Baggett v. Baggett

381 So.3d 92

2023-0653 (La.App. 1 Cir. 12/27/23)

Joseph Michael BAGGETT

v.Jamie Lynn Guidroz BAGGETT

NO. 2023 CA 0653

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

Judgment Rendered: December 27, 2023

On Appeal from the 22nd Judicial District Court, In and for the Parish of St. Tammany, State of Louisiana, Trial Court No. 2009-11431, Honorable Patrice W. Oppenheim, Judge Presiding

Elizabeth W. Ramirez, Sarabeth T. Bradley, Covington, LA, Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellee, Joseph Michael Baggett

Sarah N. Chouest, Houma, LA, Attorney for Defendant-Appellant, Jamie Lynn Guidroz Baggett

BEFORE: McCLENDON, HESTER, AND MILLER, JJ.

HESTER, J.

₂In this custody matter, the mother appeals from the trial court judgment finding her in contempt of court and determining other ancillary matters. For the following reasons, we reverse in part and affirm in part.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Joseph Baggett and Jamie Guidroz were married on July 15, 2006. During their marriage, they had one child, Jennifer Baggett born on June 12, 2007. In October 2008, the parties physically separated, and on March 11, 2009, Joseph filed a petition seeking divorce and raising other incidental matters. On April 9, 2019, the parties stipulated to joint custody of Jennifer. Thereafter, the parties were divorced by a judgment signed on July 7, 2010. On November 5, 2018, Joseph filed a rule for contempt wherein he sought to modify custody. In a judgment signed on February 4, 2019, the parties stipulated that they would continue to exercise joint custody of Jennifer and that Joseph would have custody every other weekend from Friday to Sunday, and they would split the holidays.

Thereafter, on July 12, 2021, Joseph filed a rule for contempt, motion to modify custody and child support, and motion for mental health and substance abuse evaluations contending that since the February 4, 2019 stipulated judgment, Jamie has failed and refused to exchange Jennifer and that he has not been permitted to exercise physical custody of Jennifer since May 2022. He also sought to modify custody and child support; an order requiring Jamie to participate in mental health and substance abuse evaluations; an order for reunification therapy for him and Jennifer, and individual therapy for Jennifer; and a finding that Jamie attempted to alienate Jennifer from him. Joseph’s rule and motions came before a hearing officer for the 22nd Judicial District Court for a conference on September 21, 2021. After the conference, the hearing officer made several findings of fact and recommendations. The hearing officer’s recommendations and proposed judgment ₃pursuant to La. R.S. 46:236.5(C)(5)(d) provided, in pertinent part, that both parties shall subscribe to Our Family Wizard; Jamie shall enroll Jennifer with a certified mental health counselor by 11/02/2021 and inform Joseph of the mental health professional’s name and contact information; and Jamie shall get Jennifer tested educationally and have Joseph listed on all school documents to receive copies of school reports and communicate with Jennifer’s teachers. The hearing officer additionally found Jamie in contempt of court and ordered her to pay $1,790.00 in attorney fees and $454.00 in court costs.

The hearing officer’s recommendations and proposed judgment further notified the parties that they had five days to file a written objection to the hearing officer’s recommendations. If the parties did not timely object, the recommendations would become a final judgment of the court, and if they timely objected the recommendations would "become a temporary Order pending further orders of the Court." On October 16, 2021, the trial court judge signed a judgment making the hearing officer’s September 21, 2021 recommendations a final judgment of court. In so ruling, the court noted that an objection was filed, but "the original was not timely filed with the clerk of court." The portion of the judgment providing that the hearing officer conference report be made temporary orders of the court pending the hearing was struck through and left unsigned.

On March 2, 2022, Joseph filed another rule for contempt and a second request for evaluations. Joseph contended that he has not received any information from Jamie regarding therapy or having the child tested for educational disabilities, he still has not communicated or seen Jennifer, and to the best of his knowledge, Jamie has not subscribed to Our Family Wizard. Joseph also re-urged his request for mental health and substance abuse evaluations for Jamie.

Thereafter, on March 7, 2022, Jamie filed a motion to vacate the October 16, 2021 judgment of the trial court, making the hearing officer recommendations a final ₄Judgment of the court contending that she timely fax-filed her objection. Joseph’s attorney did not object to her motion, and on May 4, 2022, a judgment was signed ordering that "the Motion to Vacate with Incorporated Memorandum in Support filed by [Jamie] is hereby GRANTED." The judgment also provided that "the temporary order shall be re-instated as the judgment of this Court until further Court order."

