Delagarde v. Delagarde
| Docket Number | 48532 |
| Decision Date | 03 December 2021 |
| Parties | MICAELA ROSE DELAGARDE, Petitioner-Respondent, v. LAURENT DELAGARDE, Respondent-Appellant. |
| Court | Idaho Court of Appeals |
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Gerald F. Schroeder District Judge; Hon. Laurie A. Fortier, Magistrate.
Opinion of the district court, on intermediate appeal from the magistrate court, affirming judgment and decree of divorce affirmed.
Gravis Law, PLLC; Charles B. Bauer, Boise, for appellant. Charles B Bauer argued.
Bevis, Thiry & Schindele, P.A.; Jennifer M. Schindele, Boise, for respondent. Jennifer M. Schindele argued.
Laurent Delagarde appeals from the district court's opinion on intermediate appeal, affirming the magistrate court's judgment and decree of divorce. Specifically, Laurent challenges the district court's affirmance of the magistrate court's order granting him five consecutive overnights of summer vacation with his minor child and requiring that Laurent and his ex-wife, Micaela Rose Delagarde, mutually agree to the child obtaining a passport. We affirm.
Laurent and Micaela divorced in 2019. When the magistrate court entered its judgment and decree of divorce in October 2019, Laurent and Micaela's minor daughter, F.D., was three years old. Laurent is a French citizen with permanent resident status in the United States.
Although Laurent lives and works in the United States, his parents and his older daughter live in France. The crux of Laurent's appeal is his ability to travel to France with F.D.
Micaela filed for divorce in January 2019. In Micaela's parenting plan filed with her petition for divorce, she proposed each parent have three days of vacation time with F.D. In response, Laurent filed an answer proposing each parent be allowed "two 1-week vacations each year to be exercised in 7-day blocks." The answer also alleged F.D. "is a dual citizen" of the United States and of France[1] and asserted Laurent "should be permitted to obtain a French passport" for F.D. During the pendency of the divorce, F.D. stayed with Micaela each night but, at some point during the summer of 2019, F.D. began spending one night a week with Laurent.[2]
At mediation, the parties reached a stipulation on numerous issues, including stipulating to joint legal custody of F.D. Regarding joint legal custody, they agreed to "share the major decisionmaking rights, responsibilities and authority relating to the health, education and general welfare of [F.D.]." The parties, however, did not agree to child support or to a physical custody schedule, with the exception of a holiday schedule. The case proceeded to trial on these issues in September 2019.
At trial, both Micaela and Laurent testified.[3] Regarding vacation time, Laurent testified:
[W]hat I'd like to have is enough trunk [sic] of time so I can fly over there [to France] with [F.D.] maybe for one week. I think like it's going over week it might be too much, you know, at this time, but less than one week is not even . . . .
At the conclusion of the evidence, the magistrate court entered its findings of fact and conclusions of law on the record pursuant to Idaho Rule of Family Law 801.[4] After the court entered its findings regarding F.D.'s best interests, the court concluded that it would require "the parties to make a determination when it is appropriate for [F.D.] to have a French passport" and that it would allow Laurent five consecutive overnights of summer vacation with F.D. Regarding this vacation time, the court stated that the five consecutive overnights could not be stacked with Laurent's regular overnight visitation and also that they "will need to happen in the United States absent agreement by the parties."
Thereafter, the magistrate court entered a written judgment and decree of divorce. This decree ordered the parties to share physical custody of F.D. and increased Laurent's physical custody to two overnights on Fridays and Saturdays, except for the first weekend of the month. As relevant to this appeal, the decree provides that "commencing the summer of 2020, Laurent may have up to five (5) consecutive overnights of vacation time with [F.D.]"; "Laurent cannot add this time to his regular schedule if it makes the total consecutive overnights greater than five"; and "the parties must mutually agree when it is appropriate to obtain a passport for [F.D.]." Unlike the court's ruling at trial, the decree did not expressly prohibit Laurent from traveling internationally with F.D.
