Singleton v. Singleton
| Decision Date | 21 June 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. 51,476-CA.,51,476-CA. |
| Citation | 224 So.3d 1134 |
| Parties | Hope Barker SINGLETON, Plaintiff–Appellant v. Johnny Heath SINGLETON, Defendant–Appellee |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
DAVID J. THOMAS, Counsel for Appellant
MASON L. OSWALT, Counsel for Appellee
Before DREW, STONE, and COX, JJ.
This appeal arises from a judgment signed on August 19, 2016, from the Fourth Judicial District Court, Ouachita Parish, the Honorable Alvin R. Sharp presiding. Hope Barker Singleton, now Hope Barker Moore ("Mrs. Moore"), appeals from the judgment which denied her request to relocate with her son from Ouachita Parish to Montgomery, Texas,1 arguing that the court committed legal error in weighing the factors required by La. R.S. 9:355.14 and abused its discretion in finding that the move was not in the minor child's best interest. For the following reasons, we find that the trial court did not commit legal error in weighing the factors required by La. R.S. 9:355.14. We affirm the ruling of the trial court.
Mrs. Moore married Johnny Singleton ("Mr. Singleton") on January 19, 2002, and one child, R.S., was born of the marriage on August 8, 2006. Mrs. Moore filed for divorce in 2009, but the parties reconciled following roughly six months of separation. On August 2, 2011, they separated again. The final divorce was granted on November 30, 2012.
On October 25, 2012, the parties entered into a consent judgment that awarded joint custody and named Mrs. Moore as the primary domiciliary parent. The judgment allowed Mr. Singleton visitation every other weekend and every Wednesday night. It also set child support at $900.00 per month and required written notification of either parent's plan to relocate at least 60 days before moving, along with compliance with applicable law.
In a letter sent by certified mail and dated March 27, 2015, Mrs. Moore attempted to notify Mr. Singleton that she intended to relocate with R.S. to Montgomery, Texas, so that she could live with her new husband. The letter was received by Mr. Singleton on March 31, 2015. Mrs. Moore stated that she also personally informed Mr. Singleton of the proposed relocation. She sent a second letter expressing the same intent by certified mail on April 28, 2015, and it was received on May 5, 2015.
Mrs. Moore filed a petition for relocation on May 19, 2015, asking the court's permission to relocate with the child. She requested an expedited hearing under La. R.S. 9:355.10, seeking permission to temporarily relocate. Her request was denied. The parties were ordered to attend a hearing officer conference on July 21, 2015.
The hearing officer filed a conference report on July 23, 2015, recommending that the request to relocate be denied. On February 20, 2016, Mr. Singleton filed a motion to reduce child support because he had been laid off his job and unemployed since September of 2015.2
A trial on the relocation of the child was held over the course of 8 days in May, June, and July of 2016. On July 20, 2016, the trial court interviewed the minor child. After taking in all the testimony, the trial court issued written reasons for its ruling on August 8, 2016, and filed a judgment in accordance with its written reasons on August 19, 2016.
The trial on this matter began with an agreement that La. R.S. 9:355.14 was controlling. Testimony started with Kayla May, a career law clerk for District Judge Robert James of the Western District of Louisiana. May testified that she knew both Mrs. Moore and Mr. Singleton because she attended the same church as they did while they were married.
May recalled going to a basketball game on approximately March 1, 2016, at the West Monroe Recreation Center to watch her son play. She arrived early while the prior game was still in progress and saw R.S. was one of the children playing. She recalled that when she sat down in the bleachers, she saw Mr. Singleton in the opposite bleachers "standing up and screaming down the court something about a foul." She stated that at first, she could not decide who he was screaming at, but then R.S. committed a foul, and Mr. Singleton began screaming at him. May observed that R.S. appeared teary-eyed and looked upset about the screaming. R.S. was taken out of the game. May observed Mr. Singleton go over to him and get "down in his face." She stated that "it appeared to [her] that he was yelling and he got him by the back of the neck and shook him." This incident caused an older man, believed to be Mrs. Moore's father, to come down from the stands along with an employee of the recreation center to talk to Mr. Singleton. May then observed Mr. Singleton walk away and exit the building. May stated that Mr. Singleton "seemed unreasonably upset," "his reaction seemed odd," and "he appeared to [her] as if he might have been under the influence of something."
On cross-examination, May admitted that she saw Mr. Singleton at one of his son's games in February and nothing inappropriate happened there. She also explained that all the bleachers were on one side of the gym so her view of the incident was lateral. May conceded she had no evidence that Mr. Singleton was intoxicated or on drugs.
Andrell Cooper, an attorney at CenturyLink, was the next witness called. She testified that she had known both Mrs. Moore and Mr. Singleton for approximately five years through their sons playing baseball together. She stated that Mrs. Moore had always been attentive and is always with R.S.
