Westbrook v. Weibel
80 So. 3d 683
La. Ct. App.2011Background
- Perry M. Westbrook and Katherine B. Weibel are parents of Isabella Marie Westbrook, born April 20, 2006.
- They married in December 2005; divorce finalized in July 2007.
- Initial 2007 divorce proceedings yielded a joint custody agreement memorialized March 5, 2008.
- In September 2009 custody was given to Perry's mother and Kathy's sister with supervised visitation due to alleged sexual abuse concerns.
- November 2009 they agreed to 50/50 custody, but a written Stipulated Judgment was filed June 29, 2010.
- Perry sought temporary sole custody in June 2010; Kathy petitioned in September 2010 for modification of custody.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sole custody to Kathy was proper. | Weibel argues sole custody serves Isabella's best interests. | Westbrook argues evidence supports his request or joint custody remains appropriate. | Griffith heightens sole custody burden; sole custody to Kathy reversed; joint custody awarded. |
| Whether the trial court erred in not granting Perry sole custody. | Westbrook asserts sole custody was proven to be in Isabella's best interest. | Weibel contends evidence does not support sole custody for Perry. | No merit; evidence did not support Perry's sole custody claim. |
| Whether the court properly applied the art. 134 factors to designate a domiciliary parent. | Westbrook contends factors were not adequately applied to favor him. | Weibel contends factors favor her designation as domiciliary parent or at least justify joint custody. | The court considered art. 134 factors; factors weighed in Kathy's favor for domiciliary designation. |
| Whether the trial court abused its contempt ruling or failure to hold Kathy in contempt was reversible. | Weibel disobeyed visitation orders; contempt was warranted. | Westbrook asserts contempt due to communication issues; court had discretion. | No abuse of discretion; contempt ruling not warranted. |
| Whether the court properly articulated its reasoning and preserved issues related to family violence. | Weibel failed to rely on FVRA arguments; Westbrook asserts preservation should permit them. | Weibel did not preserve FVRA argument below; appellate review limited. | FVRA issue not preserved; not entertained on appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Griffith v. Latiolais, 10-754 (La. 2010) (heightened burden for sole custody; sole custody reversed when not supported by evidence)
- Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La.1989) (clear standard for affirming trial-fact findings on appellate review)
- Hawthorne v. Hawthorne, 96-89, 676 So.2d 619 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1996) (great weight given to trial court's custody determinations on appeal)
- Fink v. Bryant, 01-987 (La. 2001) (contempt determinations invoke trial court discretion)
- Stream Family Ltd. Partnership v. Marathon Oil Co., No. 09-561 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2009) (issue preservation; appellate review prerequisites)