Laurent moved to amend the magistrate court's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the judgment or for a new trial, and the court held a hearing on this motion. Only the post-hearing written order is in the appellate record, and it states the court denied the motion for the reasons "stated on the record at the hearing." Laurent appealed this denial and the court's decree to the district court. Specifically, Laurent challenged the magistrate court's limitation of his vacation time with F.D. to five consecutive overnights and the court's requirement that Micaela consent to Laurent obtaining a French passport for F.D.
Following oral argument, the district court issued a written opinion affirming the magistrate court's decree.[5] The district court concluded that the parties' joint legal custody required them to share the decision to obtain a French passport for F.D. Further, it concluded that the magistrate court considered the factors in Idaho Code § 32-717 to determine F.D.'s best interests; substantial and competent evidence supports the court's limitation on Laurent's vacation time to five consecutive overnights; and the court did not abuse its discretion in imposing this limitation.
The district court also considered and rejected Laurent's argument that the Hague Convention[6] and nonbinding case law from various other state jurisdictions support Laurent's right to travel with F.D. to France. Finally, the court rejected Laurent's argument that the magistrate court substantially prejudiced his rights by restricting his travel. The district court noted that the magistrate court did not impose any travel restriction on Laurent but that his right to travel to France with F.D. was an "abstract right" because of the "restricted timeframe" and "the absence of a passport for [F.D.]."
Laurent timely appeals the district court's affirmance of the magistrate court's decree.
For an appeal from the district court, sitting in its appellate capacity over a case from the magistrate division, we review the magistrate court record to determine whether there is substantial and competent evidence to support the magistrate court's findings of fact and whether the magistrate court's conclusions of law follow from those findings. Pelayo v. Pelayo, 154 Idaho 855, 858-59, 303 P.2d 214, 217-18 (2013). As a matter of appellate procedure, however, our disposition of the appeal will affirm or reverse the decision of the district court. Id. Thus, we review the magistrate court's findings and conclusions, whether the district court affirmed or reversed the magistrate court and the basis therefore, and either affirm or reverse the district court.
We review a trial court's determinations of child custody for an abuse of discretion. Kelly v. Kelly, 165 Idaho 716, 723, 451 P.3d 429, 436 (2019). When a trial court's discretionary decision is reviewed on appeal, the appellate court conducts a multi-tiered inquiry to determine whether the trial court: (1) correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) acted within the boundaries of such discretion; (3) acted consistently with any legal standards applicable to the specific choices before it; and (4) reached its decision by an exercise of reason. Lunneborg v. My Fun Life, 163 Idaho 856, 863, 421 P.3d 187, 194 (2018).
If substantial and competent evidence does not support the trial court's findings, the appellate court will find an abuse of discretion. Kelly, 165 Idaho at 723, 451 P.3d at 436. In a child custody case, an abuse of discretion occurs if the evidence is insufficient to support the trial court's finding that the children's best interests and welfare are best served by the trial court's order. Id. "An appellate court will view the evidence in favor of the trial court's judgment and will uphold the trial court's findings of fact even if there is conflicting evidence." Schneider v. Schneider, 151 Idaho 415, 420, 258 P.3d 350, 355 (2011).
Laurent challenges the district court's affirmance of the magistrate court's custody award limiting his vacation time with F.D. to five consecutive overnights. Laurent argues substantial and competent evidence does not support this limitation and that the magistrate court abused its discretion by imposing the limitation.
Of paramount importance in determining custody issues is the child's welfare and best interests. Silva v. Silva, 142 Idaho 900, 904, 136 P.3d 371, 375 (Ct. App. 2006). Idaho Code § 32-717 provides a nonexhaustive list of factors for the trial court to consider when making custody determinations. These factors include the child's wishes; the parents' wishes; the child's interaction with her parents and her siblings; the child's adjustment to her home, school, and community; the mental and physical health and integrity of all individuals involved; the need to promote continuity and stability in the child's life; and the presence of domestic violence. I.C. § 32-717(1)(a)-(g).
In this case, the magistrate court expressly addressed each of these factors in its findings. As related to the issues on appeal the...
To continue reading
Request your trial