originall i - two goats solutions, inc. · originall i llllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll...

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

ORIGINAll I llllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll llil IIIII IIIII IIII IIII * 1 0 3 8 8 3 3 4 4 4 *

NO.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

FILED r SUPREME COURT iSTA TE OJ:" nKLAHOMA

Petitioner/Appellant

vs.

Respondent/Appellee

BRIEF IN CHEIF

GARFIELD COUNTY DISTRICT COURT

CASE NUMBER FD-2015-348 CASE NUMBER DF-115968

THE HONORABLE DENNIS W. HLADIK

JAN I 8 2018

mm GARFIELD COUNTv.JlJ<;JJ

JAN 1 1 2018

JANE~Lf:: M S/JARP COURT CLERK

BY ---DEPUTY COURT CLERK

Russell N. Singleton, OBA #16306 Attorney for Appellant P.O. Box 1587 Enid, OK 73702 ( 580) 234-6000

Date: January 20, 2018

--

I I TABLE OF CONTENTS

I INTRODUCTION 1

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 1

I STANDARD OF REVIEW 9

I Kahre v. Kahre, 1995 OK 133, ,I19, 916 P.2d 1355 9

Casey v. Casey, 2002 OK 70, ,I23, 58 P.3d 763 9

I Daniel v. Daniel, 2001 OK 117, ,I 21, 42 P.3d 863 9

I PROPOSITION I 10

THE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION

I IN AWARDING JOINT CUSTODY WITH THE HUSBAND BEING DESIGNATED THE PRIMARY CUSTODIAN

I 43 O.S. §109.3 10

I 43 O.S. §109 (1) 10 43 O.S. §109.3 10 Casey v. Casey, 2002 OK 70, ,I23, 58 P.3d 763 17

I PROPOSITION II 17

I THE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN AWARDING SPOUSAL SUPPORT

I Ray v. Ray, 2006 OK 30, ,I10, 136 P.3d 634 18

:I PROPOSITION Ill 17

THE COURT ERRED IN REFUSING TO SANCTION

I HUSBAND FOR DISCOVERY VIOLATIONS

CONCLUSION 19

I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 20

I I I


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

, ) )

Petitioner/Appellant, ) )

v. ) CASE NO. )

, ) District Ct. Case No. ) Garfield County

Respondent/Appellee. )

BRIEF IN CHIEF

COMES NOW the Petitioner/Appellant (hereinafter referred to

as "wife", by and through her undersigned counsel of record, hereby submits to

this Court her Brief in Chief for the consideration of this Court.

SUMMARY OF RECORD

This appeal of a dissolution of marriage action which was filed by the

Petitioner/Appellant (hereinafter referred to as "wife") on October 13, 2015. The

parties were married September 18, 2009. The parties have one (1) child. The

issues to be addressed are due process, spousal support, contempt, child

support and custody of the minor child.

The Court granted a Temporary Order on November 19, 2015. The parties

were granted joint custody of the minor child. The parties were to share time with

the minor child equally. The Petitioner was ordered to pay child support.

On April 28, 2016, the Court granted a continuance of the final hearing

over the objection of the Petitioner. The continuance was granted because the

1

I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I

Respondent (hereinafter referred to as "husband") had been unable to consult

with counsel due to his incarceration. The matter was continued to May 20, 2016.

The trial occurred on two (2) separate days. The first day was May 20,

2016. The trial concluded on May 23, 2016.

The wife filed three (3) separate Protective Order actions during the

pendency of this divorce.

Neither party pied or asked for spousal support in any pleadings. The

husband requested spousal support at the final hearing heard on May 20, 2016.

Only at the final hearing did the Petitioner become aware of the spousal support

request. (Tr. 5/20/2016 page 253 lines 24-25 and Tr. 5/20/2016 page 256 lines

15-17)

The court granted the husband's request for spousal support. (ruling filed

on May 26, 2016). At the time of the final hearing and request for spousal

support, the husband resided with his girlfriend (Tr. 5/20/2016 page 256 lines 18-

23).

At the time of the final hearing wife had a protective order in place against

the husband {Tr. 3/2/2016 page 53 lines 11-23).

The husband admitted being banned from the Enid Public Schools (Tr.

5/20/2016 page 179 lines 15-17). The court recognized the husband's paranoia

(Tr. 3/2/2016 page 52 lines 23-24).

The husband admitted that on January 22, 2016 he told a bank employee

that he would probably go to Walmart and purchase a firearm and open fire on

the base, then kill himself (Tr. 5/20/2016 page 179 line 18 to page 180 line 9).

2

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

i I '1

I

The husband denied being aware that the Air Force had barred him from

entering Vance Air Force Base. (Tr. 5/20/2016 page 179 line 12-14). At the

protective order hearing held on March 2, 2016, the husband was present when

special agent (Nicolas Gallo) with the Air Force stated that he is not allowed on

base (Tr. 3/2/2016 page 15 lines 19-22).

After denying knowledge of being barred from Vance Air Force base, the

husband then admitted that on January 25, 2016 he told a Captain Williamson

that "your airmen are not safe". He further admitted that since he couldn't go on

base then his airmen couldn't come off base, because I would beat them up. (Tr.

5/20/2016 page 180 line 10 to page 181 line 4). Husband further admitted to

stating to Captain Williamson that he was going to confront military members so

he could provoke them and then he could retaliate. (Tr. 5/20/2016 page 182 line

1-20).

After speaking with Captain Williamson, the husband was contacted by

Lieutenant Holtzclaw regarding the conversation with Captain Williamson (Tr.

5/20/2016 page 181 line 24 to page 183 line 8 ). During that conversation with

Lieutenant Holtzclaw, the husband admitted to stating; "Why don't you come lock

me up, bitch? How about that, bitch? Why don't you come lock me up, bitch?

How about that?" (Tr. 5/20/2016 page 183 line 9-25).

Husband made multiple statements regarding suicide attempts. However,

he denies multiple times that he has tried to kill himself. (Tr. 5/20/2016 page 185

line 8-24 ). However, husband does admit to putting a belt around his neck but

denies he was trying to kill himself (Tr. 5/20/2016 page 185 line 25 to page 186

3


line 4). Wife testifies that she was recalled from her deployment due to husband's

threats of suicide (Tr. 5/20/2016 page 129 lines 11-13).

Husband admits to episodes of rage (Tr. 5/20/2016 page 186 line 5-6).

Husband admits to putting his hand through a cabinet and claims that no one

was around (Tr. 5/20/2016 page 186 line 12-13). Immediately thereafter he

admits that he did this when wife told him she was filing for divorce and that she

was in fact around and was on the phone (Tr. 5/20/2016 page 186 line 12-13).

Wife testified to a long history of examples of his rage or anger along with

destruction of property (Tr. 5/20/2016 page 7 4 line 11 to page 77 line 21 ).

Husband admits to physical abuse of wife and justifies his action when he

admits that he pushed her and strong-armed her because she tried to take his

son out of the fifth wheel (Tr. 5/20/2016 page 187 line 2-12).

At the May 23, 2016, final hearing, the wife objected to Dr. Betz being

called as a witness. Wife only learned of Dr. Betz being called as a witness on

May 20, 2016. The wife further objected because medical records were still not

provided, even though that objection had been raised three days prior (Tr.

5/23/2016 page 5 lines 15-23). The court overruled the objection and allowed the

witness to be called.

Husband called his mental health professional, Dr. Wendi Betz, as a

witness. Under examination she proposed that husband's visitation be

supervised for four ( 4) supervised visits once per week for a month. After those

visits, husband could progress into hour long unsupervised visits then overnights.

(Tr. 5/23/2016 page 7 lines 14-18). Dr. Betz acknowledges that they have worked

4

I I I I I I I I I I I I

, I

I I

: I I

,I I

on his anger issues (Tr. 5/23/2016 page 17 lines 19-24 ). Dr. Betz acknowledged

that the husband stated he wanted to punch wife's legal counsel in the face. (Tr.

5/23/2016 page 18 lines 1420-22). Dr. Betz acknowledged that husband quit

services and quit taking his medication approximately one month prior to his

arrest and that he restarted after being released from jail (Tr. 5/23/2016 page 22

lines 4-15). Husband had been incarcerated for disturbing the peace and to have

a competency exam. Husband was released from jail on April 27, 2016. His

release occurred approximately 23 days before the final hearing. Dr. Betz

acknowledged that he doesn't regularly attend counseling (Tr. 5/23/2016 page 22

lines 17-19). Dr. Betz acknowledged that phasing into unsupervised visits would

be more therapeutic for him and the child (Tr. 5/23/2016 page 29 lines 12-19). Of

particular note, Dr. Betz was clear that the husband should not be unsupervised

with the child at this time.

The Oklahoma Department of Human Services (John Kerfoot) received a

referral against husband regarding the child. The Oklahoma Department of

Human Services substantiated for neglect on husband towards the child (Tr.

5/20/2016 page 32 lines 17-25). The Oklahoma Department of Human Services

also recommended that at this time husband should not be allowed unsupervised

visits (Tr. 5/20/2016 page 40 lines 3-4 ). The Oklahoma Department of Human

Services felt that Wife was providing a safe and secure home for the child and

they did not have any immediate concerns (Tr. 5/20/2016 page 40 lines 24 to

page 41 line 1 ). The Oklahoma Department of Human Services felt that husband

was delusional (Tr. 5/20/2016 page 41 line 10). The Oklahoma Department of

5

I I I I 'I I I I I I I

:I I I I I I I I

Human Services explained by noting that the husband believed the following:

Dr. Betz, an unknown member or unnamed individual at Vance Air Force Base

and his doctor, Dr. Fidel, were getting together and colluding to experiment on

him with drugs and he could prove that because he weighed himself at the gym

and then when he was weighed the following day at the doctor's office, they

weighed him five pounds lighter. He believed that they were colluding because

one of these drugs was known to cause weight gain, and that they were

purposely weighing him less so that he would not know what they were actually

doing to him (Tr. 5/20/2016 page 41 lines 12-21).

The Oklahoma Department of Human Services felt that there was a threat

of harm to the child based upon the information available (Tr. 5/20/2016 page 43

lines 3-4).

The Court issued its findings of fact and order in the Order filed May 26,

2017. Those findings and orders are as follows (summarized):

a. The husband was the primary care giver (paragraph 5). Contradiction:

The court failed to note that Wife had been the primary caretaker since

approximately October 9, 2015. The Court's ruling immediately

reinstated unsupervised contact with the child in direct contradiction of

husband's mental health provider.

b. The wife was recalled from her deployment because the husband was

distraught (paragraph 8). Contradiction: The court did not note that her

return from deployment was because of Husband's suicidal ideations.

Husband did not dispute.

6

I

I I I I I I I I I I I

i• I I I I I I I

c. Husband's behavior became unstable. He reported considering suicide

and he voluntarily admitted himself to Red River Hospital for treatment

for major depressive disorder with psychotic features. (paragraph 10).

d. Wife was granted an emergency protective order based upon the

husband's actions on September 29, 2015. By agreement that

protective order was converted to a restraining order (Paragraph 14 ).

e. The court determined that husband's actions did not rise to the

category of domestic abuse (Paragraph 15). Contradiction: Husband

admitted to pushing wife and that he strong-armed her in the presence

of their child.

f. The court acknowledged the incident that occurred January 4, 2016

wherein the husband made threatening comments. The police were

called and husband continued his threatening comments towards third

parties (Paragraph 16).

g. The court acknowledged the January 25, 2016 incident wherein

husband made disturbing comments of "you need to know your airmen

are not safe" and "He might intentionally antagonize one in order to

justify retaliation". The Court also acknowledged that law enforcement

transported him to St. Mary's Hospital for evaluation (Paragraph 17).

h. Because of the incidents on January 25, 2016, the wife filed for and

obtained a 2nd emergency protective order for herself and the child

(Paragraph 18).

7

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I/ I I I I I

i. On March 2, 2016, the court dismissed the emergency protective order

regarding the child but did not reinstate visitation. The court continued

the wife's emergency protective order (Paragraph 19).

j. Wife received a third emergency protective order on April 11, 2016.

When husband learned of the new protective order he became upset

and confronted the school guard. He was pepper sprayed and

arrested. He then kicked out the window of the police car (Paragraph

21).

k. Husband was charged in CM 2016-428 with Malicious Injury to

Property, Resisting Arrest and Disturbing the Peace. Additionally he

was required to have a mental health assessment. He was

subsequently released on April 27, 2016 (Paragraph 22). As previously

noted husband was granted a continuance of the final hearing on April

28, 2016 because he had just been released from incarceration.

I. Father lost his job because of his incarceration (Paragraph 24).

Contradiction: Husband remained unemployed at the time of the final

hearing at which point his visitation was reinstated.

m. In paragraph 27 of the court's findings of facts, the court states that it

believes husband has his mental health issues under control.

Contradiction: Wife would note that at the time of the final hearing the

husband had been out of jail and back on his medication for 23 days.

Further, the Husband's own mental health provider acknowledged that

he had only been in compliance for 23 days.

8

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

, I

n. In the custody and visitation ruling, the Court awards joint

custody and designates the husband as the primary custodian.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The standard of review in custody proceedings is whether the decree or

other order is against the clear weight of the evidence. Kahre v. Kahre, 1995 OK

133, 1J19, 916 P.2d 1355. Nevertheless, before we can presume the trial court's

decision is correct, it must be supported by the record. See Casey v. Casey,

2002 OK 70, 1J23, 58 P.3d 763 (citations omitted). A clear abuse of discretion

occurs when a challenged decision is against or unjustified by reason and

evidence. Id. Further, even where the trial court is vested with broad

discretionary powers, its order will be reversed if it erred with respect to pure,

simple and unmixed question of law. Id. The burden is on the appellant to

produce a record sufficient to show that the custody award was contrary to the

child's best interest or that his right to procedural due process was violated.

Daniel v. Daniel, 2001 OK 117, 1J 21, 42 P.3d 863.

On appeal, this Court will not disturb the trial court's judgment regarding custody absent an abuse of discretion or a finding that the decision is clearly contrary to the weight of the evidence. Manhart v. Manhart, 1986 OK 12, 1J 13, 725 P.2d 1234; Duncan v. Duncan, 1969 OK 7, 1J 13, 449 P.2d 267; Waller v. Waller, 1968 OK 42, 1J 17, 439 P.2d 952. Daniel v. Daniel, 2001 OK 117.

In this appeal, Wife argues the trial court committed reversible error in

entering its Decree of Dissolution of Marriage on May 26, 2016. Further, in this

appeal, Wife argues that the trial court committed reversible error in entering its

judgment granting joint custody and determining that the husband is designated

as the primary custodian.

9


PROPOSITION ONE THE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN AWARDING

JOINT CUSTODY WITH THE HUSBAND BEING DESIGNATED THE PRIMARY CUSTODIAN

The Court abused its discretion in awarding joint custody and designating

the husband as the primary custodian.

Pursuant to Title 43 O.S. §109.3 " ..... The Court shall consider evidence

of domestic abuse, stalking and/or harassing behavior properly brought before it.

If the occurrence of domestic abuse, stalking or harassing behavior is

established by a preponderance of the evidence, there shall be a rebuttable

presumption that it is not in the best interest of the child to have custody,

guardianship, or unsupervised visitation granted to the person against whom

domestic abuse, stalking or harassing behavior has been established." In this

matter the husband admitted to abusing his wife. (Tr. 5/20/2016 page 187 lines

2-12).

Pursuant to Title 43 0.S. §109 (I) domestic violence raises a rebuttable

presumption that it is not in the best interest of a child to award custody or joint

custody to a perpetrator of domestic violence. Title 43 O.S. §109 (2) also defines

domestic violence. The record clearly reflects that Husband's actions are

domestic violence and it is a clear error for joint custody to be awarded with

Husband being identified as the primary custodian.

