Creech v. Creech

• Decision Date: 05 February 1979
• Docket Number: No. 6792,6792
• Citation: 367 So.2d 1244
• Parties: Carole Calvert CREECH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bob Newton CREECH, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

Page 1244

367 So.2d 1244

Carole Calvert CREECH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bob Newton CREECH, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 6792.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

Feb. 5, 1979.

Patrick McDonough, III, Vidalia, for plaintiff-appellant.

Philip Letard, Vidalia, for defendant-appellee.

Before DOMENGEAUX, FORET and STOKER, JJ.

DOMENGEAUX, Judge.

Carole Calvert Creech was granted a legal separation and, ultimately, a divorce from Bob Newton Creech. She received the permanent custody of the couple's two minor children, and Mr. Creech was allowed specific visitation privileges. Additionally, the mother was awarded $300.00 per month for child support.

Subsequently, Mr. Creech proceeded by rule for extended visitation rights, and Mrs. Creech reconvened for additional child support.

At hearing, the father's visitation privileges were extended and child support was increased. Mrs. Creech now appeals contending that the increase in child support was inadequate and that the modified visitation privileges, if allowed to stand, would perpetuate "split or divided" custody.

CHILD SUPPORT

The child support was increased from $300.00 to $325.00 per month, and, additionally, Mr. Creech was ordered to maintain dental and medical insurance for the children. Although the father's annual salary was found to be $28,000.00, with housing provided by his employer, we cannot say that the trial judge abused his discretion in view of the limited factual information before us. We also note that, at the time of the original child support decree, the mother was unemployed. She is now employed, having take home pay of approximately $350.00 per month. The obligation to support, maintain, and educate the children extends to the mother. La.C.C. Art. 227.

Additionally, the district judge noted that Mr. Creech now has certain obligations which he did not have when support was initially awarded. Appellant does not contend that the written narrative entitled "Statement of Facts" has inaccurately portrayed that fact. ¹ Without the benefit of a transcript of the parties' testimony, we must accept this finding made by the trial court. McDonald v. McDonald, 357 So.2d 1293 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1978). The $25.00 per month increase was an attempt by the trial court to, as he said: "balance present needs against present ability to pay." On the basis of the record before us, we find the increase in the support award within the bounds of the trial judge's discretion.

VISITATION PRIVILEGES

In the recent case of McDonald v. McDonald, supra, we held that an award of visitation rights totaling 81 days annually was not excessive. The true test is whether the frequency or length of visitation will be detrimental to the welfare of the child.

Mr. Creech is now working in Vera Cruz, Mexico. Because of the expense and difficulty involved in traveling to the States, he was virtually unable to visit his children one weekend each month, as was originally provided for in the judgment of divorce. The trial judge concluded: "Therefore, the Court felt that the best interest of the children would be served and fairness would prevail upon the part of all parties if a summer visitation period was increased from two weeks to five weeks . . . ." By enabling meaningful visitation...