Opinion
NO. 2016 CW 0232
03-23-2016
DIMITRI IKONITSKI v. KATERYNA IKONITSKI
In Re: Kateryna Ikonitski, applying for supervisory writs, 22nd Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Tammany, No. 2009-11771. BEFORE: GUIDRY, PETTIGREW, HIGGINBOTHAM, CRAIN AND DRAKE, JJ.
WRIT GRANTED WITH ORDER; STAY DENIED. The portion of the January 27, 2016 Judgment which found Kateryna Ikonitski in contempt of court is reversed. The district court abused its discretion in finding Kateryna Ikonitski in contempt of court and failed to render an order reciting the facts constituting the contempt. La. Code Civ. P. art. 225(B). The portion of the January 27, 2016 Judgment which modified the visitation set forth in the November 19, 2012 Judgment is a final, appealable judgment. Thus, the writ application is otherwise granted for the limited purpose of remanding this matter to the district court with instructions to grant Kateryna Ikonitski an appeal pursuant to the February 4, 2016 Notice of Intention to Apply for Writs of Certiorari. See In Re Howard, 88-2589 (La. 4/7/89), 541 So.2d 195 (per curiam). In the event Kateryna Ikonitski seeks to appeal the district court's judgment, she shall submit a new order for appeal to the trial court within fifteen days of this Court's order. Additionally, a copy of this Court's order is to be included in the appellate record.
JMG
JTP
EGD
Higginbotham, J., concurs in part, dissents in part. I concur with the reversal of the portion of the January 27, 2016 Judgment which found Kateryna Ikonitski in contempt of court. I would also reverse the portion of the January 27, 2016 Judgment which modified the visitation of Kateryna Ikonitski as set forth in the considered decree of November 19, 2012. Dimitri Ikonitski did not meet his heavy burden of proving that a change of circumstances has occurred, such that the continuation of the present custody arrangement is so deleterious to the children as to justify a modification of the custody decree, or that harm likely caused by a change of environment is substantially outweighed by its advantages to the children. See Bergeron v. Bergeron, 85-1936 (La. 8/19/86), 492 So.2d 1193.
Crain, J., concurs in part, dissents in part. The January 27, 2016 Judgment is a final, appealable judgment. I would order that this case be remanded to the district court with instructions to grant Kateryna Ikonitski an appeal pursuant to the February 4, 2016 Notice of Intention to Apply for Writs of Certiorari. See In Re Howard, 88-2589 (La. 4/7/89), 541 So.2d 195 (per curiam). COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT /s/_________
DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT
FOR THE COURT