Langford v. Langford

Citations: 138 So. 3d 101; 2014 WL 1385876; 2014 La. App. LEXIS 981Docket: No. 49,080-CA

Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; April 9, 2014; Louisiana; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Kevin Paul Langford appeals a judgment from the Second Judicial District Court in Bienville Parish, Louisiana, concerning custody and support for his minor child with Elizabeth Brooke Sims Langford, as well as interim spousal support. The court affirmed parts of the judgment, reversed others, and remanded for further proceedings.

Kevin and Brooke Langford, married on April 28, 2007, have one son born on January 2, 2012. After Kevin moved out in May 2013, he filed for separation, seeking joint legal custody of their son. A hearing on custody and support issues took place on August 12, 2013, when the child was 19 months old. The trial court received testimony regarding the parties' financial situations, including Kevin's verified pay stubs and Brooke’s affidavit detailing her lack of income and monthly expenses of $2,885.75.

The trial court awarded joint custody, naming Brooke the primary domiciliary parent and granting Kevin visitation every other weekend and additional time on Wednesdays. Kevin's child support obligation was calculated at $1,117.30 per month based on an annual salary projection of $100,000. Additionally, he was ordered to pay $800.00 monthly in interim spousal support, with a $200.00 credit for Brooke’s health insurance premium. 

On appeal, Kevin contends that the trial court erred by not creating a Joint Custody Implementation Plan (JCIP) and not providing him with substantially equal time with the child. The best interest of the child is the primary consideration in custody determinations, which are evaluated on a case-by-case basis, granting the trial court significant discretion in such matters.

In determining a child's best interest, the trial court must consider all relevant factors as outlined in Louisiana Civil Code Article 134, without being strictly bound to evaluate each factor mechanically. The decision should be based on the individual facts of each case, taking into account the child's age, the parents' situations, and other pertinent factors. Joint custody rulings are governed by La. R.S. 9:335, which mandates the creation of a Joint Custody Implementation Order (JCIP) unless good cause is shown otherwise. This order must allocate physical custody periods to ensure frequent and continuing contact with both parents, ideally sharing physical custody equally when feasible and in the child's best interest. Although the domiciliary parent is designated to primarily reside with the child, substantial time with the nondomiciliary parent is required to maintain this contact. Importantly, the trial court is not compelled to enforce equal physical custody but must ensure that joint custody arrangements facilitate ongoing relationships with both parents. Kevin's argument regarding the trial court's failure to issue a JCIP under La. R.S. 9:335 is acknowledged, emphasizing that such an order is essential in joint custody cases.

The statute permits flexibility in the implementation plan's format, as demonstrated by the October 2, 2013, Judgment of Custody, which, while not labeled a "Joint Custody Implementation Plan," effectively named a domiciliary parent, established joint custody, and outlined a physical custody schedule. This judgment also addressed health insurance and child support, meeting the requirements of La. R.S. 9:335, rendering Kevin's assignment of error unmeritorious. Kevin contends that the trial court abused its discretion by not granting him sufficient physical time with their 19-month-old child, initially seeking custody every weekend. Brooke proposed a limited schedule due to her breastfeeding commitment, suggesting Tuesday nights and weekends instead. The lack of agreement forced the court to determine the child's best interests. The court's decision of alternating weekends and Wednesdays for Kevin is under appeal. The judgment did not specify visitation for holidays, which would have increased Kevin's custody time. While Kevin is acknowledged as a loving father, Brooke provides stability and primary care for the child in the family home, whereas Kevin lives with his parents and lacks evidence of his ability to care for the child during the week. Brooke's arrangement supports the child's stability and allows her to maintain significant activities, such as attending church. Jurisprudence indicates that joint custody often results in one parent primarily housing the child, as long as the non-domiciliary parent, in this case Kevin, enjoys substantial and continuous contact with the child, which the current plan assures.

The trial court erred by not addressing holidays and important family days, but its overall judgment was not an abuse of discretion. At the time of the hearing, Brooke was still breastfeeding, which significantly affected the visitation arrangements, though it is anticipated that this concern will no longer be relevant as the child is now over two years old. The court is remanding the case to establish a firm schedule for equal sharing of holidays and important family days, allowing for increased overnight visitation with Kevin.

Regarding support awards, Kevin contested the trial court's determination of his annual income at $100,000 for calculating child and interim spousal support. The court based its calculations on a July pay stub reflecting a year-to-date income of $49,268.92, leading to monthly child support of $1,117.30 and interim spousal support of $800, with a $200 credit to Kevin for health insurance. However, evidence presented by Kevin indicated a downward trend in his earnings, with total gross income of $55,600.87 as of July 27, 2013. The trial court's reliance on the erroneous income figure warrants reconsideration, as its determinations regarding support will not be disturbed absent clear abuse of discretion.

Kevin's average income, based on the pay stubs presented to the trial court, was calculated at $3,187.71 biweekly. This figure projects his gross income for the remaining months of 2013 to be $31,877.10, which, when added to his actual income through July 27, 2013, totaling $55,600.87, results in a more accurate annual income estimate of $87,477.97. This amount is significantly lower than the trial court's determined income of $100,000.00. As a result, the trial court's calculations for child support and interim spousal support, based on the inflated income figure, were incorrect. Consequently, the relevant portion of the judgment regarding these awards has been reversed and remanded for further proceedings. The court's decision affirms part of the trial court's judgment in favor of Elizabeth Brooke Sims Langford while reversing and remanding the support awards. The costs of the appeal are to be shared equally by both parties. Moving forward, Kevin will have actual financial information from 2014 to aid in determining accurate support awards.