I am laughing so hard I am crying. Greg Aymond posts a “family law appeal” and suggests to his readers that he “won” (THE MOST RECENT FAMILY LAW APPEAL THAT I WON).
Greg, I sincerely hope you did this recreational appeal for free. This is an example of an appeal an attorney takes when you don’t have a clue as to what you are doing. It looks more like a lucky pro se appeal.
Allow me to quote from the appeal (that Greg claims he won):
We turn now to Paul’s single assignment of error, involving the disposition of his rule to show cause filed against Jade. As observed earlier, he asked primarily for enforcement of the consent decree regarding apportionment of daycare expenses and that Jade be found indebted to him for reimbursement of $252.00 in daycare expenses which he had paid in the summer of 2006. The trial court granted him that relief. His complaint on appeal is that the trial court did not hold Jade in contempt of court for not paying her share of those expenses.
This assignment is without merit. “Contempt, in the setting of delinquent child support requires the trial judge to determine that a party’s disobedience of the court’s support order constitutes a parent’s willful or deliberate refusal to perform an act which was within the power of the parent to perform.” Fink v. Bryant, 01-987, p. 7 (La. 11/28/01), 801 So.2d 346, 350. A trial court is vested with great discretion to determine whether a party should be held in contempt for willfully disobeying a trial court judgment. Id. The consent decree’s formula for calculating the parents’ respective shares of fluctuating daycare expenses during the summer months was complicated (so much so, in fact, that Paul sought modification of that formula in his rule to show cause). There was no abuse of the trial court’s discretion in its finding that Jade was not in contempt.
Wow Greg, you brought a Mom to court because you wanted her held in contempt for not repaying $252.00 in daycare expenses quickly enough. Wow! LaDads would have laughed at anyone coming to our site complaining about this.
Greg, you did not “win” as you have implied to your readers. Your assignment of error was rejected but apparently a de novo review (that is what it looks like) salvaged your appeal and you managed to get a partial, unintended “victory” because the panel caught something that any family law attorney would have fixed with a simple phone call. The State of Louisiana automatically issues/asks for Income Assignment Orders in every case whether it is warranted by law or not; it is just SOP. A simple call to the Assistant District Attorney (or even the case worker) would have caused them to rescind the IAO…..it is done routinely.
This appeal is an example of why attorneys need to specialize in areas of law and stick to that area. This appeal was a monumental waste of money and time. I sure hope Greg did it for free because it is a train wreck.
And FYI Greg, the reason why attorneys don’t often appeal the IAO is because the statutes are written so that, hyper technically, if you are even one day late then the State of Louisiana is entitled to an income assignment order.
Funny how you keep averring to your readers that I am not an attorney but leave out that I am always right (it is because I have access to a plethora of attorneys goofball).
Oh yeah, since you think my pleadings are so funny and “verbose” in Slayter v. Davenport, why don’t you tell your readers what is wrong with my well written supplement: