State v. Knapp

Citation216 So.3d 130
Decision Date12 April 2017
Docket NumberNO. 2016–CA–0979,2016–CA–0979
Parties STATE of Louisiana THROUGH the DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT in the Interest of Christopher Bushman Minor Child(ren) of Christina Bushman v. James KNAPP
CourtCourt of Appeal of Louisiana (US)

216 So.3d 130

STATE of Louisiana THROUGH the DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT in the Interest of Christopher Bushman Minor Child(ren) of Christina Bushman
v.
James KNAPP

NO. 2016–CA–0979

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

APRIL 12, 2017


Martha J. Maher, 4603 South Carrolton Avenue, New Orleans, LA 70119, COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT

Stephen Rue, STEPHEN RUE & ASSOCIATES, 3309 Williams Boulevard, Kenner, LA 70065, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE

(Court composed of Judge Daniel L. Dysart, Judge Madeleine M. Landrieu, Judge Marion F. Edwards, Pro Tempore* )

Judge Madeleine M. Landrieu

This appeal arises from a dispute between Ms. Christina Bushman and Mr. James Knapp over the care, custody and parenting of their only child, Christopher. Specifically, Ms. Bushman has filed this appeal from a judgment of July 15, 2016 which, among other things, granted Mr. Knapp's petition to be designated as Christopher's domiciliary parent, held Ms. Bushman in contempt of court for her failure to allow Mr. Knapp his summer visitation, and held Ms. Bushman in contempt of court for conduct which served to diminish the child's love and affection for Mr. Knapp. Additionally, Ms. Bushman appeals the trial court's denial of the rules for contempt she filed against Mr. Knapp for his failure to notify her when the child was not in his physical care overnight and for his failure to reimburse her for the minor child's uncovered medical expenses. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Mr. Knapp and Ms. Bushman were once involved a short-term dating relationship lasting several months, which resulted in the birth of the minor child, Christopher, on November 21, 2009. Ms. Bushman testified that she was five months pregnant before she learned that she was expecting and, by that time, she and Mr. Knapp were no longer dating. When Ms. Bushman learned of her pregnancy, she wrote to Mr. Knapp, who, at the time, was travelling in Europe, having recently graduated from college. She also contacted Mr. Knapp's brother, Kyle, and asked that he contact Mr. Knapp directly to advise him of her pregnancy. Because of Ms. Bushman's involvement with at least one other gentleman following the demise of their dating relationship, Mr. Knapp was not convinced that he was the father of the child. Shortly after the child was born, but prior to his paternity being established, Mr. Knapp moved to North Carolina where he remained for several years.

In July 2010, when Christopher was eight months old, Ms. Bushman filed a Petition to Establish an Order of Child Support through the State of Louisiana. Paternity testing confirmed that Mr. Knapp was Christopher's biological father. Thereafter, in January of 2011, while residing in North Carolina, Mr. Knapp filed a petition requesting that he and Ms. Bushman be awarded joint custody of Christopher, with Ms. Bushman being designated as the domiciliary parent. His petition also requested that he be granted reasonable visitation, and that co-parenting guidelines be established. When the matter came for hearing in March 2011, an Interim Judgment was entered granting

216 So.3d 135

Mr. Knapp limited supervised visitation and ordering the parties to undergo drug testing.1 An Interim Judgment was entered on June 13, 2011 wherein Ms. Bushman was awarded primary physical custody of Christopher and Mr. Knapp was granted periods of physical custody with the minor child in Louisiana with specific parameters regarding times and pick-up locations.2 Additionally, the parties were ordered to participate in counseling with the Family Service of Greater New Orleans (with Mr. Knapp to participate by telephone) or, alternatively, to request that a parenting coordinator be assigned.

Within a month, Mr. Knapp and Ms. Bushman each commenced filing cross motions for contempt against one another for various alleged violations of the Interim Judgment.3 On August 22, 2011, a Consent Judgment was entered resolving these various cross-motions. In that judgment, the parties agreed to the following: joint custody of Christopher with Ms. Bushman designated as the domiciliary parent; to abide by specifically enumerated co-parenting guidelines;4 to participate in parenting classes and to provide a certificate of completion to the opposing party; to refrain from making derogatory remarks about the other parent (or family) in front of Christopher; a detailed physical custody plan and set visitation schedule for Mr. Knapp (who continued to reside in North Carolina); a designated exchange place and times; a set holiday and summer visitation schedule with each party agreeing to inform the other party within 30 days of their intention to take the child on vacation

216 So.3d 136

and to provide a full itinerary, including but not limited to, flight and/or travel times, location, address, and telephone number of where the child would be staying; and, for the appointment of a parenting facilitator.5

Several months later, in October 2011, Mr. Knapp filed a motion to decrease child support and a motion for contempt alleging that Ms. Bushman made disparaging and derisive comments about Mr. Knapp in front of the minor child in violation of the co-parenting guidelines. Ms. Bushman responded by filing peremptory exceptions of no cause of action and prematurity, which the trial court sustained, dismissing Mr. Knapp's motions on the basis that the Consent Judgment required Mr. Knapp to first present these issues to the parenting coordinator, which he failed to do.6