Cooper observed that Mr. Singleton had been around more within the past year, attending all of the baseball games for the most recent season, but sporadically in the baseball seasons prior to trial. She recalled one particular game in Shreveport where she saw Mr. Singleton yelling and standing over David Cody Moore ("Mr. Moore").3 Cooper stated that she did not see the beginning of the argument or know what it was about, but Mr. Singleton would not stop yelling at Mr. Moore.
On cross-examination, Cooper stated that Mr. Singleton had attended almost all of the baseball team's practices with R.S. over the past year. She stated that they seemed to have a loving relationship.
Mr. Singleton was called to the stand next for cross-examination. In his discovery responses, Mr. Singleton had denied that his previous employer was based out of Houston, Texas. However, in his deposition testimony, Mr. Singleton stated that his previous employer was Synergy, and they were based out of Houston, Texas. At trial, Mr. Singleton testified that he was employed with them until August 12, 2015.
In his responses to interrogatories, Mr. Singleton denied abusing prescription drugs, but he testified at trial that he had taken hydrocodone, temazepam, and Xanax on two occasions. He also testified that on one occasion he took Vyvanse (an ADHD medication which is an amphetamine ) without a prescription. He stated he had not taken any illegal drugs since 2009, and the last time he took prescription drugs was September 14, 2014, right after he got a DWI.4 Based on pharmacy records, Mr. Singleton conceded it was possible he had prescriptions filled for 200 hydrocodone pills in September 2014 and stated, "I got way too many, I know that." He testified that the medication was for back pain, but that he quit taking the medication "cold turkey" in September 2014, and his back had improved since that date.5
Regarding his DWI, Mr. Singleton stated that on August 10, 2014, he had R.S. over with one of his friends. Mr. Singleton passed out on the couch and stated it took a while for him to be woken up when Mrs. Moore stopped by to take the children to a birthday party. After Mrs. Moore left, Mr. Singleton went to see a girl in Ruston. He was pulled over around 6:00 p.m. after a Ruston police officer noticed he was swerving. State police responded, and Mr. Singleton testified that he blew into a Breathalyzer which returned a 0 BAC. He also did a urine test which indicated hydrocodone, Restoril, Vyvanse, and Xanax. The toxicology report was introduced at trial and indicated positive results for amphetamine, methamphetamine, hydrocodone, mizopam, temazepam, oxycodone, and oxymorphone.
Mr. Singleton testified that he and Mrs. Moore had both done cocaine and ecstasy. He admitted that in 2009 he was arrested for conspiracy to distribute cocaine, but stated the case was later thrown out by the district attorney.
Mr. Singleton admitted he had taken Lortab and Restoril for 5 years. He testified that he first began using illegal drugs around the time he met Mrs. Moore.
Mr. Singleton denied leaving his job at Progressive Global in 2014 after being requested to take a drug screen. His deposition testimony, however, reflected that he was terminated for failure to supply a drug test. Progressive requested the test because Mr. Singleton appeared impaired at a meeting.
Mr. Singleton admitted that when he was 18 years old, he was caught stealing stereo speakers out of a friend's car and was charged with a felony count of theft. In 1988, he pleaded guilty to unauthorized use of a movable. In 2004, Mr. Singleton was arrested in Lincoln Parish for drunk and disorderly conduct. In 2009, he was arrested for the above-mentioned conspiracy to distribute cocaine.
Mr. Singleton also admitted he was arrested in 2014 for insurance fraud when he filed a false police report claiming that his Camaro was stolen from his home. He stated that he "had to" file the police report because his car was missing when he went to get it after the DWI. Mr. Singleton stated that almost a month later, he filed a report that his vehicle was stolen. OnStar was then able to find the vehicle which "was taken by a gas vendor that was trying—trying to deliver fuel." Mr. Singleton eventually pleaded guilty to criminal mischief in April of 2016, but stated that the only lie he told was that the car was stolen from his yard instead of from a store.
Regarding his son from a previous marriage, Dallas, Mr. Singleton stated Dallas smokes...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Collins v. Creighton
...is otherwise complete, the appellate court should conduct an independent de novo review of the record. Singleton v. Singleton , 51,476 (La. App. 2 Cir. 6/21/17), 224 So. 3d 1134 ; In re Succession of Holcomb , 47,979 (La. App. 2 Cir. 5/29/13), 117 So. 3d 264, writ denied , 13-1537 (La. 10/4......
- Franklin v. Gary Dick, Kenneth Crawford, Ace Cab, L. L.C.
-
Merrells v. Dotray
...the factfinding process, and thus does not mandate a complete de novo review. Evans v. Lungrin , supra ; Singleton v. Singleton , 51,476 (La. App. 2 Cir. 6/21/17), 224 So. 3d 1134. However, we have previously stated that the district court's largely mechanical use of a checklist to determin......