Janney v. Janney

Louisiana Court of Appeal
943 So. 2d 396 (2006)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under Louisiana law, a trial court has the discretion to determine that a physical custody arrangement constitutes "shared custody" for an "approximately equal amount of time" even when the time is not split exactly 50/50, as the statute does not mandate a strict numerical threshold.

Facts:

Debra Leigh Dalgo Janney and Todd Truitt Janney divorced in 1995 and have one child.
Initially, the parties had a joint custody arrangement where Ms. Janney was the domiciliary parent and Mr. Janney had specified visitation.
The parties later stipulated to a modified custody agreement.
Under the new arrangement, during the school year, Mr. Janney has physical custody every other week from Wednesday after school until Monday morning, plus an overnight visit on the alternate Wednesday.
The agreement also provides for the parties to alternate physical custody on a weekly basis during the summer and to split holidays on an alternating basis.
Mr. Janney is the sole shareholder of three physical therapy businesses.

Procedural Posture:

Following their divorce, a court judgment set Mr. Janney's child support obligation at $1,200 per month.
On October 19, 1998, a new judgment based on a stipulation between the parties reduced his child support to $700 per month.
On June 7, 2004, Mr. Janney (Defendant) filed a rule to show cause in the trial court, seeking equal physical custody and a decrease in child support.
The parties reached a partial stipulation on a new custody schedule, but the issue of child support proceeded to trial.
The trial court found the new arrangement, where Mr. Janney had custody 45.3% of the time, constituted 'shared custody' under state law.
Applying the shared custody formula, the trial court set Mr. Janney's new child support obligation at $62.88 per month in a judgment signed September 23, 2004.
Ms. Janney (Plaintiff/Appellant) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a physical custody arrangement where one parent has the child 45.3% of the time constitute "shared custody" for an "approximately equal amount of time" under LSA-R.S. 9:315.9, justifying the use of the shared custody child support formula?

Opinions:

Majority - Parro, J.

Yes. A physical custody arrangement where one parent has the child 45.3% of the time can constitute "shared custody." The statute defining shared custody as physical custody for an "approximately equal amount of time" does not bind the trial court to a specific threshold percentage. The legislature's decision not to include a bright-line number, as it has in other related statutes, grants trial courts discretion in making this determination. In this case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion, as the parties split summer and holiday visitation 50/50, and the school-year schedule was a reasonable accommodation. Furthermore, the court did not err in calculating Mr. Janney's income by excluding retained corporate earnings and shareholder loans, as there was no evidence they were being used to hide personal income rather than for legitimate business purposes.

Concurring - McDonald, J.

Yes. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the parties' arrangement constituted shared custody. However, the legal analysis for shared custody should focus on the financial considerations underlying the statute, such as the duplication of expenses when parents have a child for approximately equal time. The determination should not be based on non-financial factors like a parent's participation in homework or other activities. A court should not be bound by a parents' stipulation that an arrangement is "shared custody" if the time split is clearly not approximately equal.

Dissenting - Hughes, J.

No. The custody arrangement does not constitute shared custody. The phrase "approximately equal" should be interpreted to mean as close to exactly equal as possible, allowing for minor fluctuations due to the calendar. A 55/45 split, which represents a 10% difference, is too significant to be considered "approximately equal."

Analysis:

This decision solidifies the discretionary power of Louisiana trial courts in defining "shared custody" for child support calculations, rejecting a rigid, bright-line percentage test. By empowering judges to look at the overall custody arrangement rather than just a raw number, the ruling provides flexibility but may lead to less predictability and consistency across different courts. The case also affirms that for closely-held corporations, retained earnings and shareholder loans are not automatically imputed as income to the owner for child support purposes without evidence that they are a sham to reduce personal income.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Janney v. Janney (2006)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"