Ragland v. Ragland

1

ROBERT JAMES RAGLAND v. KATHERINE DIAMOND RAGLAND

No. 2022 CU 0770

Court of Appeals of Louisiana, First Circuit

December 22, 2022

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

On Appeal from the The Family Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana No. 209479 "A" The Honorable Pamela J. Baker, Judge Presiding

Karen D. Downs Natalie C. Neale Baton Rouge, Louisiana Attorneys for Appellee Robert James Ragland

Katherine Reznik Benoit Baton Rouge, Louisiana Attorney for Appellant Katherine Diamond Ragland

BEFORE: McDONALD, McCLENDON, AND HOLDRIDGE, JJ.

HOLDRIDGE, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment granting a protective order under the Domestic Abuse Assistance statutes, La. R.S. 46:2131 et seq. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Robert James Ragland and Katherine Diamond Ragland were married on June 28, 1997. Twins named W.R. and P.R. were born of the marriage on January 15, 2011. Mr. Ragland filed a petition for divorce and custody on June 6, 2017, and a judgment of divorce was signed on September 5, 2018. At the time of the matters giving rise to this appeal, the parties had been awarded joint custody with Mr. Ragland named as the domiciliary parent, pursuant to a judgment signed on July 16 2019 based on the parties' stipulations.^[1] The judgment also provided that the children were to live primarily with Mr. Ragland during the school year with Ms. Ragland exercising custody every other weekend and overnight each Wednesday night.

On May 1, 2020, Mr. Ragland filed a Petition for Protection from Abuse on behalf of himself and the children, pursuant to La. R.S. 46:2131, etseq., naming Ms. Ragland as defendant In the initial Petition, under the heading "Defendant abused protected person(s) in the following manner," Mr. Ragland marked the following items: slapped, shoved, and stalked the protected persons; threatened the protected persons with bodily harm; and abused the petitioner's children. Under "Other," he added, "Put daughter in choke hold/horse collar hold." He then included the details as to the most recent alleged incident of abuse and stalking on April 30, 2020, and as to alleged past incidents. He sought a Temporary Restraining Order prohibiting Ms. Ragland from abusing, harassing, assaulting, stalking, following, tracking, monitoring, or threatening them; prohibiting her from contacting them; prohibiting her from going within 100 yards of their residence; and ordering her to stay away from his place of employment and the children's school. He also sought temporary custody of the children.^[2]

In the "RULE TO SHOW CAUSE Why Protective Order Should Not Issue" section of the form, the items corresponding to those marked in Mr. Ragland's Petition were marked as the matters as to which Ms. Ragland was to show cause as to why the trial court should not grant a protective order. In the "Order of Protection Temporary Restraining Order" portion of the forms, the court granted a Temporary Restraining Order on May 1, 2020, that was effective through May 20, 2020, with the hearing on the Protective Order set for the latter date. Ms. Ragland was "restrained from committing further acts of abuse or threats of abuse [or] stalking," and the trial court granted the specific relief Mr. Ragland sought.

The minute entry for the May 20, 2020 rule to show cause hearing on the Protective Order states that Ebony Cavalier, the attorney on behalf of Iris Domestic Violence Intervention Center, Inc., was present and requested that the matter be passed and reassigned to June 17, 2020. Mr. Ragland had filed a request for a Temporary Restraining Order that the trial court granted on May 18, 2020, making it effective through June 17, 2020, and setting it for hearing on that date. The rule to show cause hearing was continued and reassigned numerous times. Each time Mr. Ragland would file a request for a Temporary Restraining Order seeking the same relief as in the initial Temporary Restraining Order. The Temporary Restraining Order signed by the trial court on June 17, 2020, added the provision that Ms. Ragland was permitted to visit the children for two hours weekly at the supervised visitation program provided by The Parenting Center of Family Services of Baton Rouge (The Parenting Center). The parties also entered into a written stipulation which provided that Ms. Ragland was to submit to a psychological and psychiatric evaluation before the visitation provisions were to be reviewed on August 26, 2020.

