Date: 04-30-2022

Case Style:

Rosemary Green v. Samuel Myers

Case Number: 54,200-CA

Judge: Michael “Mike” Pitman

Court:

COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA

On appeal from The Third Judicial District Court for the Parish of Lincoln, Louisiana

Plaintiff's Attorney:

Click Here to Watch How To Find A Lawyer by Kent Morlan

Click Here For The Best Shreveport LA. - Protective Order Lawyer Directory

Defendant's Attorney: J. Dhu Thompson

Description:

Shreveport LA - Protective Order lawyer represented Petitioner-Appellant with appealing the dissolution of a protective order.

Corey and Rosemary are the parents of A.M., whose date of birth is
October 20, 2011. They divorced, and in 2016, they were granted joint
custody of A.M.
On May 3, 2019, Rosemary filed a petition for protection on behalf of
A.M. She alleged that in 2017, A.M. told her that Corey tickled her private
area. She stated that Corey was under investigation by the Bienville Parish
Sheriff’s Office for molesting A.M., that the Department of Children and
Family Services (“DCFS”) suspended his parental rights pending their
investigation and that she filed this protective order after DCFS closed its
investigation.1
On May 3, 2019, the district court issued a temporary restraining
order. It found that the allegations constituted a sexual assault. It ordered
Corey not to contact A.M. or to come within five miles of her and granted
temporary custody of A.M. to Rosemary.
On August 15 and 16, 2019, a hearing was held with a hearing officer.
Rosemary testified that she was married to Corey from 2010 to 2016 and
that A.M. is their daughter. She was aware of allegations that Corey
molested his older daughter, E.M. She stated that she is in communication
with E.M.’s mother and that E.M. and A.M. are in communication.

