Wylie v. Wylie

Citation: 273 So. 3d 1256Docket: No. 52,800-CA

Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; May 22, 2019; Louisiana; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The trial court awarded joint custody of the minor daughter, Samaya, to both parents, with Tian designated as the primary physical custodian and domiciliary parent. The court's decision was influenced by evidence of parental alienation tactics employed by Emily that severely damaged the father-daughter relationship. Tian's request to relocate Maya to Florida was granted, alongside an order for both Tian and Maya to participate in reunification therapy, with Emily receiving specified visitation rights after therapy completion. 

Tian and Emily were married in 2005 and had a daughter, Maya, born in 2007. Their marriage ended in divorce in 2016 due to Emily's infidelity. Following the divorce, multiple interim custody orders were issued, and the court recognized the emotional distress experienced by Maya, prompting psychological testing and counseling. The custody hearing took place over three days in 2018, addressing both the stability of the home environment and the relocation request. 

Emily appealed the trial court's judgment, arguing that the relocation was not in Maya's best interest and that it altered the existing custody arrangement of equal shared custody. Under Louisiana law, a parent seeking to relocate must prove the move is in good faith and in the child's best interest, considering twelve statutory factors. The trial court's decisions in such matters are given significant deference and can only be overturned if there is a clear abuse of discretion.

The trial court appropriately evaluated the factors outlined in La. R.S. 9:355.14, concluding that the relocation was in the child's best interest based on the overall circumstances. While all 12 factors were considered, no specific factor was prioritized over others. Neither party contested the requirement for the relocating parent to demonstrate that the move was made in 'good faith,' which is defined as having a legitimate reason for relocation. Legitimate reasons include proximity to family, health concerns, safety of the child, employment or educational opportunities, or joining a spouse. 

In the case at hand, Tian, who was relocated by the U.S. Air Force to Brevard County, Florida, argued that this move would enhance his career and provide Maya with positive role models, stability, and financial benefits. Testimony revealed that Tian's military assignment in Louisiana was temporary, and he had pursued various employment opportunities outside of state. His initial stay in Barksdale was marked by dissatisfaction regarding the local environment and concerns as an interracial couple. The court found sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that Tian's relocation was made in good faith, consistent with established jurisprudence.

Relocation to Florida was deemed to be in Maya's best interest by the trial court, which conducted a detailed analysis based on La. R.S. 9:355.14. The court awarded joint custody to Tian and Emily, naming Tian as the domiciliary parent and granting Emily extensive visitation periods with Maya, outlined in a Joint Custody Implementation Plan (JCIP). Emily, who married Tian on July 19, 2005, previously had three children from different fathers, with limited relationships with them. During their marriage, Emily and Tian had a daughter, Samaya, born December 10, 2007. Their marriage ended due to Emily's extramarital affair, leading to a separation and eventual divorce filed by Tian on December 22, 2015.

The trial focused on which parent could provide a stable home for Samaya, considering Tian's military relocation to Florida. Testimonies included Dr. Robert Clanton, who evaluated the mental health of the parties and Maya, and Dr. Robert Evans, who addressed parental alienation. The court reviewed evidence, including investigations into allegations of abuse against Tian.

La. R.S. 9:355.14 requires courts to assess factors relevant to the child's best interests in relocation cases. Key considerations included the quality of Samaya's relationships with her parents and others, noting her close bond with both until the separation. At nearly eleven years old, Samaya is thriving academically and socially, and the court found no barriers to her relocation, considering that educational and extracurricular opportunities in Florida are similar to those in Louisiana. Both parties were evaluated equally in this analysis.

The document evaluates several factors regarding the potential relocation of a custodial parent, focusing on the implications for the child's relationship with both parents. 

1. **Custody and Visitation Arrangements**: The court recognizes the love both Emily and Tian have for their daughter, Samaya, and believes that with appropriate physical custody and technological means, the non-domiciliary parent can maintain a close relationship despite relocation. 

2. **Child's Views**: Given Samaya's young age, the court determined it was not in her best interest to testify about her opinions on the relocation. However, the court is confident that she would prefer to stay with her mother, influenced by her current environment.

3. **Parental Conduct and Alienation**: The court found substantial evidence of Emily's actions that have led to alienation between Samaya and her father, Tian. Despite some actions being unintentional, the overall effect has been detrimental to the father-daughter relationship. Dr. Clanton's testimony highlighted significant alienation, suggesting that if it were intentional or continued, relocation to Florida might be warranted. 

4. **Environment Considerations**: The court assessed the implications of Samaya remaining with Emily, noting that the environment is not conducive to fostering her relationship with Tian. Emily's past decisions, including her romantic relationship with a recently widowed neighbor, raised concerns about her judgment and its impact on Samaya's emotional well-being. 

Overall, the court is troubled by Emily's history of decision-making that disregards the effects on others and recognizes a pattern of alienation that could jeopardize Samaya's relationship with her father.

Emily has demonstrated a consistent pattern of actions aimed at enhancing her image as a caregiver for Samaya while undermining Tian's credibility and parenting abilities. Reports of abuse made to Barksdale Air Force Base, which appear unfounded, have endangered Tian's military career and seem motivated by Emily's intentions to alienate Samaya from her father. The Court recognizes the necessity to prevent such actions and strongly favors relocating Samaya to Tian’s residence, where he has shown the capacity and willingness to provide a nurturing environment and support a relationship between Samaya and Emily.

The potential relocation is assessed for its impact on Samaya's quality of life, including financial, emotional, and educational aspects. The Court acknowledges the benefits of living near Barksdale Air Force Base and the superior educational opportunities in Florida, which may positively influence Samaya's development. Although she is currently in a high-ranking school district in Louisiana, the proposed move does not present detriments.

Both parties express love for Samaya and wish for her to live with them, treating this consideration equally. Tian’s military position affords him financial stability and benefits to care for Samaya, while Emily is financially dependent on her new husband, creating a slight advantage for Tian regarding relocation.

The parties have equally fulfilled their financial obligations, and the feasibility of relocating Samaya is recognized as manageable. Emily has the option to either relocate or maintain meaningful visitation, ensuring significant custody periods. 

Finally, there are no current allegations of substance abuse against either party, although Emily’s prior unsubstantiated abuse claims against Tian have been described as harassment.

No significant allegations of violence exist between the parties. The Court expresses concern over Emily's attempts to undermine Tian's relationship with their child, Samaya, potentially for personal gain. It notes that Emily's actions may intentionally or unintentionally alienate Samaya from her father. The Court finds that Emily's personal motivations have adversely affected her children's best interests, as she has engaged in a campaign to degrade Tian in Samaya’s eyes.

The Court, after reviewing evidence and expert testimony, particularly from mental health professionals Shelly Booker, Thomas Davison, and Dr. Clanton, concludes that unless changes are made, the alienation will continue. Dr. Clanton recommends relocating Samaya to Florida if the alienation persists. The Court supports this recommendation, stating that Emily has not recognized or corrected her alienating behavior.

Dr. Robert Evans, an expert in parental alienation, suggested programs for counseling and therapy to facilitate relocation and reunification. The Court emphasizes that while it does not need to strictly analyze all factors under La. R.S. 9:355.14, it must weigh them based on the evidence. The trial judge faced a challenging task, ultimately determining that the unhealthy bond between Emily and Samaya, characterized by alienation tactics, warranted a decision for Samaya’s relocation to Florida and awarding Tian primary custody.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed, with costs assessed against Emily. A Joint Custody Implementation Plan was established on December 12, 2018, highlighting the impact of parental alienation in the custody determination.