APPEAL
FROM THE MISSISSIPPI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, CHICKASAWBA
DISTRICT [NO. 47BDR-17-189] HONORABLE RANDY F. PHILHOURS,
JUDGE
Gibson
& Thomas, P.A., by: Jeremy M. Thomas, for appellant.
Connealy Law Firm, by: Michaelene Connealy, for appellee.
ROBERT
J. GLADWIN, Judge
Michael
Deline appeals his divorce decree in the Mississippi County
Circuit Court, arguing in five points that the trial court
erred by (1) denying his motion for continuance; (2)
restricting his visitation rights; (3) setting child support;
(4) awarding spousal support to appellee Jaime Deline; and
(5) awarding attorney's fees to Jaime. We affirm.
I.
Facts and Procedural History
The
parties were married on June 25, 2009, and they have one
daughter, EA, who was born later the same year. Jaime filed a
complaint for divorce on July 11, 2017, seeking sole custody
of EA, restricted visitation rights for Michael, child
support, spousal support, and certain property. On July 18,
Michael answered and counterclaimed for divorce, custody, and
child support, and he alleged that Jaime had wrongfully
obtained an ex parte order of protection against him and that
he had not had visitation since that time.[1] By separate
order, an attorney ad litem was appointed to represent EA.
A
temporary hearing was held August 4, and the resulting order
was filed October 13. In the order, Jaime was awarded
temporary custody subject to Michael's visitation every
other weekend on Saturday and Sunday from 9:00 a.m. until
8:00 p.m. Child support ($691 a month or $160 a week) and
spousal support ($1, 114.89 a month or $257.48 a week) were
awarded to Jaime based on Michael's monthly income of $5,
000. The parties were enjoined from discussing "this
matter" with EA and from making any disparaging remarks
about the other in EA's presence. Further, they were
enjoined from "post[ing] or otherwise display[ing] any
information about this matter by way of social media.
[Michael] shall remove any content regarding [Jaime] or [her]
son, Douglas, previously posted or otherwise displayed by way
of social media." Michael was also ordered to remove
Jaime's cellular phone from his "service" as
soon as possible.
Michael
moved to modify the order on October 11, alleging that the
child-support and spousal-support obligations were ordered
when he was employed by his mother's temporary-employment
agency and by his father's farming operation. He alleged
that he no longer worked for either parent and that he could
not find a job. He asked that both his support obligations be
reduced.
A
hearing was held on April 24, 2018, and the trial court found
Michael in contempt for violating its previous
orders.[2] He was given a suspended thirty-day
sentence based on his future compliance with the court's
orders. The trial court reinstated Michael's
visitation;[3] ordered Michael to remove all firearms and
other weapons while EA was present for visitation; and did
not prohibit Michael from photographing or videotaping EA
"in the ordinary course of being a parent" but
prohibited him from posting any "photos, videos, audio
or any other matter, involving the minor child, the parties,
the attorneys, the Court, or anything having to do with this
matter" on social media. The trial court warned that a
violation could result in the immediate revocation of
Michael's visitation until a further hearing. The trial
court also ordered that assuming Michael complied with the
court's orders, his visitation would be increased to one
day a week beginning June 1, 2018. Jaime was granted judgment
of $2, 178 for unpaid child support and $9, 526.76 for unpaid
spousal support. Michael was ordered to comply with orders
and "keep current" his support obligations. Michael
was also ordered to enroll in an anger-management program and
to comply with any recommendations.
The
trial court issued a letter file-marked on June 28, 2018. In
it, the trial court acknowledged receipt of a June 20, 2018
letter from the attorney ad litem that had caused the court
to be "greatly disturbed." As a result of the
allegations in the ad litem's letter, the trial court
terminated all visitation between Michael and EA until a
hearing could be held. The trial court also stated that it
would "certainly entertain another contempt matter
against [Michael], which would be heard during the hearing on
the merits, which addresses his violation of a very explicit
court order by way of him discussing this case with the minor
child."
Jaime
filed a contempt petition on July 12 alleging that Michael
was late in paying child support and that he refused to pay
spousal support. She also alleged that he was in violation of
the trial court's order enjoining them from disposing of
their property because he had spent thousands of dollars on
trips, airfare, donations, memorabilia, and furniture. She
asked that he be ordered to cease his extravagant spending
and to account for his expenses. She also alleged that he had
violated the court's order by discussing the divorce with
EA, making disparaging remarks about Jaime, and posting
information about their divorce on social media. She asked
that Michael's visitation be supervised, that his
suspended sentence be reinstated, and that he be held in
contempt.
The
attorney ad litem also filed a contempt petition on July 19.
This petition alleged that since the April 24, 2018 hearing,
Michael refused to abide by the trial court's rulings.
She alleged that he had continued to discuss the case with EA
and that he had continued to post inflammatory statements
about the attorney ad litem on social media, suggesting that
the ad litem takes money in return for fixing the outcomes of
cases. She asked that he be held in contempt and that his
suspended thirty-day sentence be revoked.
The
final hearing took place on July 25 and 26, 2018; however,
Michael did not appear on the second day of trial. His
attorney appeared and asked for a continuance because Michael
had reported to him that he nearly "blacked out"
while driving to court that morning due to high blood
pressure and that he had gone to the hospital in Paragould.
The trial court denied the motion and stated that it was
skeptical of Michael's inability to be in court and that
the court's bailiffs had predicted that Michael would use
his alleged blood- pressure issues to evade being in court.
Following
the final hearing, Michael moved on August 2 for the trial
court to reconsider his motion for continuance, arguing that
he had experienced high blood pressure and physical symptoms
on the first day of the hearing, and on the second day, he
had a "near syncope" event on his way to court,
causing him to almost crash his vehicle. He claimed that
rather than drive on to Blytheville, he drove himself to the
emergency room in Paragould, where he was treated for high
blood pressure. He attached medical records to his motion and
asked the trial court to reconsider its ruling and withhold
its final ruling until he could testify. The trial court did
not rule on Michael's motion for reconsideration.
The
parties' divorce decree was filed September 6, 2018, and
it grants Jaime a divorce and custody of EA. Michael's
visitation is reinstated but limited to Saturday and Sunday,
once a month, from 10:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. He is also
given some limited holiday visitation. The trial court
ordered that Michael's visitation would remain in place
"unless and until he petitioned for it to be otherwise
and unless Michael and EA participate in family therapy"
as further described in the decree. The decree states in
part:
10. The Court specifically addressed the Attorney ad Litem
and stated that she has done as impressive a job as he has
ever seen by an Attorney ad Litem in the face of phenomenally
unfair, misdirected, classless attacks over and over and over
again based on the pictures he had seen and the testimony
that he heard.
11. The Court took these behaviors into account, along with
everything else, when it decided visitation, how much
visitation, and who may supervise visitation, if anybody.
15. The Court is very leery of letting children dictate how
visitation works because it doesn't know whose agenda
sometimes it truly is, and they are children. The . . . minor
child is as bright and precocious and articulate a child as
it has seen. Therefore, the Court is very cognizant of what
the minor child stated on the witness stand and what her
preferences are. The minor child's attitude toward her
father during her testimony was significantly different,
markedly different from the attitude she had the first time
she testified in Jonesboro, which was some time before April
24, 2018. The Court finds that it is very clear that what
happened to cause the change in attitude was the ...