Billiot v. Billiot

Citation: 262 So. 3d 401Docket: No. 52,391-CA

Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; November 13, 2018; Louisiana; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Audrey Lynn Masterson Billiot, known as Mrs. Henry, appeals a trial court judgment favoring Keith David Billiot regarding child support matters following their divorce in 2009. The couple shares three children, with joint legal custody awarded to both. Mr. Billiot sought a modification of child support in December 2016, citing significant changes in circumstances, including both parties' remarriages and the fact that their two oldest children had reached adulthood. In May 2017, Mrs. Henry filed for contempt, alleging Mr. Billiot unilaterally reduced his child support payments and owed $13,883.25 in arrears. She emphasized the special needs of their daughter Caroline, who has been diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome and requires ongoing support, arguing for permanent child support under La. R.S. 9:315.22.

Mr. Billiot contested the claim, asserting that Caroline does not qualify under La. R.S. 9:315.22(D) as she is not a full-time secondary school student. He maintained that he had overpaid his support obligations by $3,780 and continued to support their adult children. Mrs. Henry opposed this claim, stating Caroline was enrolled in the College Living Experience, a program for individuals with Autism, and argued that the definition of 'secondary school' should not be limited to high school for disabled children. During the October 2017 hearing, both parties presented conflicting calculations of child support obligations, while testimony was provided regarding the educational opportunities available for students with disabilities in Bossier Parish.

Miyako Lee, job development manager at the Louisiana Association for the Blind, testified about her 2016 meeting with Caroline and Mrs. Henry regarding employment opportunities for Caroline, who has a high school diploma, attended BPCC, and expressed interest in working with animals. Caroline found employment at Affordable Boarding and Pet Grooming for several months. Dr. Laura Harris, a school psychology expert, discussed Caroline's background, noting her diagnosis of Asperger's Disorder at 16 and her identification as disabled since kindergarten, during which she had an Individualized Education Program. Dr. Harris described the CLE program, which offers structured support for independent living and career development, stating that Caroline requires assistance to live independently and may not acquire all necessary skills. On cross-examination, Dr. Harris confirmed that CLE is not a school. 

Mrs. Henry testified that Caroline graduated high school in 2015, attended BPCC briefly, and began the CLE program in January 2017. She explained that CLE offers a career development track and a college track, and Caroline transitioned to a blended program while taking a continuing education class. Although Caroline is not pursuing a college degree, she is gaining career experience and independent living skills. Mrs. Henry receives weekly progress reports from CLE covering various skills. She noted that CLE is a private entity with similar programs nationwide and categorizes itself as providing postsecondary support aimed at fostering independent living.

On January 26, 2018, the trial court addressed a contempt rule filed by Mrs. Henry, determining that Mr. Billiot owed $4,961.65 in arrears but was not found in contempt due to evidence of a good faith effort to support his children. The court affirmed that Mrs. Henry had the right to address Caroline's support under La. R.S. 9:315.22(D) and denied Mr. Billiot's exception. It acknowledged Caroline's disability per La. R.S. 28:451.2 but concluded that the CLE program does not fulfill the full-time enrollment requirement for secondary education, emphasizing the lack of a measurable curriculum or academic standards in the program, contrasting it with precedents from Blanque v. Blanque and Summers v. Summers.

Mrs. Henry failed to demonstrate that Caroline is a full-time student, leading the trial court to uphold Mr. Billiot's exception of no cause of action. On March 15, 2018, the court dismissed Mrs. Henry's contempt claims for unpaid child support against Mr. Billiot and confirmed he owed $4,961.65 in arrears. The court recognized Mrs. Henry's standing under La. R.S. 9:315.22(D) but dismissed Mr. Billiot's exception of no right of action. It determined that Caroline's involvement in CLE did not meet the full-time enrollment requirement for a secondary school, thus granting Mr. Billiot's exception and dismissing Mrs. Henry's remaining claims. The court postponed Mr. Billiot's motion to modify child support. 

On May 31, 2018, a consent judgment modified Mr. Billiot's child support obligation to $976 per month, retroactive to December 28, 2016. He was ordered to pay the arrears amount of $4,961.65, with Mrs. Henry waiving any claims for reimbursement of educational expenses and Mr. Billiot waiving retroactive credits for overpayment. 

In her first assignment of error, Mrs. Henry argued the trial court misapplied definitions from La. R.S. 9:315.22(D) regarding 'secondary school' and 'developmental disability,' asserting that Caroline's vocational program at Austin Community College alongside CLE attendance qualifies as secondary education. Mr. Billiot countered that Caroline is not enrolled full-time in any secondary school since her high school graduation in 2015. The court's ruling on the exception of no cause of action, typically a legal question, was influenced by evidence presented during the hearing, leading to a standard of review based on manifest error rather than de novo. Child support obligations automatically terminate when a child reaches the age of majority, per La. R.S. 9:315.22(A).

La. R.S. 9:315.22(D) establishes that child support obligations continue for children with developmental disabilities, as defined in R.S. 28:451.2, until they turn twenty-two, provided they are full-time students in secondary school. The primary domiciliary parent or legal guardian is authorized to enforce this support. In this case, Caroline has been recognized as having a developmental disability, and the court must determine if her participation in CLE qualifies her as a 'full-time student in a secondary school.' While the term 'secondary school' is not explicitly defined in La. R.S. 9:315.22(D), Louisiana courts have interpreted it broadly to include various educational programs. Past rulings, such as in Park v. Park and Blanque, indicate that attendance at vocational-technical institutions or special education programs can meet the requirements, emphasizing the importance of the educational substance over form. Legislative history supports this interpretation, highlighting the intent to extend educational rights for children with severe disabilities past the age of 19, thereby allowing continued child support for those in good standing in educational settings.

A witness indicated that severely disabled children can remain in school until age 22, highlighting that their needs persist. However, after age 22, adult services like Medicare are available for their care. The case in question differs from previous cases, as Caroline is a high school graduate who received her diploma at 19, and the program she attends, CLE, is not classified as a secondary school. Testimonies from Dr. Harris and Mrs. Henry emphasized that CLE provides postsecondary support and focuses on independent living skills rather than secondary education. Caroline's part-time enrollment at Austin Community College does not meet the full-time student requirement, leading the trial court to correctly conclude that CLE does not fulfill the criteria under La. R.S. 9:315.22(D), and therefore, Mrs. Henry lacks a cause of action. 

In her second assignment of error, Mrs. Henry claimed the trial court misused its discretion by not holding Mr. Billiot in contempt for child support arrears. Mr. Billiot contended that a consent judgment from May 31, 2018, resolved arrearages and waived further claims, thus rendering the contempt issue moot. Louisiana law dictates that courts do not address moot issues, and since the consent judgment provided no practical relief regarding contempt, the appeal on this matter was dismissed. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of Mr. Billiot regarding support and dismissed the contempt appeal as moot, assigning appeal costs to Mrs. Henry. Additionally, Mrs. Henry conceded she lacked standing under La. R.S. 9:315.22(E) to claim permanent child support for Caroline, which the trial court confirmed in its prior rulings.