The rule to show cause hearing was set for August 26, 2020, but the minute entry for that date states that the court was closed due to a severe weather threat. Based on the record, the following numerous continuances and reassignments were not requested by Mr. Ragland, except for the hearing set for July 28, 2021, which Mr. Ragland did request be continued. However, his request was based upon a stay order the trial court granted at Ms. Ragland's request when she filed a notice of intent to seek writs from the trial court's July 6, 2021 ruling granting his motion to disqualify her counsel. On November 24, 2021, Mr. Ragland filed a motion to lift the stay order because Ms. Ragland had not filed a writ with this court; the hearing on the motion was set for November 30, 2021. On November 30,2021, Mr. Ragland filed another request for a Temporary Restraining Order, which the trial court granted the same date, with an expiration and hearing date of January 18, 2022. On December 14, 2021, the trial court signed a judgment lifting the stay order.

On January 18, 2022, Mr. Ragland filed another request for a Temporary Restraining Order, which the trial court granted on that date and which was effective through February 2, 2022, and set for hearing on the same date. Ms. Ragland filed a notice of intent to seek supervisory writs as to the January 18, 2022 Temporary Restraining Order. On February 10, 2022, this court denied the writ as moot because the order expired by its own terms on February 2, 2022. See Ragland v. Ragland, 2022-0112 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2/10/22), 2022 WL 406708 (unpublished writ action).

On February 2, 2022, Mr. Ragland filed another request for a Temporary Restraining Order, which was granted by the trial court on the same date and which was to expire on February 3, 2022, the same date as the rule to show cause was set for hearing. The trial court held a hearing on February 2, 2022, and issued its oral reasons for judgment on February 3, 2022. On February 3, 2022, Mr. Ragland filed a request for a Protective Order which was granted by the trial court on the same date. The first page of the Protective Order, issued pursuant to La. R.S. 46:2131, et seq., states, "This order shall be effective through 11:59 PM on 08/03/2023. (month/day/year) NOTE: Some provisions of this order MAY NOT EXPIRE. See paragraphs 1-5." On pages 3 and 4 of the Protective Order, the trial court initialed paragraphs 1 -4 and marked boxes indicating that those provisions do not expire. In paragraph 1, Ms. Ragland was ordered not to "abuse, harass, assault, stalk, follow, track, monitor, or threaten the protected person(s) [Mr. Ragland and the children] in any manner whatsoever." The prohibition included the use, attempt use, or threatened use of physical force that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury. In paragraph 2, she was ordered not to contact Mr. Ragland and the children personally by any means except for necessary communication regarding the children. In paragraphs 3 and 4, she was ordered not to go within 100 yards of Mr. Ragland and the children without court permission, except for visitation at The Parenting Center. Paragraph 4 prohibited her from going within 100 yards of Mr. Ragland and the children's residence, and Paragraph 5 ordered her to stay away from Mr. Ragland's place of employment and the children's school. She was also ordered not to interfere with his employment or their school.

Ms. Ragland appeals from the judgment signed February 3, 2022. Ms. Ragland urges two assignments of error. In her first assignment of error, she contends that the trial court erred as a matter of law and abused its discretion by failing to adhere to La. R.S. 46:2131, et seq., by continuing to issue or extend "'temporary' orders of protection over a period of almost two years when there was only one petition for protection from abuse filed into the record" and no hearing on that Petition within the time period mandated by La. R.S. 46:2135. In her second assignment of error, she contends that the trial court erred in issuing the protective order without sufficient evidence and finding her guilty of abuse without affording her any constitutional protections.

DISCUSSION

STANDARD OF REVIEW

A trial court's decision to issue or deny a protective order is reversible only upon a showing of an abuse of discretion. Compton v. Chatman, 2021-0706 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2/25/22), 341 So.3d 581, 586, writ denied, 2022-00527 (La. 5/3/22), 337 So.3d 154. We review the trial court's factual findings relating to a protective order under a manifest error standard of review. Id. Moreover, if the fact finder's findings are reasonable in light of the record reviewed in its entirety, the court of appeal may not reverse, even though convinced that had it been sitting as the trier of fact, it would have weighed the evidence differently. Barber v. Barber, 2015-1021 (La.App. 1 Cir. 4/15/16), 2016 WL 1535195 at *4, writ denied. 2016-0934 (La. 6/17/16). 192 So.3d 771. In matters of credibility, an appellate court must give great deference to the findings of the trier-of-fact, as the trial court is in the best position to view the demeanor and mannerisms of the witnesses. Compton, 341 So.3d at 586. When conflicting testimony...