Within ten months, the parties were back in court. In August 2012, Ms. Bushman sought an increase in child support as well as to have the court appoint a new parenting facilitator to replace the former appointee, with whom Mr. Knapp, feeling as if his concerns were not being adequately addressed, refused to participate. The following month, Mr. Knapp moved the court to modify the existing visitation schedule and to require Ms. Bushman to comply with the co-parenting guidelines by ceasing all negative and/or defamatory comments about him and/or his family. By judgment dated December 18, 2012, the trial court increased Mr. Knapp's child support obligation in accordance with the Louisiana Child Support Guidelines and the parties' respective incomes, having determined each parties' pro rata share, with Ms. Bushman bearing 71% responsibility of the child support obligation and Mr. Knapp bearing the remaining 29%. With respect to medical expenses, the judgment provided the manner in which the parties would pay and be reimbursed for medical expenses incurred on behalf of Christopher.7

The judgment also ordered the parties to communicate via Our Family Wizard,8 modified the summer vacation schedule, outlined the particulars regarding Mr. Knapp's weekend visitation, and delineated the daily phone communication with the minor child by the parent not exercising physical custody. Additionally, the judgment assigned a new parenting coordinator and required that the parties meet with her prior to filing any pleadings in court.

During all of 2013 and the first eight months of 2014, no pleadings were filed by

216 So.3d 137

either party.9 In August 2014, however, Mr. Knapp requested a status conference alleging that Ms. Bushman arbitrarily refused to grant him summer visitation with Christopher despite his compliance with all notice and informational requirements. Then, in September 2014, Mr. Knapp filed a rule for contempt, modification of the child custody and/or domiciliary status, and requested sanctions. Specifically, Mr. Knapp averred that Ms. Bushman "manipulate[d] the [December 18, 2012] judgment to her own advantage" by failing to recognize his joint custody rights, and "repeatedly interfer [ing] with [his] visitation rights." Mr. Knapp alleged that Ms. Bushman wrongfully denied him the right to take the minor child for a scheduled out-of-state vacation. Mr. Knapp also averred that Ms. Bushman was in contempt based on the following: calling and involving the police in order to prevent his court-ordered visitation and without regard to the emotional impact upon the [then] four-year-old child; violating the co-parenting guidelines by refusing to inform him of Christopher's fourth birthday party; repeatedly violating the co-parenting guidelines by making derogatory statements about Mr. Knapp within earshot and/or in the presence of the minor child, alienating the child's affections for Mr. Knapp; and, refusing to co-parent to the detriment of the minor child. Mr. Knapp's petition also alleged that his relocation from North Carolina to Louisiana constituted a material change in circumstances warranting a modification of child custody. Specifically, Mr. Knapp requested co-domiciliary status and equal parenting time, both of which he averred were in Christopher's best interest.

In response, Ms. Bushman filed a motion to modify the physical custody plan to provide Christopher with a "more consistent physical custody plan during the regular months and a plan that does not involve [Mr.] Knapp having such extended periods of physical custody during the summer months." Additionally, Ms. Bushman filed a rule to compel...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 cases
  • Latter & Blum, Inc. v. Ditta
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana (US)
    • 22 Junio 2017
    ...we review judgments, not reasons for judgment. State through Dep't of Children & Family Servs. Child Support Enf't, 16–0979, p. 24, 216 So.3d 130, 139.8 In connection with the Purchase Agreement, Dr. Ditta, as the seller, completed a disclosure statement. One of the questions on the disclos......
  • Belway v. Thyssen, 2018-CA-0455
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana (US)
    • 12 Diciembre 2018
    ...at 368.State through Dep't of Children & Family Servs. Child Support Enf't v. Knapp, 2016-0979, pp. 11-13 (La. App. 4 Cir. 4/12/17), 216 So.3d 130, 139-40. We first consider the appeal of the contempt judgment. "A contempt of court is any act or omission tending to obstruct or interfere wit......
  • Belway v. Thyssen
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana (US)
    • 12 Diciembre 2018
    ...at 368. State through Dep't of Children & Family Servs. Child Support Enf't v. Knapp , 2016-0979, pp. 11-13 (La. App. 4 Cir. 4/12/17), 216 So.3d 130, 139-40. We first consider the appeal of the contempt judgment. "A contempt of court is any act or omission tending to obstruct or interfere w......
  • Young v. Young
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana (US)
    • 30 Junio 2021
    ...contempt. See also , Mabry , supra ; State through Dept. of Children and Family Services v. Knapp , 2016-0979 (La. App. 4 Cir. 4/12/17), 216 So. 3d 130 ; Barnett v. Barnett , 2015-766 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/26/16), 193 So. 3d 460, writ denied , 2016-1205 (La. 10/10/16), 207 So. 3d 406 ; Mason v......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT