LLOYD v. WILFRED (2025)

Ronika Lloyd appeals the trial court's September 26, 2024 judgment finding her in contempt, sentencing her to five days in jail, and ordering her to pay $2,000.00 in attorney's fees and costs. We reverse the contempt judgment and vacate these penalties.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Gregory Wilfred, Jr., the appellee, and Ronika Lloyd are the parents of G.W., born April 28, 2009. Mr. Wilfred has an extensive criminal record and spent most of G.W.’s life in prison. Ms. Lloyd and G.W. lived with Mr. Wilfred's mother, “Miss Rita.” In 2021, Ms. Lloyd and G.W. moved out because their relationship with Miss Rita became strained as Mr. Wilfred's release from prison approached.

In August 2021, Ms. Lloyd filed for sole custody of G.W., stating that Mr. Wilfred had been imprisoned for twelve of G.W.’s thirteen years, that G.W. had no relationship with him, and that visitation would not serve G.W.’s best interest. She also requested permission not to provide her home address to Mr. Wilfred. The hearing officer ordered family counseling, excused Ms. Lloyd from providing her address, and prohibited contact between G.W. and Mr. Wilfred.

On January 23, 2008, Mr. Wilfred pled guilty to federal charges of possession with intent to distribute narcotics, being a felon in possession of a firearm, and possession of a firearm during a drug trafficking crime. Authorities imprisoned him. He was released on supervision August 5, 2016, but authorities arrested him again on February 25, 2017, for narcotics distribution and returned him to prison.

In August 2022, Mr. Wilfred sought joint custody, stating he was out of prison. On February 2, 2023, the hearing officer recommended letting G.W. get to know Mr. Wilfred, while noting Ms. Lloyd's strong opposition to face-to-face contact based on her prior experiences with him. The hearing officer reaffirmed Ms. Lloyd did not have to provide her address. The hearing officer ordered Mr. Wilfred and Ms. Rita to remain “100% clean and sober” during any interaction with G.W., either by phone or in person. The hearing officer advised Ms. Lloyd to post G.W.’s activities schedule, and for both parties to select public, supervised visitation dates together. Ms. Lloyd's motion to stay visitation was granted. In April 2023, the trial judge ended the interim recommendation, and instructed the parties to have six weeks of Wednesday telephone visitation, then begin in-person visits.

Mr. Wilfred filed a contempt motion, alleging G.W. did not answer his calls. On July 6, 2023, the trial court found Ms. Lloyd in contempt, sentenced her to ten days in jail, and ordered her to pay $1,500 in attorney's fees. The court required reunification therapy. The court gave Ms. Lloyd a chance to comply and avoid punishment, and she did so.

On July 28, 2023, Mr. Wilfred filed another contempt motion, alleging that Ms. Lloyd told his halfway house and employers that he had “drugs,” causing an increase in his detention period by six months. He also alleged that Ms. Lloyd failed to post G.W.’s schedule on the “App Close Calendar” as the court ordered. On August 24, 2023, the trial judge set visitation for every Sunday from 5:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., with phone calls during the week. The court barred Ms. Lloyd from contacting Mr. Wilfred's employers, probation officer, or supervisors, and from interfering with his access to G.W. The order stated Ms. Lloyd must post a “schedule of extracurricular activities on the App Close Calendar,” allowing Mr. Wilfred to attend public events. The court repeated the requirement for Mr. Wilfred and Ms. Rita to remain sober during contact with G.W.

After August 24, 2023, the record shows that Mr. Wilfred and G.W. started regular, supervised visitations with Ms. Rita present.

On June 3, 2024, Ms. Lloyd asked the court to suspend visitation, stating that Mr. Wilfred was arrested on March 30, 2024, and charged with possession with intent to distribute narcotics. She argued Mr. Wilfred's criminal history and her concern for G.W.’s safety justified suspending visitation. The court denied her request and set the matter for a hearing. Ms. Lloyd added new reports documenting Mr. Wilfred's criminal background and the recent arrest. Mr. Wilfred answered with exceptions and sought to hold Ms. Lloyd in contempt for failing to post G.W.’s schedule and for not facilitating visitation.

At the September 26, 2024 hearing, Mr. Wilfred testified that Ms. Lloyd interfered with visitation and did not post G.W.’s activities schedule on the App Close Calendar, despite his repeated requests. He admitted missing some scheduled visits by choice and sometimes picking the visitation location. He acknowledged that Ms. Lloyd would offer alternatives when he or G.W. was unavailable and that, before his arrest, his relationship with G.W. improved. He described that G.W. participated and laughed during visits before the arrest, but after the arrest G.W. would leave visits early and became withdrawn. Mr. Wilfred believed Ms. Lloyd influenced G.W.’s behavior. He denied that his recent arrest changed G.W.’s attitude. He conceded that Ms. Lloyd tried to comply with court orders but claimed she was controlling G.W. and hindering the relationship. Mr. Wilfred admitted that Ms. Lloyd provided G.W.’s football schedule and he attended some games.

