Robert "Bobby" Haydel, Jr. VS Rhonda Pellegrin
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2007 CU 0922 ROBERT BOBBY HAYDEL JR VERSUS @ RHONDA PELLEGRIN GJ Judgment Rendered September 14 2007 9y On Appeal from the 32nd Judicial District Court In and For the Parish of Tenebonne Trial Comi No 145 802 Division Honorable David W Arceneaux Gregory J Schwab D Judge Presiding Counsel for Plaintiff Appellee Houma LA Robeli Michael S Counsel for Defendant Zerlin Thibodaux LA Bobby Haydel Jr Appellant Rhonda Pellegrin BEFORE WHIPPLE GUIDRY AND HUGHES JJ HUGHES J Rhonda Appellant Pellegrin appeals a rendered judgment by the 32nd Judicial District Comi wherein the trial court held her in contempt of comi and ordered her well costs associated with his two reverse in The Jr Bobby Haydel monthly child suppOli payment pmi and attorney contempt motions Dr Robeli appellee 500 00 in to pay to For the fees s as further authorized judgment deduct the attorney following the as reasons s fees from we affirm in part FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Appellant and appellee had 2005 Dr Haydel August on 26 provided that son as filed child parties entered Haydel to was be First six 6 1 2 15 and reasonable visitation with his 1 2 On April months 26 2006 was signed filed Haydel with his minor son At that time the on July from 4 00 p m to 4 00 p m to 7 00 Every Thursday from 4 00 p m to 7 00 p m Every other weekend from Friday at 4 00 p Sunday at 4 00 p m 4 2006 Dr summer m months a that the visitation arrangement be modified days in the to 7 00 p m After first six 6 b that July judgment which consent Every Thursday fi om 4 00 p m Every other weekend Friday 7 00 p m and Saturday from p May a On son and Visitation Custody into granted a follows a on together Petition to Establish a 2005 the Dr one 7 2006 visitation with the child for four A pmiies motion with the to allow him hearing Dr a consecutive consent Haydel consecutive weeks 2 seven to requesting the motion entered into ordering that non on court m was was held judgment to have during the period of June 2006 through August 2006 Specifically the judgment held visitations will be had the weeks of June 5 11 2006 23 2006 and Plan was July 31 also filed August The respective attorneys and 6 2006 A custody plan stated in Joint July pertinent pali July 17 Custody Implementation signed by was 3 9 2006 the both and their paliies that neither parent shall attempt or condone the attempt indirectly by any artifice or subterfuge whatsoever directly or to estrange paliy or to impair the mutual love and affection of either parent the minor child from the affections of the other injure or with the child At all times the parents shall encourage and foster in the child sincere respect and affections for both and parents neither parent of the child development shall the hamper natural love and respect for the other s parent Subsequent two motions for the to the Dr July judgment and custody plan Haydel filed contempt Dr Haydel accused Ms Pellegrin of contempt in following instances 1 In denying 2004 and him visitation with the minor child on New Years Halloween and Thanksgiving special visitation of July the 2 In July 7 2006 Mardi Gras 3 in 2005 2006 on Labor Day and also in through July all 9 holidays 4 th of in July him the denying 2006 ordered by judgment wrongfully refusing to allow his employees to pick up the child on one occaSIOn 3 In prematurely leaving the designated drop off place on one occaSIOn 4 In wrongfully attempting September 5 In to pick 6 2006 his scheduled the child up from day for visitation openly alienating the affections of his game on September 23 2006 3 son to daycare on and him at a soccer hearing A The trial the trial Specifically 2 found Ms court her failure the contempt motions on court found Ms allow the visitation of to in Pellegrin held was contempt in in Pellegrin 3 July November 9 on 2006 through July her open alienation of affections of the child from Dr September soccer the Tenebonne Parish Pellegrin ordered jail which further violate the not 500 00 in to pay with the two was cOUli attorney Haydel 1 The trial court ened in 2 The trial s orders as well as for 1 2006 Haydel 10 and at the days in the condition that Ms Ms s 9 serve Pellegrin was further all court costs associated The court authorized Pellegrin appeals raising in attorney on court the fees to be payment of child support s court Pellegrin to suspended fees s contempt motions deducted from Dr Ms The court ordered Ms game instances two contempt of 2006 two finding ened in fees from assignments her in a enol contempt of cOUli Dr ordering of Haydel to deduct 500 00 payment of child support LA W AND