In this appeal, Wife argues that the court wholly failed to consider as

primary factors the safety and well-being of the child, to include but not limited to:

10

--- ----------------------

I I I I I I I I I I I I I

,I

I I I I I

a) The Husband's admissions of suicide ideations.

b) The Husband's multiple threats of violence to others. One such threat

was to shoot the Wife's boyfriend. Another threat was made to a Vance

Air Force Base service member. In that threat, he stated that he would

harm Chris Young by smashing his head in with a hammer or beat his

face in with a bat. These threats occurred on January 4, 2016, which

was approximately 4 months before the court granted him the

designation of primary care-giver. Furthermore, the son of these

parties was physically present when he made these threats.

c) At the time the Court designated the Husband as the primary

custodian, the Husband had only been out of jail and on his medication

for approximately 23 days. Husband had been released from

incarceration on April 27, 2016. The original final hearing had been set

for April 29, 2016. The court continued the hearing until May 20, 2016

so that the Husband's attorney could meet with his client since his

release from incarceration.

d) At the time the Court designated the Husband as the primary

custodian, Husband's visitation had been suspended. Therefore, at the

time of the court's ruling the child went from no contact with this father

to his father being declared the primary custodian. All of this at the

same time that Husband's own health professional only supported

supervised visitation. All of this at the same time that the Oklahoma

Department of Human Services only supported supervised visitation.

11

I I I I I I I I I I ii

I I I I I I

i I I

All of this at the same time that the Oklahoma Department of Human

services had substantiated neglect by Husband. All of this at the same

time that Wife had a protective order in place against Husband. All of

this at the same time that Husband was banned from Vance Air Force

Base. All of this at the same time that the Husband was banned from

the child's school.

e) At the final hearing (May 23, 2016) the Husband called his own mental

health professional, Dr. Wendi Betz, as a witness on his behalf. Dr.

Betz testified as follows:

a. Husband's visitation should begin as four supervised visits once

a week for about a month and progress to hour-long

unsupervised, and then overnights.

b. Dr. Betz stated that the Husband had discontinued services and

medication approximately one (1) month before his arrest.

c. Dr. Betz wanted to be present for the un'supervised visits to

make sure that everybody is doing well.

d. Dr. Betz felt that her presence for the supervised visits is that it

would have been more therapeutic for Husband and the child.

f) Husband's incarceration was the result a disturbance at the child's

school as well as kicking the window out of a police vehicle.

g) At the time the Court designated the Husband as the primary

custodian, Husband had only been in compliance with medication and

mental health treatment for approximately 23 days.

12

I I I I I I I I I I

,1

I I I I I I I I

h) At the time the Court designated the Husband as the primary

custodian, Husband was banned from the school. Essentially,

Husband cannot go to the child's school to pick him up, enroll him or

attend school functions.

i) At the time the Court designated the Husband as the primary

custodian, Husband acknowledged that on January 22, 2016, he had

told a bank employee that he would probably go Wal-Mart and

purchase a firearm and open fire on the base and then kill himself.

j) At the May 20, 2016 hearing, Husband originally tried to deny that he

was banned from Vance Air Force Base. However, upon further

examination he had to admit that he was banned from the base. His

admission was based upon telling Captain Williamson that "your

airmen are not safe: and that since he couldn't go on base then his

airmen couldn't come off. In spite of all of the evidence presented the

court still designated Husband as the primary custodian. This means

that Husband cannot secure services for their son at the base. The

practical result is that Husband cannot act for his child at school or the

military installation.

k) At the May 20, 2016 hearing, John Kerfoot from the Department of

Human Services testified. He identified that the Department of Human

Services had investigated a referral regarding Husband. He testified

that the Department of Human Services had substantiated the referral

against Husband for neglect towards the child. Mr. Kerfoot believed

13

I I I I I I I I I

II

I I I I I I I I

I I

that Husband was delusional. His belief was based in part on

Husband's thoughts that Dr. Betz, Dr. Fidel and some unknown person

at Vance Air Force Base were colluding to experiment on him with

drugs. Husband thought he had proof because he had weighed himself

at the gym and when he was weighed at the doctor's office he weighed

five pounds lighter. Husband's logic was that the drugs that were given

to him were known to cause weight gain and that they were purposely

weighing him less so that he would not know what they were actually

doing to him. Mr. Kerfoot advised the court that he should not be

allowed unsupervised visits.

I) Husband had lost his job due to his incarceration. At the time of the

final hearing, Husband continued to be unemployed. Husband's

unemployment is his fault and no one else's.

Wife's position throughout the pendency of this action was the opposite of

Husband. Where Husband had substantial and disturbing events and patterns

occurring in his life, Wife was stable. The Court ignored the following substantial

factors regarding Wife's current position in life:

a) Wife remained employed with the United States Air Force.

b) Wife is not banned from school property. Where Husband cannot

attend school functions, enroll the child in school or pick up the child,

Wife can. If a problem occurs at school, Husband cannot address it.

That means the "primary custodian" is forbidden from exercising his

role as the primary custodian at the school.

14


c) Wife is not banned from Vance Air Force Base. As the primary

custodian, Husband must rely on Wife to perform all duties that a

primary custodian should do at the base.

d) During the pendency of this action, Wife never threatened to bash

someone's head in with a hammer.

e) During the pendency of this action, Wife never threatened to beat

someone's face in with a bat.

f) During the pendency of this action, Wife never told a bank employee

that she would get a gun, open fire on the base and then kill herself.

g) During the pendency of this action, Wife never had to be admitted for

inpatient mental health treatment.

h) During the pendency of this action, Wife was never arrested for crimes.

i) During the pendency of this action, Wife was never subjected to an

order limiting or suspending her time with the child.

j) During the pendency of this action, Wife never had a Department of

Human Services finding against her for neglect.

k) During the pendency of this action, Wife never threatened suicide.

I) During the pendency of this action, Wife never had a mental health

professional recommend supervised visitation for her.

m) During the pendency of this action, no one ever called law enforcement

on her for threatening to kill someone.

n) During the pendency of this action, Wife remained mentally, physically,

emotionally and financially stable. Husband cannot make these claims.

15


I I

I

The Court essentially blamed Wife for the Husband's arrest. The Court

seems to go out of its way to determine that Wife was aware of Husband's trigger

point and that it would cause him to lose control of his emotions (Order filed May

26, 2016, page 4, Paragraph 4 of the Court's Conclusions). Even if this court

were to assume that Wife somehow deliberately activated Husband's trigger

point, it is still Husband's responsibility to remain calm. Husband's demonstrated

lack of self-control is in and of itself against the child's best interest.

The Court goes out of its way to determine "While his actions between

September and April can only be described as crazy, it is similar to conduct

exhibited by others during marriage breakups. It was initiated by the breakup of

his marriage, compounded by jealousy, and magnified due to the ADHD and

anxiety he had throughout the marriage. Rather than evidence of a character

flaw, this court finds this conduct to be situational". Wife is at a complete loss as

to how the Court could make that finding given the atrocious and dangerous

conduct of Husband. The Court's written order seems to blame Wife for the

issues that Husband has: "Mother was not the cause of father's arrest on April

11, but Mother was aware that any threat of losing contact with his child was a

trigger point that would cause father to lose his control of his emotions". It is error

for the Court to go out of its way to justify all of the horrific and frightening actions

of Husband.

Casey v. Casey, 2002 OK 70, 1f23, 58 P.3d 763 (citations omitted). A

clear abuse of discretion occurs when a challenged decision is against or

unjustified by reason and evidence. In this matter the record seems to be devoid

16


of any evidence that would support the Court's ruling. In fact the opposite is true.

The record is replete with evidence as to why the Husband should not be left

alone with this child

The wife was denied due process in the awarding of spousal support. The

wife was never notified of a claim for spousal support until the day of the hearing

and only notified by the testimony of the husband. No pleadings were ever filed

to request spousal support.

The wife was denied a fair trial when the court allowed evidence to be

admitted that was not provided in discovery and refused to grant sanctions for

discovery violations.

PROPOSITION TWO THE COURT ERRED ITS DISCRETION IN AWARDING SPOUSAL SUPPORT

Wife was denied due process in the awarding of spousal support to

Husband. At no point from the beginning of this action to the final hearing was a

request for spousal support made.

Until the very end of Husband's testimony, Wife was unaware of any

request for spousal support. Further, Wife had requested sanctions regarding

discovery and the court refused to grant, claiming that Wife waived her right to

sanctions. (Page 7 of the Court's order filed on May 26, 2016). In part the Court

justified its ruling on sanctions because Wife didn't make the 5th wheel payment.

Wife's failure, if any, to make a debt payment is not justification to deny

discoverable information. It is error for the Court to deny the right for discoverable

information which may have led to her knowledge of a spousal support claim.

17


Wife was surprised at the final hearing for the request. No pleadings, no

documents and no disclosures were made for a request of spousal support.

Trials are not meant to be by ambush. Discovery was requested. Husband

failed to respond. The Court refused to rule on the motion for sanctions and as

such Wife gets to learn about the request for spousal support at the final hearing.

The Court's ruling regarding spousal support appears to be a punishment

rather than an award of spousal support. The Court even references the failure to

pay the 5th wheel payment. However, Husband dismissed his Application for

Contempt regarding that very issue.

The record is devoid of sufficient evidence justifying a ruling for spousal

support. Ray v. Ray, 2006 OK 30 paragraph 10, provides factors to be

considered. Factors to be considered include: a demonstrated need for alimony

during a reasonable post-divorce rehabilitative readjustment period: the parties'

station in life; the length of the marriage and the ages of the spouses; the earning

capacity of the parties as well as their physical condition and financial means; the

spouses' accustomed style of living; evidence of a spouse's own income

producing capacity and the time needed for the post-divorce transition.

Husband's evidence was minimal at best. Husband provided minimal

evidence of how much alimony was reasonably needed to readjust. All he stated

was how much he wanted. In fact, Husband did not provide any information on

how long he would need to readjust. Husband did not provide sufficient

information on his living expenses. He lived with his girlfriend at the time of the

hearing. He did not provide information regarding how his standard of living has

18


changed since separation. Husband did not provide how much his live-in

girlfriend contributes to his living expenses. He only testified that he contributes

$500.00 for rent. Husband did not provide how he was paying all of his other

expenses or how much support his girlfriend was providing. Husband did not

provide any information of Wife's ability to pay support. Husband failed to provide

any information about Wife's living expenses.

Husband failed to meet his affirmative duty of his need for support.

PROPOSITION Ill

THE COURT ERRED IN REFUSING TO SANCTION HUSBAND FOR DISCOVERY VIOLATIONS

The Court erred when it refused to consider sanctions for discovery

violations.

Wife did not waive her request for sanctions. Instead, she had to deal with

a request for spousal support during the hearing. She had to deal with an exhibit

purporting to justify an award of spousal support. The Court had ample

opportunity to rule on the request, especially since the Court granted a

continuance of the hearing to allow Husband to meet with his attorney. A

continuance that was only necessary because of Husband's self-inflicted

incarceration.

CONCLUSION

The Court erred in determining joint custody with Husband designated as

the primary custodian.

19

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

!I

I I I

The Court erred when it determined that domestic violence did not exist in

this matter

The Court erred when it awarded spousal support.

The Court erred in refusing to consider discovery sanctions.

Russell N. · gleton, OBA #16306 201 N. Grand Ste. 400 P.O. Box 1587 Enid, Oklahoma 73702 ( 580) 234-6000 (580) 237-6947 fax Counsel for Wife/Appellant

20

,I II


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This will certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing

Brief in Chief was mailed on this J(o day of January, 2018 to:

Michael Roberts P.O. Box 5672 Enid, OK 73702

I further certify that a true and correct copy of the Brief in Chief was filed in the

Office of the Court Clerk of Garfield County on the lb day of January, 2018.

21

originall i - two goats solutions, inc. · originall i llllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll...

Documents