SARAH E. PIECZYNSKI VERSUS STEPHEN ROBERT PIECZYNSKI
2025 CA 0841
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT
APR 16 2026
BEFORE: LANIER, WOLFE AND HESTER, JJ.
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
********
Appealed from the 21st Judicial District Court
In and for the Parish of Livingston
State of Louisiana
Case No. 172444
Honorable Jeffrey C. Cashe, Judge Presiding
********
Erik L. Burns
Denham Springs, Louisiana
Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee
Sarah E. Pieczynski
Mark D. Plaisance
Marcus J. Plaisance
Prairieville, Louisiana
Counsel for Defendant/Appellant
Stephen Robert Pieczynski
********
In this suit by the plaintiff/appellee, Sarah E. Pieczynski, against the defendant/appellant, Stephen Robert Pieczynski, the Twenty-First Judicial District Court rendered judgment setting child support for the period of December 9, 2021 to June 1, 2025, finding two separate instances of contempt, in that the defendant/appellant to be voluntarily unemployed, and further determining arrearages for past due child support, medical care, and child care. For the following reasons, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On December 9, 2021, Sarah filed a petition for divorce, ex parte custody, domestic violence assistance, and other ancillary relief, claiming that she and Stephen were married on October 14, 2015, and physically separated on November 27, 2021. Three children were born of the marriage, whose dates of birth are July 14, 2016, June 2, 2018, and April 16, 2020. Sarah sought a divorce pursuant to
The judgment of divorce was signed on December 28, 2022. On February 16, 2024, Sarah filed her first rule for contempt, alleging that Stephen violated a stipulated judgment they entered into on August 17, 2022, regarding interim child support, which stated that support would be calculated according to the parties’ current earnings. Sarah further claimed that Stephen violated a judgment rendered on December 12, 2023, where Stephen was ordered to pay $1,827.98 per month in
On July 26, 2024, Sarah filed her second rule for contempt, claiming that Stephen was again delinquent in his child support payments, owing a total of $40,404.95 in arrearages. The parties agreed to set all matters for a hearing on December 18, 2024.
On January 17, 2025, the district court signed a judgment setting child support and determining that Stephen had been voluntarily unemployed. The district court ordered Stephen to pay child support, but deviated from the Louisiana Child Support Guidelines due to the amount of time the children were in Stephen‘s custody.1 The district court also found Stephen in contempt, ordering him to pay Sarah‘s attorney fees and court costs, as well as his share of childcare and medical expenses. The sum of all expenses Stephen was ordered to pay was $45,146.45. Stephen filed a motion for new trial on February 4, 2025, which the district court denied on April 29, 2025. Stephen has appealed the January 17, 2025 judgment.
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
Stephen has submitted the following assignments of error:
- The parent alleging the other parent is voluntarily unemployed for purposes of income imputation to determine child support obligations bears the burden of proof. Related, a parent caring for a child under the age of five is excepted from the income imputation rule.
La. R.S. 9:315.11 . The district court, which considered the issue solely on briefs, erred in finding that Sarah met her burden of proving Stephen was voluntarily unemployed; and because Sarah admitted that Stephen was providing care for two of their children under five, the trial court erred in imputing any income to Stephen. A party should not be in contempt of child support and child care arrearages until the district court (1) decides the issue of underemployment and (2) renders a judgment setting forth any arrearages. Because the judgment ruling Stephen was underemployed and owed arrearages was not rendered until December of 2024, the district court erred in finding him in contempt for support and care arrearages.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The standard of review in a child support case is manifest error and, accordingly, an appellate court will not disturb a child support order unless there is an abuse of discretion or manifest error. Upon finding an abuse of discretion, an appellate court can only lower or raise the amount to the highest point which was reasonably within the discretion of the trial court. State ex re. Dept. of Children and Family Services v. Peters, 2014-1800 (La. App. 1 Cir. 6/5/15), 174 So.3d 1200, 1202.
DISCUSSION
Child support is a continuous obligation of both parents; children are entitled to share in the current income of both parents and should not be the economic victims of divorce.
