Case Name: George P. BARNES, Jr. v. Sandra ROSEN
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1978-06-13
Citations: 359 So. 2d 1133
Docket Number: No. 9199
Parties: George P. BARNES, Jr. v. Sandra ROSEN.
Judges: Before LEMMON, GULOTTA and BOU-TALL, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 359
Pages: 1133–1136

Head Matter:
George P. BARNES, Jr. v. Sandra ROSEN.
No. 9199.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
June 13, 1978.
Rehearing Denied June 30, 1978.
A. D. Freeman of Satterlee, Mestayer & Freeman, New Orleans, counsel for George P. Barnes, Jr., plaintiff-appellant.
Frank J. D’Amico, New Orleans, counsel for Sandra Rosen, defendant-appellee.
Before LEMMON, GULOTTA and BOU-TALL, JJ.

Opinion:
BOUTALL, Judge.
A father having custody of two minor children sues his former wife to furnish child support. Judgment was rendered dismissing his suit and he appeals.
George P. Barnes, Jr. and Sandra Reed were married and divorced. Barnes obtained custody of two of the minor children, a boy 17% years old and a boy 15 years old. Sandra Reed married Charles Rosen, II, and plaintiff seeks to have her contribute towards the child support, contending that the income and financial condition of Mr. Rosen be considered in the totality of circumstances on which child support is fixed. See Marcus v. Burnett, 282 So.2d 122 (La.1973).
Unquestionably, the obligation to support one's children is imposed upon mothers by the very words of Louisiana Civil Code Article 227 which states:
"Art. 227. Fathers and mothers, by the very act of marrying, contract together the obligation of supporting, maintaining, and educating their children."
In considering the amount of support necessary, the evidence reflects that the father's claims are somewhat inflated, and there is an erroneous allotment of certain portions of living quarters and automobile expenses to the children. However, the main issue in this case is that the children are attending a private school with rather expensive tuition. Education of a minor is one of the elements of child support. L.C.C. Article 230. The real issue here arises under the provisions of L.C.C. Article 231, that alimony shall be granted in pro portion to the wants of the person requiring it, and the circumstances of those who are to pay it.
The trial judge found that the income of the mother was minimal, not totaling a few hundred dollars over the past year. She had worked as a free-lance model and clothing exhibitor and she testified that this field of endeavor had suffered greatly because of economic circumstances in the field, and she could only obtain a job now and then. It is obvious that from her earnings alone, no child support could be paid. However, her remarriage to Mr. Rosen brings into issue the question of whether his income, in excess of $70,000 per year, can be considered in awarding child support to the Barnes' children.
The rule is that the income of the second husband may be considered in the totality of circumstances necessitating child support. Marcus v. Burnett, supra; LeBouef v. LeBouef, 325 So.2d 290 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1975); Parent v. Parent, 327 So.2d 576 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1976). However in this case, Mrs. Rosen married Mr. Rosen under a marital contract in which the community property system of Louisiana was renounced and the property and income of the parties declared to belong to each separately. There is no showing that this contract was made fraudulently or was designed solely for the purpose of depriving the Barnes' children of support. As a matter of fact, the record shows that during the less than one year existence of the marriage, that contributions in excess of $2,000 were made voluntarily to the support of the children and that they frequently stayed at the Rosen household. The trial court found that under these circumstances, he could not go beyond the marriage contract, and could not consider Mr. Rosen's income as forming part of the means of the mother, on which he could levy the obligation of support. We agree with his findings.
The judgment is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
GULOTTA, J., concurred in result and filed opinion.
LEMMON, J., dissented and filed opinion.