Cain v. Cain
2005 WL 1109779, 903 So. 2d 590 (2005)
Rule of Law:
In child custody disputes, a trial court's decision to modify a stipulated joint custody order to sole custody will be affirmed if there is a demonstrated change in circumstances materially affecting the child's welfare and the modification serves the child's best interest, particularly where the court's evaluation of conflicting expert testimony and witness credibility is not an abuse of its wide discretion.
Facts:
- Kevin and Anne-Marie Cain married in December 1986 and had two sons, Adam and Jacob, born in 1991 and 1994.
- In March 1995, Kevin was voluntarily admitted to Charter Forest, a mental health facility, for erratic conduct, major depression, and suicidal thoughts, where he was diagnosed with a bipolar condition and personality disorders, and admitted to using marijuana and crystal methamphetamine.
- Kevin was honorably discharged from the U.S. Army in October 1999 and returned to Louisiana, moving in with his mother.
- Following his return and especially after Anne-Marie remarried in October 2002, Anne-Marie alleged Kevin engaged in an escalating pattern of abusive behavior, including harassing phone calls, uninvited personal visits, shouting, cursing, and making death threats.
- A court-appointed mental health panel in June 2003 diagnosed Kevin with an untreated bipolar disorder and narcissistic and paranoid personality disorder, strongly criticizing him for failing to disclose prior substance use and psychiatric treatment, and found it unsafe for him to have unsupervised visitation.
- From August 2003 until trial in September 2004, Kevin did not exercise supervised visitation, instead seeing his sons for roughly one hour each week by attending their Sunday church service, stating that the boys did not want to visit within sight and sound of a supervisor.
- Kevin later sought to have his 1995 Charter Forest records altered by Dr. Stevens, denying prior drug use or suicidal thoughts, and hired his own experts, Drs. Baker and Goldwaser, who found him suitable for parenting but from whom Kevin had withheld critical information about his history and alleged behaviors.
- During in camera examination, one of the sons testified that his father had a bad temper, hollered and cursed at their mother, and was seldom willing to do what they wanted on visitation.
Procedural Posture:
- Anne-Marie Cain filed a petition for divorce against Kevin Cain in September 1996.
- A judgment of divorce was rendered, awarding joint custody of the two sons to Anne-Marie and Kevin, and designating Anne-Marie as the domiciliary parent.
- On January 7, 2003, Anne-Marie filed a rule to implement a plan of joint custody and for injunctive relief, alleging Kevin's 'escalating pattern of abusive behavior' as a change of circumstances.
- The district court entered a judgment and interim order on February 19, 2003, appointing mental health evaluators for the children, Kevin, and Anne-Marie, issuing a temporary restraining order (TRO), and granting Kevin interim visitation.
- In June 2003, the court-appointed mental health panel filed a report with a very negative assessment of Kevin.
- On July 25, 2003, Anne-Marie filed a motion to amend her petition, seeking sole custody and restricting Kevin to supervised visitation as recommended by the mental health panel.
- After a hearing, the district court issued an amended interim order dated August 29, 2003, adopting the mental health panel's recommendations.
- The matter proceeded to trial over four days in September 2004.
- The district court rendered a judgment awarding sole custody of the children to Anne-Marie Cain, with limited unsupervised visitation for Kevin Cain, and ordered Kevin to undergo further mental health evaluation and treatment.
- Kevin Cain appealed the district court's judgment to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit, as the appellant against Anne-Marie Cain, the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the district court abuse its discretion by modifying a joint custody order to award sole custody to Anne-Marie Cain and restrict Kevin Cain's visitation, given the conflicting expert testimonies and allegations of harassment and mental illness?
Opinions:
Majority - Moore, J.
No, the district court did not abuse its discretion by modifying the joint custody order to award sole custody to Anne-Marie Cain and restrict Kevin Cain's visitation. The court found ample evidence of a change in circumstances materially affecting the children's welfare and that the modification was in their best interest, particularly given the extensive evidence presented, including testimony from Anne-Marie and her father, the children's in camera testimony, and the findings of the court-appointed mental health panel. The appellate court gives great weight to the trial court's determination in custody matters because the trial judge is in the best position to assess witness credibility and sincerity. The court correctly applied the 'best interest of the child' standard under La. C.C. art. 131 and 134, and the 'change in circumstances' requirement for modifying a stipulated custody judgment, as established in precedents like Evans v. Lungrin and Flanagan v. Flanagan. The district court was within its discretion to discount the opinions of Kevin's experts, Drs. Goldwaser and Baker, because Kevin had withheld crucial information from them, making their assessments less credible. Conversely, the court was justified in crediting the court-appointed mental health panel's findings, which provided a negative assessment of Kevin's mental health and parenting suitability. Furthermore, the district court properly considered Kevin's 1995 Charter Forest records for impeachment purposes, despite an in limine ruling limiting evidence to post-1997 conduct, because credibility was a central issue in the contentious case.
Analysis:
This case underscores the broad discretion afforded to trial courts in child custody determinations, particularly when evaluating conflicting expert testimony and assessing witness credibility. It reinforces that a parent's withholding of information from their own expert witnesses can significantly diminish the weight given to those experts' opinions. The decision highlights the importance of the 'best interest of the child' standard as the paramount consideration in custody modifications, allowing courts to consider a wide range of factors including parental mental health, a history of harassment, and the child's preferences. It also clarifies that prior conduct evidence, even if generally inadmissible due to in limine rulings, can be admitted for impeachment purposes when a party's credibility is a central issue.
