Nagarajan v. Nagarajan

1

AMITH NAGARAJAN v. BRIDGET NEAL NAGARAJAN

AMITH NAGARAJAN v. BRIDGET NEAL NAGARAJAN

AMITH NAGARAJAN v. BRIDGET NEAL NAGARAJAN

Nos. 2023-CA-0309, 2023-CA-0370, 2023-CA-0371

Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit

August 23, 2023

APPEAL FROM CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS PARISH NO. 2015-05778 DIVISION "H" Honorable Monique E. Barial, Judge

Edith H. Morris

Bernadette R. Lee

Suzanne Ecuyer Bayle

Sheila H. Willis

MORRIS LEE BAYLE &WILLIS, L.L.C.

Cynthia A. De Luca, A.P.L.C.

Marynell L. Piglia

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE

Christine L. DeSue

ATTORNEY AT LAW

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT

(Court composed of Chief Judge Terri F. Love, Judge Joy Cossich Lobrano, Judge Karen K. Herman)

LOBRANO, J., CONCURS IN THE RESULT

KAREN K. HERMAN JUDGE

In these three consolidated matters, Bridget Neal Nagarajan ("Ms. Neal") appeals: 1) the November 14, 2022 Judgment regarding the trial court's rulings on contempt and the selection of a reunification therapist (appeal number 2023-CA-0309); 2) the January 23, 2023 Judgment granting an Exception of No Cause of Action filed on behalf of Amith Nagarajan ("Mr. Nagarajan") (appeal number 2023-CA-0370); and 3) the trial court's February 1, 2023 handwritten notes, which were added to Ms. Neal's Motion for Devolutive Appeal of the November 14, 2022 Judgment (appeal number 2023-CA-0371). Additionally, Mr. Nagarajan has filed a Motion to Dismiss Appeals as to some of Ms Neal's claims.

For the reasons explained below, we affirm the trial court's rulings in the November 14, 2023 Judgment, and we affirm the January 23, 2023 Judgment, which granted Mr. Nagarajan's Exception of No Cause of Action. However, we find that the appeal of the February 1, 2023 handwritten notes is not a final judgment over which we have appellate jurisdiction. In that matter, we exercise our discretion to convert the appeal into a supervisory writ application. We grant the writ and deny the relief requested. Finally, Mr. Nagarajan's Motion to Dismiss Appeals is rendered moot.

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Ms. Neal and Mr. Nagarajan were divorced in March 2016, and initially shared joint custody and co-domiciliary status of their two minor children (D.N. and A.N.). On September 30, 2019, the trial court conducted a hearing on the parties' motions to modify custody. In connection with that hearing, a Written Stipulated Judgment ("Consent Judgment") was rendered by the trial court, providing that based on the custody evaluation of Dr. Kristen A. Luscher ("Dr. Luscher"),^[1] the parties would share joint legal custody, with Mr. Nagarajan designated as the domiciliary parent. Ms. Neal was granted weekend, holiday and summer visitation with the children. The Consent Judgment also required Ms. Neal to undergo both Dialectical Behavior Therapy ("DBT") and Parent-Child Interaction Therapy ("PCIT").

Subsequent to the rendition of the Consent Judgment, both parties filed motions to modify custody/visitation and for contempt. A five-day trial on those matters began September 26, 2022.

Shortly before trial, Ms. Neal filed a Motion to Set Aside [Consent] Judgment, asserting that she did not freely give her consent and that the Consent Judgment was in violation of public policy. In response, Mr. Nagarajan filed an Exception of No Cause of Action. That exception was granted from the bench on the second day of trial, giving Ms. Neal fifteen days to amend.^[2] Ms. Neal timely amended her motion. Mr. Nagarajan's re-urged Exception of No Cause of Action was granted January 23, 2023. Ms. Neal now appeals that ruling.

Following the September 2022 trial on the merits, Judgment was rendered November 14, 2022, awarding Mr. Nagarajan sole custody and denying Ms. Neal visitation, upon finding that visitation would be harmful to the children. The Judgment further ordered Ms. Neal to complete six sessions of cognitive behavioral therapy, after which, Ms. Neal and the two minor children would begin reunification therapy with Betsey Backe ("Ms. Backe"). Mr. Nagarajan's Motion for Contempt was granted, and Ms. Neal was ordered to perform twenty-four hours of community service with The New Orleans Mission. Ms. Neal's Motion for Contempt was denied.

On January 13, 2023, Ms. Neal filed a Motion for Devolutive Appeal of the November 14, 2022 Judgment. The Order for Appeal was granted February 1, 2023. However, the trial court added a handwritten notation indicating that the motion for appeal was "[d]enied as to custody, visitation, and therapy with the children only. See [La.] C.C.P. 3943."^[3] On February 27, 2023, Ms. Neal also appealed the handwritten portion of the trial court's Order.

In these consolidated appeals, Ms. Neal asserts the following assignments of error:

1. Regarding the November 14, 2022 Judgment on the merits, the trial court erred in: (a) finding her in contempt of court; (b) not finding Mr. Nagarajan in contempt of court; and (c) designating a specific reunification therapist, i.e., Ms. Backe.

2. The trial court erred in failing to timely hear Mr. Nagarajan's Exception of No Cause of Action prior to trial as required by law and in sustaining the exception.

3. Regarding the trial court's handwritten notes on Ms. Neal's Motion for Devolutive Appeal, the trial court incorrectly denied the appeal as to "therapy with the children" as being untimely pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 3943.

For ease of analysis, the underlying appeals will be addressed separately.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

I. Appeal from the November 14, 2022 Judgment

In connection with the trial on the merits, the trial court rendered judgment on various issues. From that judgment, Ms. Neal has only appealed the contempt rulings and the appointment of a specific reunification therapist.

A). Contempt Rulings

"Appellate courts review a trial court's finding of contempt by a manifestly erroneous standard." State, through Dep't. of Children &Family Servs., Child Support Enforcement v. Knapp, 2016-0979, p. 11 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/12/17), 216 So.3d 130, 139 (citing Jaligam v. Pochampally, 2014-0724, p. 5 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/11/15), 162 So.3d 464, 467). "The trial court is vested with great discretion in determining whether a party should be held in contempt for disobeying a court order and the court's decision should be reversed only when the appellate court discerns an abuse of that discretion." Id., pp. 13-14, 216 So.3d at 140 (citing Burst v. Schmolke, 2010-1036, p. 6 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/6/11), 62 So.3d 829, 833).

"[C]ontempt of court is any act or omission tending to obstruct or interfere with the orderly administration of justice, or to impair the dignity of the court or respect for its authority." La. C.C.P. art. 221. Constructive contempt includes willful disobedience of any lawful judgment or order of the court. La. C.C.P. art. 224(2).

Granting Mr. Nagarajan's Motion for Contempt

Ms. Neal was found in contempt of court for violating the provisions of the Consent Judgment that required her to undergo therapy. On that issue, the Consent Judgment provides in pertinent part, as follows:

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the following rules, hereinafter "Therapy Requirements" are binding upon the parties. The parties further agree that any violation of any individual guideline will constitute a material breach of judgment.

a. The mother shall immediately begin participating in Dialectical Behavior Therapy with a clinical psychologist specializing in Dialectical Behavior Therapy. The parties agree to Wake Kendall to do the DBT therapy. The therapist shall be provided a copy of the child custody evaluation rendered in this matter dated February 11, 2019 as well as the instant Judgment. The mother shall sign the necessary consent forms allowing communication between her treating psychologist, her treating therapist, and Kristen A. Luscher, Ph.D. within 15 days of signing of this Judgment. The mother shall follow the therapy schedule recommended by the treating psychologist for a period of at least twelve (12) months. Discontinuation of therapy after the initial twelve (12) month period shall be based on the treating psychologist's recommendation and consultation with Dr. Kristen Luscher .... If mother does not use Wake Kendall, then any other choice for DBT shall be jointly approved by Dr. Luscher and the father.

b. The mother shall participate in the Parent-Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT) with a psychologist who is licensed to perform same. The psychologist shall be provided a copy of the child custody evaluation rendered in this matter dated February 11, 2019 as well as the instant Judgment. The mother shall sign the necessary consent forms allowing communication between her treating psychologist and Karen A. Luscher, Ph.D. The mother shall follow the therapy schedule recommended by the treating psychologist. The mother shall provide the name and contact information of the clinical psychologist to her attorney within seven (7) days of the signing of this Judgment and that provider shall be approved by Dr. Luscher.

In finding Ms. Neal in contempt, the trial court stated in Reasons for Judgment that Ms. Neal violated the provisions of the Consent Judgment "requiring her to begin both DBT and PCIT therapy. Despite agreeing to these provisions, Ms. Neal's own testimony reflects that she never initiated either DBT or PCIT therapy, and the Court does not find that her failure, or refusal, to do so was justifiable."^[4] For the reasons expressed below, we find no error on the part of the trial court in holding Ms. Neal in contempt.

Regarding the requirement for DBT, Ms. Neal testified at trial that she chose the Wake Kendall treatment facility in Washington D.C where she was living...