Randazza v. Giacona
| Citation | 316 So.3d 564 |
| Decision Date | 24 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | NO. 20-CA-439,20-CA-439 |
| Parties | Lauren RANDAZZA v. Pietro M. GIACONA |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana (US) |
316 So.3d 564
Lauren RANDAZZA
v.
Pietro M. GIACONA
NO. 20-CA-439
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit.
March 24, 2021
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE, LAUREN RANDAZZA, Keith R. Credo, Metairie
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT, PIETRO M. GIACONA, Christy M. Howley, Gretna, M. Elizabeth Bowman, New Orleans
Panel composed of Judges Fredericka Homberg Wicker, Jude G. Gravois, and Hans J. Liljeberg
GRAVOIS, J.
Pietro M. Giacona, appellant, and Lauren Randazza, appellee, could not agree on
a school of choice for their three-year-old daughter Mila to attend. After unsuccessfully attempting to mediate the issue with their parent coordinator, the matter was brought before a domestic hearing officer on July 16, 2020, who recommended the school selected by Ms. Randazza. This recommendation was made an Interim Judgment of the Court on July 20, 2020. Mr. Giacona timely objected, and the matter was tried de novo before the district court on August 5, 2020. On that date, the district court issued a judgment holding that the minor child shall attend St. Anthony of Padua School in New Orleans, Louisiana, the same school recommended by the hearing officer and selected by Ms. Randazza. Mr. Giacona's timely appeal followed. For the following reasons, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Ms. Randazza and Mr. Giacona had a romantic relationship but never married. Their daughter Mila was born on June 2, 2017. The relationship ended in September of 2018. While the parties were a couple, they lived on the east bank of Jefferson Parish in Old Jefferson, with Ms. Randazza being employed as a teacher in Kenner and Mr. Giacona being employed with a governmental contractor on the naval base in Belle Chasse.1 Following their break up, Mr. Giacona moved his home to the naval base, while Ms. Randazza's home remained on the east bank of Jefferson Parish.
Ms. Randazza filed a Petition for Custody and Support on March 6, 2019, to which Mr. Giacona reconvened. After a custody evaluation with Dr. Karen Van Beyer, the matter came for a hearing before the domestic commissioner on August 6, 2019 and August 23, 2019. On August 23, 2019, pursuant to the hearing, the parties entered into a Consent Judgment. While not awarding "domiciliary custody" to either parent, as per Dr. Van Beyer's evaluation and report, the Consent Judgment stated that "the parties, Lauren Randazza and Pietro M. Giacona, should be awarded joint custody with equal shared physical time of the minor child, Mila Giacona. Lauren Randazza shall be in charge of religious and educational decisions for the child, in consultation with Pietro M. Giacona." (Emphasis added.) Ms. Randazza is a teacher. Her master's degree in early childhood intervention, plus her practice of Catholicism, provided the basis for this term of the Consent Judgment.2
The Consent Judgment reflected that the parties would share physical custody of their daughter on a "2/2/3" basis. The Consent Judgment stated that they agreed to send Mila to Christ the King School in Terrytown, which is located on the west bank of Jefferson Parish, which she in fact attended for the 2019-20 school year.3 However, Christ the King School closed permanently following the 2019-20 school year, and the parties had to find a new school for their child to attend. Mr. Giacona recommended several schools on the west bank of Jefferson Parish, which he narrowed down to two schools, Immaculate Conception School, located in Marrero, and St. Rosalie School, located in Harvey. Ms. Randazza recommended St. Anthony of Padua's preschool, which is located in the
Mid-City neighborhood of New Orleans on Canal Street.4 Unable to come to an agreement, the parties engaged the services of Terri Campesta, the parenting coordinator with whom they had previously worked. Ms. Campesta attempted to mediate an agreement between the parties on a school choice, but was unsuccessful. Ultimately, after considering the schools each party chose, Ms. Campesta issued a report finding that the most "feasible" schools were either Immaculate Conception School or St. Rosalie School on the west bank, but she declined to formally recommend either school as she believed such a recommendation would impact Mr. Giacona's child support obligation, which was beyond the scope of her authority. Among other things affecting her endorsement, Ms. Campesta considered the distances Mila would have to commute while in each parent's care, the availability of Mila's speech therapy at the different campuses, a comparison of the cost of tuitions, and the availability of before-care and after-care at each school.