Ms. Lloyd testified that she and Mr. Wilfred agreed to visit every other week, not use the app, and skip therapy. They communicated to reschedule visits if G.W. or Mr. Wilfred became unavailable. Mr. Wilfred did not object to the visitation approach or communication method from October 2023 until June 2024, saying that things had continued as described until Ms. Lloyd sought to suspend visitation after his arrest.

Ms. Lloyd described several gifts of large quantities of cash in small bills that Mr. Wilfred gave G.W. After learning about Mr. Wilfred's arrest, Ms. Lloyd paid to view the arrest records and explained she had warned the court for more than a year that Mr. Wilfred was dangerous and lived a lifestyle unsuitable for G.W. She described her fear for G.W.’s safety and uncertainty about whether Mr. Wilfred brought drugs or guns to the visits. She explained she believed she could withhold visitation until the court ruled on her motion to suspend visits after the arrest.

Ms. Lloyd testified that after the arrest, G.W. showed reluctance to visit his father. During the first meeting following Mr. Wilfred's release from jail, G.W. contacted her to pick him up soon after arriving. When G.W. returned to the car, he reported that Mr. Wilfred called Ms. Lloyd “a rat” and blamed her for his arrest.

On cross-examination, Ms. Lloyd admitted a contempt finding occurred in July 2023 because G.W. did not answer Mr. Wilfred's phone calls. She testified that after in-person visits started, there were no missed visits. When asked about not posting G.W.’s activities on the App Close Calendar, she explained that neither she nor Mr. Wilfred used the app; instead, they used group texts, including Ms. Rita, to communicate the schedule. She described what she considered extracurricular activities, clarifying that she did not think parties, funerals, or haircuts were included—only activities like sports, book clubs, or yearbooks. She thought she only needed to inform Mr. Wilfred about events he could attend. Ms. Lloyd stated that before Mr. Wilfred's arrest, she tried to comply with court orders. After the arrest, she believed no court would order a child to visit a parent who had multiple narcotics convictions and another current narcotics arrest. She said she was simply trying to protect her son.

After the testimony, the trial judge found Ms. Lloyd in contempt, citing her prior noncompliance and perceived disrespect to the court.

LAW AND DISCUSSION

On appeal, Ms. Lloyd argues that the trial court committed manifest error and abused its discretion in finding her in contempt of court. She claims the punitive nature of her sentence, which did not allow her a chance to purge herself of contempt, requires this Court to determine whether every contempt element was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Mr. Wilfred asserts that the September 26, 2024 hearing evidence showed a pattern of Ms. Lloyd's noncompliance with court orders. He maintains that the contempt was a civil proceeding designed to compel compliance, not to punish her. He claims the preponderance of the evidence standard applied, and the penalties imposed fit the trial court's discretion.

A contempt of court consists of any act or omission that obstructs or interferes with the administration of justice or impairs the court's dignity or respect for its authority. Barrett v. Barrett, 20-266 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2/24/21), 314 So.3d 1023, 1037; La. C.C.P. art. 221. Contempt can be direct or constructive. Id. Constructive contempt is willful disobedience of any lawful court judgment or order. Id.; La. C.C.P. art. 224. To find someone guilty of constructive contempt, the court must find intentional, knowing, and purposeful violation without justifiable excuse. Id. Trial courts have broad discretion when determining whether constructive contempt applies. Id.

A contempt proceeding incidental to a civil action is civil if its purpose is to ensure compliance; it is criminal if the trial judge primarily aims to punish disobedience. Parish of Jefferson v. Lafreniere Park Foundation, 98-345 (La. App. 5 Cir. 9/15/98), 720 So.2d 359, 364, writ denied, 98-2598 (La. 10/28/98), 723 So.2d 965. When a court imposes a fixed sentence without offering the contemnor a means to avoid punishment, the action is criminal in nature and requires constitutional protections. Swan v. Swan, 35,393 (La. App. 2 Cir. 12/7/01), 803 So.2d 372, 375. A contempt judgment becomes criminal when it imposes a fixed sentence without a “purge clause.” Greenidge v. Greenidge, 571 So.2d 905, 907 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1990). When the court imposes criminal punishment, due process requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt for every fact necessary to support the contempt charge. Turbine Powered Tech., LLC v. Crowe, 21-0351 (La. App. 1 Cir. 10/7/21), 330 So.3d 1116, 1124.

