## Facts

- Heather Roper Kaptein (mother) and Jesse Kaptein (father) are the parents of C.E.K., born February 25, 2013.
- On April 30, 2014, Heather filed for divorce in Orleans Parish Civil District Court and sought sole custody of C.E.K.
- After a hearing, the trial court’s May 19, 2015 interim judgment awarded Heather interim sole custody and awarded Jesse interim supervised visitation (limited monthly in-person visitation) plus FaceTime visitation; the court also ordered Jesse to pay interim spousal support ($15,000/month) and child support ($5,000/month).
- In written reasons supporting interim sole custody, the trial court found Jesse’s lifestyle and travel unstable and found his admitted pattern of multiple extramarital affairs—including unprotected sex with women in multiple countries—showed reckless disregard for health and safety that raised concerns for the child’s safety.
- In 2015 and 2016, Jesse failed to comply with child-support and other court orders; in later proceedings the trial court addressed noncompliance and, as a sanction, suspended Jesse’s FaceTime visitation “pending further orders.”
- After a final custody hearing (final judgment issued in 2016), the trial court granted Heather sole custody and maintained the suspension of FaceTime visitation; it also stated that “reasonable visitation” with Jesse was not in C.E.K.’s best interest under the circumstances.
- In its best-interest findings, the trial court emphasized Heather’s strong emotional ties with C.E.K. and her role as the child’s day-to-day caretaker (including school, church, and activities), the desire to keep C.E.K. in New Orleans, the stability and permanence of Heather’s home compared to Jesse’s instability, Jesse’s limited ties and involvement with the child, and Jesse’s noncompliance with court orders.
- Jesse appealed to the Louisiana Fourth Circuit, challenging the sole-custody award, the limits on in-person visitation, the continued suspension of FaceTime visitation, and the admission of the videotaped deposition of Dr. Bauer (an expert witness).

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding Heather sole custody under the child’s best interest standard.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by concluding that “reasonable” in-person visitation with Jesse was not in C.E.K.’s best interest on this record.
3. Whether the trial court erred by continuing a total suspension of Jesse’s FaceTime visitation without record support that electronic contact would be harmful to C.E.K.
4. Whether the trial court erred in admitting the videotaped deposition of Dr. Bauer.

## Decision

- Affirmed the award of sole custody to Heather.
- Affirmed the trial court’s determination limiting in-person visitation and its conclusion that “reasonable visitation” with Jesse was not in the child’s best interest under the circumstances presented.
- Reversed the portion of the judgment continuing the suspension of FaceTime visitation; the appellate court reinstated electronic visitation because the record did not show that FaceTime contact itself was detrimental to the child.
- Affirmed the admission of Dr. Bauer’s videotaped deposition.

## Legal Principles

- Child custody and visitation determinations are reviewed for abuse of discretion; the trial court’s factual findings and credibility calls receive substantial deference.
- Louisiana custody determinations turn on the child’s best interest, assessed through factors such as emotional ties, each parent’s past and present caretaking role, stability and continuity of the child’s environment, and each parent’s willingness and ability to meet the child’s needs.
- A parent’s adultery alone is not automatically disqualifying, but a pattern of conduct and choices bearing on judgment, stability, and safety may support findings relevant to moral fitness and the child’s welfare.
- Visitation limits must be tied to the child’s welfare. A restriction—especially a complete denial of contact—requires a record-based basis that the restricted contact would likely be harmful to the child, rather than serving as punishment for parental misconduct or failure to pay support.
- Electronic visitation (such as FaceTime) is a form of parent-child contact that may be ordered to maintain a relationship when in-person contact is limited; eliminating it requires evidence that the electronic contact is contrary to the child’s best interest.
- Admission of an expert’s videotaped deposition is within the trial court’s discretion when the opposing party had notice and a fair opportunity to participate, object, and cross-examine, and no prejudicial error is shown.

## Conclusion

The Louisiana Fourth Circuit upheld the trial court’s award of sole custody to Heather and left in place the trial court’s restrictive approach to in-person visitation based on best-interest findings centered on stability, caretaking history, and Jesse’s limited ties and noncompliance with court orders. However, the appellate court reversed the continued blanket suspension of FaceTime visitation because the record did not support a finding that electronic contact itself would harm C.E.K., and visitation restrictions must serve the child’s welfare rather than function as a sanction.


Kaptein v. Kaptein, 221 So. 3d 231 (2017)