On June 18, 2020, Ms. Randazza filed a Rule to Determine School Choice, citing the parties’ unsuccessful attempt at mediation with Ms. Campesta, and alleging that Mr. Giacona's objections to St. Anthony of Padua School were based on his convenience and financial concerns, rather than on Mila's best interest. On July 7, 2020, Mr. Giacona filed a Motion to Designate School, for Incidental Matters, and for Attorney Fees and Court Costs. The parties went before the hearing officer on July 16, 2020, who recommended that the minor child attend the school selected by Ms. Randazza, St. Anthony of Padua's preschool. This recommendation was made an Interim Judgment of the Court on July 20, 2020. Mr. Giacona timely objected to the Interim Judgment.
The matter was then heard in a trial de novo by the district court judge on August 5, 2020, who received the parties’ testimonies, as well as the testimony of Ms. Campesta, the parenting coordinator. The witnesses testified regarding the virtues and drawbacks of the different schools, including the distances and commute times between the schools and the parties’ residences/work places. The trial court also received the report of Ms. Campesta, a letter from Mila's speech therapist, documentary evidence showing the tuition rates of the schools, as well as the hearing officer's recommendations and stipulations of August 6, 2019, the Consent Judgment of August 23, 2019, the hearing officer's recommendation of July 16, 2020, and the July 20, 2020 Interim Order of the Court. At the close of trial, the court ruled from the bench, citing the provisions of the August 23, 2019 Consent Judgment that placed Ms. Randazza in charge of educational and religious decisions, and affirmed the hearing officer's Interim Judgment that Mila should attend St. Anthony of Padua School, the school selected by Ms. Randazza. A written judgment was signed that same day.5 Mr. Giacona filed this timely appeal.
On appeal, Mr. Giacona argues first that the trial court erred in giving unilateral educational decision-making power to Ms. Randazza, when she is not the domiciliary parent. Second, he argues that the trial court erred in placing a rebuttable presumption burden of proof on Mr. Giacona,
when no domiciliary parent was designated. Third, he argues that Ms. Randazza failed to meet her burden of proof that her "unilateral" selection of St. Anthony of Padua School was in Mila's best interest. Fourth, he argues that the trial court's alleged ex parte communication with Dr. Van Beyer, the custody evaluator, was improper.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
A trial court's determination in a child custody case will not be disturbed unless there is a clear abuse of discretion. Schmidt v. Schmidt , 02-885 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1/14/03), 839 So.2d 150, 152. An appellate court is required to extend great weight to the factual conclusions of trial courts which are based on reasonable evaluations of credibility and reasonable inferences of fact. Id. , citing Rosell v. ESCO , 549 So.2d 840 (La. 1989).
FIRST AND SECOND ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
Mr. Giacona argues first that the trial court erred in giving "unilateral" educational decision making power to Ms. Randazza, when she is not the domiciliary parent. Second, he argues that the trial court erred in placing a rebuttable presumption burden of proof on Mr. Giacona, when no domiciliary parent was designated. Because these assignments of error relate to the issue of what it means to be a domiciliary parent, they are considered together.
La. R.S. 9:335 is entitled in part "Joint custody decree and implementation order." It provides among other things that "[t]he implementation order shall allocate the legal authority and responsibility of the parents," and that "[i]n a decree of joint custody, the court shall designate a domiciliary parent except when there is an implementation order to the contrary or for other good cause shown." See La. R.S. 9:335(A)(3) and (B)(1). Further, paragraph (B)(3) of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial