Case Name: James T. CLYNES v. Elaine L. Lowe, wife of James T. CLYNES
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1983-11-14
Citations: 450 So. 2d 372
Docket Number: No. CA-1100
Parties: James T. CLYNES v. Elaine L. Lowe, wife of James T. CLYNES.
Judges: Before REDMANN, C.J., and KLEES and BYRNES, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 450
Pages: 372–376

Head Matter:
James T. CLYNES v. Elaine L. Lowe, wife of James T. CLYNES.
No. CA-1100.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
Nov. 14, 1983.
On Rehearing June 6, 1984.
Charlotte A. Hayes, A.D. Freeman, Sat-terlee, Mestayer & Freeman, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellee.
Melanie Kleinpeter Cooper, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.
Before REDMANN, C.J., and KLEES and BYRNES, JJ.

Opinion:
KLEES, Judge.
This is an appeal brought by Elaine Lowe Clynes (appellant) asserting that the court abused its discretion in its awarding of child support and a joint custody plan.
The litigation providing the basis for this appeal commenced in September of 1977, when James T. Clynes (appellee) and appellant separated. Since that time there have been protracted rules to increase and decrease child support, increase and terminate alimony, and partition of the community. Finally, on February 23, 1983, appellant filed a rule to increase child support. Appellee filed a rule to reduce the in globo child support award (as one of the minors had reached majority) and filed a rule to establish a Joint Custody plan with the remaining minor. On March 14, 1983 judgment was rendered granting the joint custody plan. Included in the plan, appellee was held responsible to pay the minor's school tuition, establish an allowance for the minor; pay or make available to the minor funds necessary for the purchase of clothing; maintain all medical and dental expenses for the minor; and pay the sum of $250.00 per month for her support.
After denial of a motion for new trial, this appeal was filed.
While appellant asserts that the trial judge committed manifest error regarding it's award of joint custody of the minor. We note that under LSA C.C. art. 146(C), "... There shall be a rebuttable presumption that joint custody is in the best interest of a minor child unless: (1) The parents have agreed to an award of custody to one parent or so agree in open court at a hearing for the purpose of determining the custody of a minor child of the marriage; or (2) The court finds that joint custody would not be in the best interest of the child...."
Appellant offered no proof whatsoever during the trial of the rule that appel-lee was an unfit parent or that joint custody would not be in the best interest of the minor child. Accordingly, we find no error in the trial courts award of the joint custody plan.
The primary issue in this appeal is the assertion that the trial court abused its discretion in its March 14th, 1983 award of child support; specifically the cash award of $250.00.
In brief, appellant states and we agree that:
"In determining child support, the trial court is vested with wide discretion. Such a determination will not be disturbed by an appellate court unless a review of the record indicates that the trial judge abused that discretion.... Guinn v. Guinn, 405 So.2d 620 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1981)." Duplantis v. Monteaux, 412 So.2d 215 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1982).
Articles 227 and 231 establish and our jurisprudence holds that:
[1] Parents share the obligation of supporting, maintaining and educating their children and the degree of support is to be determined according to the need of the child and the ability of the parent who is to pay it. C.C. Art. 227 & 231; Graval v. Graval, 355 So.2d 1057 (La.App. 4th Cir.1978) DeMarcay v. De Marcay, 414 So.2d 845, (La.App. 4th Cir.1982).
Further:
"... If the parents are divorced and the children are living with their mother, the children are entitled to the same standard of living as if they resided with their father whenever the financial circumstances of the father permit. Wilmot v. Wilmot, 223 La. 221, 65 So.2d 321 (La.1953); Sarpy v. Sarpy, 323 So.2d 851 (La.App. 4th Cir.1975); cert. denied, La. 328 So.2d 166 (1976); Phillips v. Phillips, 319 So.2d 566 (La.App. 4th Cir.1975)." Ducote v. Ducote, 339 So.2d 835 (La.1976).
The transcript of the trial court record indicates that appellant attempted to establish that the requested amount of child support ($1700/month) is well within the financial means of appellee. Though a final figure indicating appellees annual income was never established it was stipulated to at trial that:
"Mr. Freeman: I would like to make another statement for the record if your Honor please. Dr. Clynes is well able to contribute his share of child support, tuition, and care of his daughter coincident with a man who makes in excess before taxes of $100,000.00 a year, which means —..." p. 22 transcript.
The court acknowledges the stipulation:
"The Court: I'm trying to tell you I have enough information. If Dr. Clynes is making allegedly what he makes in his corporation and I think this young lady is entitled to $1,700.00, whether she's in the same style of living or not, he can afford to pay." p. 57 transcript.
Obviously appellant adequately demonstrated to the trial court that appel-lee has sufficient income to support a child support award in the amount requested, ($1,700/month) she has not sustained the burden of proof necessary to establish a substantial change in circumstances from the March, 1981 judgment. When viewing the trial court's award of joint custody and those specific elements of the judgment holding appellee responsible for all of the minor's clothing purchases, allowance, school tuition and medical and dental needs, we can not say that the trial court was manifestly erroneous.
In calculating the amount of a child support award, the court must consider, the totality of all pertinent circumstances. Marcus v. Burnett, 282 So.2d 122 (La.1973).
The trial judge is best suited to examine the testimony as it is given and his considerable discretion should not be undermined unless there appears to be a clear abuse of discretion. Further:
"... it should be borne in mind that calculation of child support by a mathematical formula is impossible and that all of the varying facts and circumstances of each individual case must be taken into consideration in fixing the amounts awarded." Fall v. Fontenot, 307 So.2d 779, (La.App. 3rd Cir.1975).
Our reading of the record, however reveals that after presenting the joint custody plan, and while under cross-examination by appellant's counsel, appellee asserted that he would be willing to pay $350.00 cash per month as part of the plan presented. While the trial court only awarded $250.00 as the cash payment per month, we are constrained to accept the figure presented by appellee as part of the plan and amend the judgment to reflect this amount.
Accordingly, for the reasons expressed above, we amend the cash award of $250.00 per month to $350.00 per month, in all other respects, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
AMENDED IN PART AND AS AMENDED AFFIRMED.
REDMANN, C.J., dissenting with written reasons.
. Art. 227. Parental support and education of children.
Fathers and mothers, by the very act of marrying, contract together the obligation of supporting, maintaining, and educating their children.
. Art. 231. Basis for granting alimony.
Alimony shall be granted in proportion to the wants of the person requiring it, and the circumstances of those who are to pay it.