 22, 2011 order | Knapp failed to provide 30-day notice and details; consent guidelines were complied with | Knapp’s contempt sustained; Bushman ordered to pay fees |
| Contempt for diminishment of child’s love for Knapp | Bushman repeatedly badmouthed Knapp in presence of Christopher | Some remarks occurred but did not establish ongoing contempt | Bushman held in contempt for violating co-parenting guidelines; sanctions affirmed |
| Contempt for failure to notify of overnight visitation location | Knapp violated by not notifying when overnight stays occurred | Occasional overnight stays at grandmother’s home were communicated; failure was not willful | Denied contempt; not proven willful disobedience |
| Contempt for unreimbursed uncovered medical expenses | Knapp failed to reimburse 29% of expenses per December 2012 judgment | Bushman did not provide sufficient proof of expenses or timely submission | No contempt; record lacked sufficient proof of timely, proper submission |
| Change in domiciliary status (Knapp as domiciliary parent) | Dr. Klein’s expert urged Bushman remain domiciliary parent; best interests favor stability with mother | Evidence showed Knapp now provides stable environment; best interests favor Knapp as domiciliary parent | affirmed; trial court did not abuse discretion in granting Knapp domiciliary status |
Key Cases Cited
- Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La. 1989) (standard for appellate review of factual findings; credibility determinations)
- Mulkey v. Mulkey, 118 So.3d 357 (La. 2013) (best interests framework for custody determinations)
- Palazzolo v. Mire, 10 So.3d 768 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2009) (weighting Article 134 factors; nonexclusive factors)
- Hanks v. Hanks, 140 So.3d 208 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2014) (abuse of discretion standard in custody matters)
- Leard v. Schenker, 931 So.2d 355 (La. 2006) (great deference to trial court in custody decisions)