Voluntary unemployment or underemployment for purposes of calculating child support is a question of good faith on the obligor-spouse. In virtually every
The January 17, 2025 judgment reflects that the parties agreed to submit briefs in lieu of a bench trial and the December 18, 2024 transcript indicates that the parties agreed to try the matter “by the pleadings.” Therefore, by the parties’ agreement, the district court had only documentary evidence and the record at its disposal to set child support and rule on contempt. The documentary evidence included Stephen‘‘s W-2 tax forms from his employment with ExxonMobil, and text messages between Stephen and Sarah. In a thread of text messages dated May 31, 2022, Stephen stated that he was getting a job that would be “a 40% pay cut.” When Sarah asked him if he would pay child support, Stephen responded, “I‘ll pay when you return the [money] you took and give me half the house.”
As to whether no income should be imputed to Stephen pursuant to
We now turn to the issue of contempt. A contempt of court is any act or omission tending to obstruct or interfere with the orderly administration of justice or to impair the dignity of the court or respect for its authority.
A proceeding for contempt for refusing to obey a court‘s order is not designed for the benefit of the litigant, though infliction of punishment may inure to the benefit of the mover in the rule. Rather, the object of a contempt proceeding is the vindication of the dignity of the court. In order to find a party guilty of
In a stipulated judgment dated August 17, 2022, interim child support was “to be set on [the] parties’ current earnings.” However, no determination of their earnings was made on that date. A second interim consent support order was signed by the district court on December 12, 2023, where Stephen was ordered to pay interim child support at $1,827.98 per month, along with 54% of childcare expenses.
In her first rule for contempt filed on February 16, 2024, Sarah claimed that she verbally gave to Stephen a support calculation of $2,125.00 that he allegedly owed at the time the August 17, 2022 stipulated judgment was entered. Sarah further alleged in her contempt rule that after the December 12, 2023 order was signed, Stephen made a total payment of $1,800.00 in January of 2024, which was $27.98 less than the amount due for that month, and the same occurred in February of 2024.
In her second rule for contempt filed July 26, 2024, Sarah alleged that for the month of March 2024, she again received $1,800.00 in child support from Stephen. In April of that year, she received $1,829.00, and again received $1,829.00 for the month of May. She claimed that Stephen had made no other child support payments since May of 2024, and owed $25,805.01 in child support arrearages and $11,596.43 in childcare expenses. She also alleged $3,003.01 in total medical expenses for the children. In total, Sarah claimed $40,404.95 in arrearages.2
In its judgment fixing child support and contempt, the district court set child support in eleven distinct periods, beginning with December 10, 2021, going
As of the December 12, 2023 order, the district court had set an interim amount for Stephen to pay: $1,827.98 per month. The record does indicate that Stephen had been delinquent in paying child support and his share of medical expenses from that date. From the filing of the first rule for contempt, we see that Stephen was marginally delinquent on payment for the months of January and February 2023. From the filing of the second rule for contempt, Stephen had made no payments since May 2023.
Based on the evidence in the record before us, we cannot say that Stephen should be held in contempt for a violation of the August 17, 2022 stipulated judgment because it does not set a specific dollar value to his child support obligation. However, also included in the first rule for contempt are the two payments for January and February of 2024, for which Stephen paid $27.98 less than the court required each time. Although the two payments for January and February 2024 were slightly less than what Stephen was ordered to pay, those payments were nevertheless in contravention to the district court‘s orders, and meet the definition of constructive contempt. We therefore cannot say that the district court was manifestly erroneous or in abuse of its discretion to find Stephen in contempt with respect to the first rule for contempt.
Stephen was clearly in contempt for the second rule for contempt. The record indicates that after May 2024, Stephen refused to pay any child support at all, in flagrant contravention of the district court‘s direct order. The district court was well within its discretion to hold Stephen in contempt of court, and we find no manifest error in that ruling.
The January 17, 2025 judgment of the Twenty-First Judicial District Court, finding the defendant/appellant, Stephen Robert Pieczynski, to be voluntarily unemployed, fixing child support, and finding the defendant/appellant in contempt of court, is affirmed. All costs of this appeal are assessed to the defendant/appellant.
AFFIRMED.