Kaptein v. Kaptein
2016 La.App. 4 Cir. 1249, 221 So. 3d 231, 2017 WL 2570725 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court may award sole custody if clear and convincing evidence shows it is in the child's best interest, considering factors like parental stability and involvement. However, the complete denial of parental visitation is an extreme measure that requires conclusive evidence that visitation would seriously endanger the child's physical, mental, moral, or emotional health.
Facts:
- Jesse Kaptein and Heather Kaptein are the parents of a minor child, C.E.K., born February 25, 2013.
- During their marriage, Jesse Kaptein admitted to engaging in multiple extramarital affairs with various women in different countries, including having unprotected sex.
- Mr. Kaptein maintained an unstable international lifestyle, traveling frequently for business and pleasure, and did not have a permanent, stable home in the United States.
- After the parties separated, Heather Kaptein remained in New Orleans with C.E.K., acting as the child's sole and primary caretaker in a stable environment.
- Mr. Kaptein had not seen C.E.K. in person since September 2015, making him physically absent for more than half of the child's life at the time of the final hearing.
- Mr. Kaptein consistently failed to make court-ordered child and spousal support payments, resulting in significant arrears.
Procedural Posture:
- Heather Kaptein filed a petition for divorce in a state trial court, requesting sole custody of the minor child, C.E.K.
- After an initial hearing, the trial court awarded Ms. Kaptein interim sole custody and awarded Mr. Kaptein interim supervised and FaceTime visitation, ordering him to pay child and spousal support.
- Ms. Kaptein filed a rule for contempt against Mr. Kaptein for his failure to make the court-ordered support payments.
- Following a hearing on the contempt motion, the trial court found Mr. Kaptein in contempt and suspended his FaceTime visitation rights pending further orders.
- A final custody hearing was held, after which the trial court awarded Ms. Kaptein permanent sole custody, continued the suspension of FaceTime visitation, and found that reasonable visitation was not in the child's best interest.
- Mr. Kaptein (appellant) appealed the final judgment to the intermediate court of appeal; Ms. Kaptein is 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:
Does a trial court abuse its discretion by denying all visitation rights, including virtual visitation, to a non-custodial parent based on his promiscuous lifestyle and failure to pay support, when there is no conclusive evidence that such visitation would seriously endanger the child's health or well-being?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Terrel J. Broussard
Yes, a trial court abuses its discretion by denying all visitation rights without conclusive evidence that visitation would seriously endanger the child. The court affirmed the award of sole custody to Ms. Kaptein, finding a reasonable factual basis under the 'best interest of the child' standard. The court reasoned that Mr. Kaptein's long-term absence, failure to pay child support, lack of a stable home, and failure to participate in court proceedings provided clear and convincing evidence that sole custody with the mother was appropriate. However, the court reversed the denial of all visitation, holding that it is an 'extreme measure' requiring a much higher standard of proof. The court found the record void of any conclusive evidence that FaceTime visitation would seriously endanger C.E.K.; in fact, the child was unaware of her father's lifestyle and had previously enjoyed the calls without issue. The denial of visitation appeared to be a punitive measure for his personal failings and non-payment of support, which is an improper basis for severing the parent-child relationship.
Analysis:
This case establishes a critical distinction between the legal standards for determining child custody and denying parental visitation in Louisiana. While a parent's instability, moral unfitness, and failure to provide support can be sufficient to lose a custody dispute under the flexible 'best interest of the child' analysis, these same facts are insufficient to justify the 'extreme measure' of terminating all contact. The ruling reinforces that visitation is a right of the child and parent that cannot be used as a tool to punish a non-compliant parent for other matters, such as financial defaults. This precedent protects the parent-child relationship from being completely severed unless there is a specific and proven risk of serious harm to the child from the contact itself.
