State of Louisiana in the Interest of the Minor Children of Cawandelyn Minor and Dequincy Bell

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: September 13, 2023
• Docket: CA-0022-0815
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

22-815

STATE OF LOUISIANA

IN THE INTEREST OF THE MINOR

CHILDREN OF

CAWANDELYN MINOR AND

DEQUINCY BELL

**********

APPEAL FROM THE SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF IBERIA, NO. 22-0755 HONORABLE SUZANNE M. DEMAHY, DISTRICT JUDGE

GUY E. BRADBERRY JUDGE

Court composed of Candyce G. Perret, Charles G. Fitzgerald, and Guy E. Bradberry, Judges.

AFFIRMED. Glenda Huddleston Decuir & Huddleston 214 E. Washington Street New Iberia, LA 70560 (337) 365-2336 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE: Dequincy Bell

Lucretia P. Pecantte 124 W. Washington Street, Suite B New Iberia, LA 70562-9010 (337) 374-1202 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT: Cawandelyn Minor

Ian Alpha Assistant District Attorney Sixteenth Judicial District Court 300 S. Iberia Street, Suite 200 New Iberia, LA 70560 (337) 369-4420 COUNSEL FOR: State of Louisiana BRADBERRY, Judge.

In this matter, Cawandelyn Minor appeals the decision of the trial court

below modifying a hearing officer recommendation against DeQuincy Bell, setting

child support in the amount of $1,942.63 per month for the time between February

1, 2022, and August 1, 2022, and reducing the amount to $1,279.19 per month

thereafter. For the following reasons, we hereby affirm the decision of the trial

court.

Ms. Minor and Mr. Bell are a long-separated husband and wife who have

three children together. Ms. Minor began receiving child support around 2013,

when Mr. Bell worked as a security guard for $8.50 an hour. Mr. Bell

subsequently earned his Commercial Driver’s License and began earning

significantly more money. In January 2022, the Louisiana Department of Children

and Family Services, Child Support Division filed a motion for modification of

child support. After a hearing officer’s conference, support was awarded at the

amount of $2,052.00 per month. Mr. Bell appealed that amount to the trial court

below. On September 16, 2022, after hearing testimony and evidence, the trial

court adopted the income levels for Mr. Bell located in the State’s exhibits 4 and 5,

and ordered child support in the amount of $1,942.63 per month be paid from

February 1, 2022, and August 1, 2022, and reduced the amount to $1,279.19 per

month thereafter, based on a lower income from a change in Mr. Bell’s

employment. From that decision, Ms. Minor appeals.

On appeal, Ms. Minor asserts two assignments of error, that the trial court

erred in finding Mr. Bell was not voluntarily underemployed, and that the trial

court erred in calculating the child support award based on Mr. Bell’s current

income. Because the assignments of error overlap, we will address them together. Courts have widely utilized the concept of voluntary unemployment and

underemployment in factoring a parent’s child support obligation. See La.R.S.

9:315.11(A)(1). Voluntary underemployment is a question of good faith of the

obligor parent. Fuqua v. Fuqua, 45,555 (La.App. 2 Cir. 9/22/10), 47 So.3d 1121.

In general, voluntary unemployment or underemployment “is a fact driven

consideration.” See Langley v. Langley, 07-754, p. 4 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/26/08), 982

So.2d 881, 883 (quoting Koch v. Koch, 97-1600, p. 5 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/22/98), 714

So.2d 63, 66), writ denied, 08-873 (La. 6/20/08), 983 So.2d 1274. Whether the

obligor is in good faith in reducing his or her income is a factual determination,

which will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of the trial court’s wide

discretion. Fuqua, 47 So.3d 1121. Further, a trial court’s credibility

determinations regarding a party’s sources of income are entitled to great weight.

Armstrong v. Rayford, 39,653 (La.App. 2 Cir. 5/11/05), 902 So.2d 1214; State v.

Johnson, 54,945 (La.App. 2 Cir. 3/1/23), 358 So.3d 210; Bergmann v. Nguyen, 21-

553 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/27/22), 366 So.3d 422, writ denied, 22-1075 (La. 10/18/22),

348 So.3d 725.

Here, the trial court dismissed the allegations that Mr. Bell was voluntarily

underemployed after observing the witnesses and hearing the testimony before the

court. Mr. Bell testified that he had been employed at a long-haul trucking

company for roughly five months between March and August of 2022, including

the time of the hearing officer conference. At that company, he made roughly

$9,000.00 per month, though that was the result of working an inordinate amount

of time, with ninety days on the road and then seven days off, working a minimum

of sixty hours a week. Mr. Bell testified that he was fired from that job soon after

the hearing officer conference because his employer believed they saw him rolling

2 a marijuana cigarette, though his uncontroverted testimony was that he denied any

drug use, that the prior company never drug tested him prior to termination, and

that he subsequently passed a drug screen within three weeks of that termination,

when he began his current job. That new job pays less, so Ms. Minor claims that

Mr. Bell is underemployed by the amount of difference in pay because of the

circumstances surrounding the firing. However, Mr. Bell testified that the new job

has a ten-day on/four-day off schedule that Mr. Bell testified provided him with

fewer hours - one reason for the lower pay - but a better overall life situation and

more time to see his children when the visitation schedule allowed. The trial court

specifically found that the unusually high number of hours Mr. Bell worked in his

prior job was not sustainable.

The trial court had wide discretion in its determination of Mr. Bell’s

credibility for the purposes of considering whether he has acted in good faith in

terminating or reducing his income. See Schult v. Schult, 36,283 (La.App. 2 Cir.

8/28/02), 827 So.2d 465. Based on the record before us, we cannot find that the

trial court abused its wide discretion in its determinations, and therefore, we do not

disturb those findings.

Furthermore, in determining the amount of child support awarded, the trial

court used the income amounts submitted by the State’s own witness, Tonya

Csaszar, of the Louisiana Department of Children and Family Services, Child

Support Division. Ms. Csaszar testified that she used Mr. Bell’s payroll

information, prior and current, to input into the child support worksheet. When

those income numbers were entered into the worksheet, Ms. Csaszar reached the

monthly child support amounts of $1,942.63 before August 1, 2022 and of

$1,279.19 thereafter. There is no evidence before this court suggesting those

3 income amounts were incorrect, and the final award amounts were based directly

on the State’s own exhibits. Based on the record before this court, we find no error

in the trial court making the awards in those amounts, as they are directly

supported by the record.

For the above reasons, the decision of the trial court is hereby affirmed.

Costs of this appeal are hereby assessed against Ms. Minor.

AFFIRMED.

This opinion is NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. Uniform Rules—Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-16.3.