1 On April 12, 2019, DCFS notified Corey that it completed the investigation of
his suspected abuse of A.M. and that the findings were inconclusive.
2
Rosemary testified that in the spring of 2017, A.M. told her that her
nose tickled, Rosemary responded that she should scratch it and then A.M.
responded, “And sometimes my daddy tickles my coochie.” Rosemary was
caught off guard because A.M. had never said anything like that before. She
took A.M. to school and then called the pediatrician, who instructed her to
go to the emergency room. The emergency room staff contacted the
Bienville Parish Sheriff’s Department, which began an investigation. A.M.
met with a forensic interviewer and attended counseling, but did not discuss
the alleged molestation, so the investigation was closed.
Rosemary testified that A.M. regularly masturbated, which her
pediatrician said was normal behavior for a child who had been molested.
A.M.’s behavior at school became defiant, so Rosemary met with a school
counselor and told her about the 2017 allegation. The counselor responded
that A.M.’s behavior was indicative of a child who had been molested.
Rosemary then asked A.M. if she remembered what she said about being
tickled, and A.M. responded that Corey tickled her in her private area and
she showed how he tickled her. Rosemary called the school counselor about
this, and DCFS became involved. She testified that A.M. told her counselor,
the forensic interviewer, the detective and the DCFS worker about Corey
tickling her private area. After Corey notified her that DCFS completed its
investigation, she filed a protective order to prevent him from having access
to A.M. and to protect A.M. She testified that she and A.M.’s counselor
believed that supervised visitation between A.M. and Corey would harm
A.M.
Ben Green testified that he and Rosemary had been married two years,
and he had known A.M. for three to four years. He stated that A.M. did not
3
make any allegations against Corey to him and he did not observe Rosemary
encouraging A.M. to make allegations. He noted that since the alleged
molestation, A.M. has gotten in trouble at school, been defiant at home and
been masturbating. He stated that counseling had been helping A.M.
Detective Sheronda Bell of the Bienville Parish Sheriff’s Office
testified that in November 2018, she received a phone call from DCFS
regarding Corey and A.M. She observed a forensic interview during which
eight-year-old A.M. revealed that her father asked her, “What is it that I
want?”; A.M. responded, “You want to tickle me in my private area”; and
then he touched her vaginal area on the outside of her clothing. That A.M.
knew what Corey wanted suggested to Det. Bell that this was something that
had happened before. She noted that A.M. told the forensic interviewer that
Corey told her to keep the tickling a secret. She also interviewed A.M., and
during this interview, A.M. indicated that Corey only touched her once. She
noted that during the investigation, A.M.’s statement that Corey touched her
did not change, but details of what happened prior to the touching changed.
Det. Bell interviewed E.M., who described a similar pattern of behavior by
Corey toward her. Det. Bell testified that she did not request an arrest
warrant in this case. She stated that the case was presented to a grand jury,
and it returned a no true bill.
Corey testified that he did not know why A.M. made up allegations of
molestation and stated that her allegations were not true. He noted that he
may have touched A.M.’s vaginal area when bathing her and recalled
touching her with a washcloth and showing her how to clean herself when
she complained of a burning feeling. He stated that he had not seen A.M.
since October 2018 and would like to see her; but, because of her tendency
4
to lie, he requested supervised visits. He testified that in 2008, E.M.’s
mother made a complaint that he was molesting three-year-old E.M. He was
unaware of allegations E.M. made when she was older. He stated that he
had not spoken to E.M. since May 2016 because her mother forbid it.
Alvie Myers, Corey’s father, testified that he had never seen Corey act
inappropriately with A.M. He stated that E.M.’s mother also accused him
and his wife of abusing E.M.
Curtis Myers, Corey’s brother, testified that he allows his 11-year-old
daughter to be around Corey and that he has not restricted their interactions
in any way. He stated that he would not allow his children to be around
Corey if he believed Corey acted inappropriately toward a child. He stated
that he was aware of the allegations made by A.M. and E.M.
Alyssa Myers, Curtis Myers’s wife, testified that her family spends
time with Corey two or three times a week, that she has never had any
concern that Corey molested her daughter and that she had never seen any
indication that he molested a child.
Pursuant to La. Ch. C. art. 1564, et seq., the hearing officer granted
the protective order. It noted that the evidence indicated that some
inappropriate contact occurred. It stated that a review would occur after one
year to consider whether visitation between A.M. and Corey would be
appropriate. It also requested a report from A.M.’s therapist at the future
hearing.
On August 19, 2019, the district court issued a protective order and
reiterated the recommendation of the hearing officer.
On August 20, 2019, Corey filed an objection to the recommendation
of the hearing officer and a request for judicial review. He argued that the
5
evidence presented at the hearing was insufficient to warrant the issuance of
a protective order and requested a de novo review by the district court.
A hearing before the district court was held on November 2 and 13,
2020. Alexis Young, a licensed clinical social worker, testified that she first
came into contact with A.M. in July 2019, when A.M. was seven years old,
and met with her on a weekly basis until May 2020. A pediatric nurse
practitioner referred A.M. to her for counseling intervention due to A.M.’s
behaviors of acting out and frequent masturbation and a concern that A.M.
had been molested. She noted that the nature and frequency of A.M.’s
masturbation had become excessive to the point that she irritated her vaginal
area, which required a prescription for treatment. She testified that with
children over the age of six who cannot be deterred from frequent
masturbation there is a chance they have been molested. She discussed
A.M.’s diagnoses of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, pica and
oppositional defiant disorder. She noted that A.M. was very irritable and
had difficulty with redirection, interaction with siblings, impulsivity and
boundary setting. She testified that the therapeutic goals of her sessions with
A.M. were to improve A.M.’s behavior and to provide education to A.M.
and her mother.
Young detailed her sessions with A.M. At a July 2019 session, she
asked A.M. if she had ever been touched inappropriately. A.M. told her that
she observed her stepbrother ejaculate, but Young noted that this incident
occurred after A.M. began acting out. At an August 2019 session, she and
A.M. discussed A.M.’s understanding of why she could not visit Corey.
A.M. knew Corey was away and that she could not contact him, but A.M.
did not mention anything about molestation being the reason. At their next
6
session, Young disclosed to A.M. that the reason she could not see her father
was because he was accused of molesting her. A.M. became detached,
withdrawn and wanted to change the subject, which Young described as a
typical reaction of someone who has experienced trauma and that it made
her more concerned that Corey molested A.M. At a December 2019 session,