ANALYSIS In the first cOUli ened in assignment finding allow the as justice There Ms soccer whether the Pellegrin alleges that Although court game did not amount to court ened in Ms the trial Pellegrin contempt Ms finding that her failure to July visitation was contumacious Contempt of omission to enol her in contempt of argues that the incident at the Pellegrin is silent of tending or are to to impair two C C P art 222 court and of cOUli is defined in LSA C C P obstruct the or dignity interfere with the of the cOUli types of contempt as one A direct or mi 221 any act or orderly administration of as respect for its authority contempt is defined in LSA committed in the immediate view and presence of the which it has personal knowledge 4 or a contumacious failure to comply with A constructive record as subpoena a a direct court So 2d 69 73 whether reversed The trial court Barry she violated the order without purposely La App justifiable Cir 3 24 06 1 is vested with great discretion in 934 determining court discerns clear abuse of that great a case after all of the hearing the trial court found that Ms and testimony reviewing violated both the Pellegrin the July 7 judgment and the custody plan Pellegrin Pellegrin action was s contempt Dr testimony indicates that due to her own in direct violation of the Regarding soccer act of failed to allow the visitation of July 3 July visitation dates on game the second act September 23 alleged that Ms though actions his were a was of contempt Dr 2006 Ms result of Dr questioned however Ms calling Pellegrin could specific instances of obnoxious or to him the This Haydel alleged that acted in Specifically allow him Ms not Dr speak to give behavior trial by a Haydel to his son that her behavior to the at way that a Pellegrin alleged inappropriate 5 2006 situation personal loud and obnoxious s 9 unilaterally changed Pellegrin to to him Haydel through July 7 2006 order of the cOUli Pellegrin publicly refused son 2006 desires and July Ms Haydel alleged that she indeed alienated the affections of his minor child even or guilty of person 934 So 2d at 73 Regarding the first Ms and 2005 2455 only when the appellate In this 2006 McDaniel v find that he a art 224 party should be held in contempt of court and its decision will be a discretion evidence to intentionally knowingly Barry excuse In order to find one constructive contempt it is necessary of the of service of which appears of contempt of cOUli is defined in LSA C C P contempt other than any proof or summons When court any Dr Haydel Based of the on the the trial court concluded this action was in violation custody plan After trial testimony court instances thorough a abused its were review of the record vast cannot we discretion in finding Ms contumacious Ms Pellegrin Pellegrin first s detennine that the actions in both s assignment of enor is without merit In the second ened in court Larsen v So 2d 63 are allowing Dr App to considered the are Larsen La Ms Pellegrin alleges that the deduct the to the parent La other custodian or 865 6 4 04 876 So 2d 89 amount paid the So 2d 916 second are paid suppOli payments are directed to be 37 911 La 2004 0808 La Flanagan payable we find that it Haydel by allowing credits was not within to deduct Ms payment he owed for the benefit of his child s v they writ denied 590 writ denied 920 fee s Because it cannot benefit the child to decrease the discretion to authorize Dr Pellegrin payments Lamkin the mother for his support the amount 1 Cir App though even attorney to whom it has also been established that child 128 04 to 856 500 00 trial Although child support property of the spouse 583 So 2d 854 1991 2 Cir against error Haydel for the benefit of the child paid of from his child support payment assessment payments assignment 1 or the trial Pellegrin s offsets court debt from s a We therefore find Ms of error has merit assignment CONCLUSION The decision of the trial We affirm the Pellegrin I finding to Dr Haydel We note also that the child order rendered in a of court is affirmed in part and reversed in part contempt and the award of attomey We reverse support obligation that herein separate proceeding 6 s fees from Ms portion of the judgment allowing was pursuant to an income assignment Dr Haydel to Costs of this deduct said attorney appeal are to fees from his child support s be divided equally between the parties obligation 2 AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART 2 Although Dr Haydel requests this court to award attorney s fees incuned to appeal no answer was filed in response to the appeal as required by LSA C C 7 answer this P ali 2133
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