Joseph’s March 2, 2022 rule for contempt and request for evaluations came before the hearing officer for a conference on May 12, 2022. Again, the hearing officer made several findings of fact and recommendations. The hearing officer recommended that Joseph’s rule for contempt be granted in part and deferred in part. The recommendations were ordered to "remain recommendations" pending a hearing. Jamie timely filed an objection to the hearing officer’s recommendations from the May 12, 2022 conference.

On December 1, 2022, a trial was held on Joseph's July 12, 2021 rule for contempt, motion for mental health and substance abuse evaluations, and motion to modify custody and support, as well as his March 2, 2022 rule for contempt and second request for evaluations. On December 15, 2022, the trial court signed a judgment granting Joseph’s rule for contempt as it related to 1) Jamie’s failure to enroll in Our Family Wizard; 2) Jamie’s failure to enroll the family in therapy; 3) Jamie’s failure to participate in family therapy; 4) Jamie’s failure to advise Joseph of the name and contact information for a family therapist; and 5) Jamie’s failure to have the child tested for any learning disabilities. Jamie was ordered to pay $1,500.00 in attorney fees and costs associated with the filing of the rules for contempt and $140.00 as reimbursement for Joseph’s negative drug test. Additionally, the judgment ordered Jamie to provide Joseph with the name and number of any of Jennifer’s health care providers, as well as to identify Joseph as Jennifer’s father and provide his phone number and address to the school and other ₅health care providers, and to contact Terrebonne High School to have Jennifer tested for learning disabilities. The judgment further ordered both parties to submit to a mental health evaluation, enroll in Our Family Wizard, and participate in family therapy. Finally, the judgment ordered that Jennifer to continue therapy with Sarah Brooks and deferred any issues that had not been addressed to the next trial date. It is from this judgment that Jamie appeals, contending, that the trial court erred in refusing argument and testimony as to improper hearing officer conference procedure, in striking Jamie’s witnesses and exhibits, in preventing Jamie from challenging Joseph’s testimony regarding prior abuse, and in finding Jamie in contempt.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

[1] First, we will address Jamie’s first and fourth assignments of error related to the hearing officer process and the finding that she was in contempt.¹ Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 224(2) provides that willful disobedience of any lawful judgment, order, mandate, writ, or process of the court constitutes constructive contempt. Herein, the trial court found Jamie in contempt for willful violation of several recommendations made by the hearing officer after the September 21, 2021 conference. However, our review of the record reveals that under these unusual circumstances, the September 21, 2021 recommendations of the hearing officer were never made a judgment or order of the court.

[2] The October 16, 2021 judgment making the hearing officer’s recommendations a final judgment of the court was vacated by a judgment signed on May 4, 2022, and the hearing officer’s recommendations were not made temporary orders of the court. As noted, the order at the bottom of the judgment providing that the hearing officer conference report be made temporary orders of the ₆court pending the hearing was struck through and left unsigned. A vacated judgment is of no force or effect; thus, when a judgment is vacated, the parties return to the same positions they held before the judgment was rendered. Kott v. Kott, 2020-0873 (La. App. 1st Cir. 4/16/21), 324 So.3d 165, 175. All of the contempt rulings by the trial court were based on the October 16, 2021 judgment that was vacated and therefore was of no force or effect. The issue of whether Jamie was in contempt for failure to allow Joseph his custodial periods was deferred.

[3] As the hearing officer’s September 21, 2021 recommendations were never made temporary orders of the court, and the October 16, 2021 judgment was vacated and of no force or effect, we conclude that Jamie was not in violation of a court order or judgment in failing to enroll in Our Family Wizard; failing to enroll the family in therapy; failing to participate in family therapy; failing to advise Joseph of the name and contact information for a family therapist; and failing to have the child tested for any learning disabilities. There is no authority in law that allows a contempt proceeding against a party against whom no court order has ever been issued. See Piccione v. Piccione, 2001-1086 (La. App. 3rd Cir. 5/22/02), 824 So.2d 427, 434. Therefore, the trial court erred in finding her in contempt for those matters.² Accor...