Here, the trial court's detailed reasoning shows the sentence was meant to punish Ms. Lloyd for disobeying court orders. The trial court, both orally and in writing, stated Ms. Lloyd consistently disrespected the court's authority and repeatedly refused to follow court orders without justifiable excuse. However, the record does not support the findings that Ms. Lloyd never complied with court orders or that she refused without justifiable excuse. In fact, the record shows Ms. Lloyd complied with efforts to facilitate visitation between Mr. Wilfred and G.W. Mr. Wilfred did not have contact with G.W. for at least twelve years of G.W.’s life. The record shows Ms. Lloyd worked diligently to provide G.W. a stable environment. She kept in contact with Ms. Rita and maintained G.W.’s visits with her, including after Mr. Wilfred's arrest on April 30, 2024.

Between August 24, 2023, and Mr. Wilfred's arrest on April 30, 2024, Mr. Wilfred and G.W. attended regular visitations supervised by Ms. Rita. Ms. Lloyd adjusted to accommodate Mr. Wilfred's schedule. Testimony and evidence of text messages show Ms. Lloyd offered alternate visit dates when scheduling conflicts arose. She brought G.W. to visit at locations Mr. Wilfred chose.

Although Ms. Lloyd did not post G.W.’s schedule on the app, she explained her understanding that she only needed to inform Mr. Wilfred about extracurricular activities, and the trial judge acknowledged the purpose of the order was to help Mr. Wilfred remain flexible with visitation. Mr. Wilfred did not testify that he missed visits due to lack of the schedule and acknowledged occasionally declining to attend scheduled visits and football games.

Ms. Lloyd feared Mr. Wilfred. Her initial request was not to provide her home address, a request the hearing officer granted. The hearing officer also noted her past negative experiences with Mr. Wilfred and her objection to G.W. having face-to-face contact. The evidence demonstrates that Ms. Lloyd did not want G.W. exposed to Mr. Wilfred's criminal conduct. After his release in January 2024, authorities arrested Mr. Wilfred again within four months for possession of narcotics and large sums of cash. Throughout the proceedings, Ms. Lloyd remained concerned about ongoing criminal activity, especially after Mr. Wilfred reportedly gave G.W. significant amounts of cash.

Ms. Lloyd's concern for her son's safety was reasonable and ultimately justified by Mr. Wilfred's continued criminal behavior. Given Ms. Lloyd's reasonable fears and desire to protect G.W., and the evidence that she facilitated visitation after Mr. Wilfred's recent arrest, the record shows a justifiable excuse for any noncompliance. After the arrest, G.W. became fearful and reluctant to visit, a fact supported by both parties’ testimony. The evidence does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Lloyd intentionally and purposefully violated the court's order without justification. The trial court therefore erred in finding her in contempt.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons above, we reverse the trial court's judgment finding Ms. Lloyd in contempt and vacate the order requiring five days imprisonment, $2,000.00 in attorney's fees, and costs.

REVERSED; ORDER VACATED

I, respectfully, concur with the majority opinion in this matter. I agree that the trial court's contempt finding against Ronika Lloyd should be reversed.

On appellate review of criminal contempt, the reviewing court must determine that the evidence, viewed in light most favorable to the prosecution, as sufficient for a rational trier of fact to conclude that every element of the contempt charge was proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Billiot v. Billiot, 01-1298 (La. 1/25/02), 805 So.2d 1170, 1174; Lloyd v. Wilfred, 24-454 (La. App. 5 Cir. 10/1/24), 2024 WL 4355222. Willful disobedience of a court order requires a consciousness of the duty to obey the order and an intent to disregard that duty. Id. Therefore, in order to constitute willful disobedience necessary for criminal contempt, the act or refusal to act must be done with an intent to defy the authority of the court. Id.

Here, although the trial court's written reasons for judgment states that Ms. Lloyd violated the February 2, 2023 order, the record reflects that the last judgment of the trial court ordering Ms. Lloyd to submit G.W.’s schedule to the App Close Calendar was rendered on October 12, 2023. That judgment stated, “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Ronika Lloyd shall post [G.W.’s] schedule of extracurricular activities, on the App Close Calendar. Gregory Wilfred, Jr. is free to attend extracurricular activities that the public can customarily attend.” (Emphasis in original).

As detailed in the majority opinion, Ms. Lloyd thought she only needed to inform Mr. Wilfred about events he could attend, clarifying that she did not think parties, funerals, or haircuts were included. According to the judgment, Mr. Wilfred was free to attend activities that the public could customarily attend. The public would not customarily attend all of G.W.’s extracurricular activities, and Ms. Lloyd informed Mr. Wilfred of G.W.’s activities that would be open to the public.

When considering the ambiguous and/or conflicting language used in the judgment and the evidence presented at the contempt hearing, I find it was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Lloyd willfully disobeyed the authority of the trial court. Accordingly, I join the majority opinion in reversing the trial court's judgment finding Ms. Lloyd in contempt and vacating the order requiring five days imprisonment, $2,000 in attorney's fees, and costs.

MOLAISON, J.