Young met with A.M. and Rosemary to educate them on the difference
between “good touch” and “bad touch” and to explain to A.M. why she
could not see her father. She noted that A.M. never told her about any act of
molestation by her father, but that A.M.’s response was “like a lightbulb
went off” and “she was connecting the dots with what had happened to her.”
This made Young believe that Corey abused A.M. At a February 2020
session, A.M. told Young that sometimes she thinks about Corey when she
plays with her doll and that when she has those thoughts she starts to play
with other toys or draws. Young explained that to discontinue a type of play
in order to change her thoughts is a typical coping mechanism for victims of
sexual abuse and that this reinforced her belief that Corey abused A.M. She
stated that over their sessions, A.M. made progress, but did not achieve the
goals they set for her treatment.
Young testified that over the course of her treatment of A.M., her
opinion never changed that A.M. was the victim of molestation by her father
and that A.M.’s behavior was consistent with a child who had been molested
by a caregiver. She stated that nothing caused her to doubt A.M.’s
credibility. She believed that it was in A.M.’s best interest not to have
contact with her father and that there was no way he could be reintegrated
into her life without having a detrimental effect on her mental health and
long-term recovery.
7
On cross-examination, Young testified that in her approximately
20 sessions with A.M., A.M. never told her that Corey molested her, but also
never said that he did not molest her. She stated that A.M. was honest in all
of their sessions.
The district court then questioned nine-year-old A.M. during a
Watermeier hearing. A.M. explained what it means to tell the truth and a lie.
She stated that she has lied to her mother “a lot of times,” but knows it is
important to tell the truth. She stated that no one talked to her about what
the judge might ask her. She named Rosemary as her mother and Ben Green
as her father. She stated Corey is not related to her anymore because he “did
something bad” to her and her sister, i.e., he tickled them in their private
areas. She explained that she did not know that he “did something bad” to
E.M. until Rosemary told her. She stated that Corey told her to keep it a
secret when he tickled her private area, but that she did tell her mother.
A.M. could not remember the last time she saw Corey and said she cannot
see him until she is an adult because her mother is scared he might hurt her
again.
On November 19, 2020, the district court found that Rosemary did not
meet her burden of proof and, therefore, denied the petition for a uniform
protective order. It stated that A.M. appeared to be coached with respect to
her testimony that Corey touched her inappropriately. It was troubled that
Rosemary subjected A.M. to parental alienation and coaching and
questioned Rosemary’s credibility.
On November 20, 2020, the district court dissolved the protective
order issued on August 19, 2019.
8
On December 17, 2020, Rosemary applied for emergency supervisory
writs of the November 19, 2020 ruling. This court granted the writ
application and remanded the matter for perfection as a suspensive appeal.
Rosemary appeals.
DISCUSSION
In her first assignment of error, Rosemary argues that the district court
abused its discretion in dissolving the protective order. In her second
assignment of error, she argues that it erred in ignoring the testimony and
counseling records of Young. Rosemary contends that the court’s erroneous
findings of fact and credibility determinations led to a conclusion that she
coached A.M. in order to alienate her from her father. She argues that the
evidence clearly shows that Corey sexually abused A.M.; and, therefore, the
protective order should be reinstated.
Corey argues that Rosemary failed to carry her burden of proof and,
therefore, that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dissolving the
protective order. He notes that no records were submitted by Rosemary of
A.M.’s forensic interview, DCFS’s investigations or A.M.’s other
counselors and that this is a failure of Rosemary to meet her burden of proof,
not an error by the court in its factual determinations. He argues that the
district court did not err in its credibility determinations of Rosemary or
A.M. or its consideration of Young’s testimony.
The district court issued the August 2019 protective order pursuant to
the Domestic Abuse Assistance provisions of the Louisiana Children’s
Code. See La. Ch. C. arts. 1564, et seq. The issuance of a protective order
under these provisions requires proof of the allegations of abuse by a
9
preponderance of the evidence. La. Ch. C. art. 1569(B) and (D); Newton v.
Berry, 44,383 (La. App. 2 Cir. 5/20/09), 15 So. 3d 262.
A trial court’s determination of child custody and domestic abuse is
entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear
abuse of discretion. Richardson v. Smith, 47,347 (La. App. 2 Cir. 5/16/12),
92 So. 3d 1145. The district court’s findings, based on a live presentation of
testimony and a personal observation of the parties involved, are entitled to
great weight. Id.
The district court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that
Rosemary failed to meet her burden of proving by a preponderance of the
evidence that Corey sexually abused A.M. The district court detailed the
evidence presented in this case, including the related criminal proceedings.
The Bienville Parish Sheriff’s Office investigated the allegations of sexual
abuse, and the grand jury returned a no true bill. Det. Bell testified that she
believed “something happened” to A.M., but she “could not say for sure”
who did it. Similarly, DCFS closed its investigation with inconclusive
findings and stated that it was not able to rule out abuse or that Corey was
responsible for the abuse of A.M.
The district court was in the best position to evaluate the credibility of
the witnesses. The parties stipulated that in lieu of live testimony, the
district court would review the transcripts of the testimony presented before
the hearing officer. The district court observed the testimony of Young and
A.M. during the Watermeier hearing. In its oral ruling, the district court
detailed its credibility determinations. It found that A.M. appeared to be
coached as to her testimony that Corey acted inappropriately with her and
E.M. It was troubled by Rosemary subjecting A.M. to parental alienation
10
and coaching, and these actions caused it to question Rosemary’s credibility.
The district court did not abuse its discretion when determining that A.M.
and Rosemary lacked credibility.
Further, the district court did not ignore Young’s testimony and,
instead, detailed that testimony in its oral ruling. Notably, although Young
testified that A.M.’s behavior was consistent with a child who had been
molested by a caregiver and that she believed Corey molested A.M., she
admitted that A.M. never told her that Corey molested her.
Although A.M. might be a victim of sexual abuse, the record does not
support a finding under the preponderance of the evidence standard that
Corey sexually abused her. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its
discretion in dissolving the protective order in this case.
Accordingly, these assignments of error lack merit.

Outcome: For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s dissolution of
a protective order in favor of Defendant-Appellee Samuel Myers and against
Petitioner-Appellant Rosemary Green. Costs of this appeal are assessed to
Petitioner-Appellant Rosemary Green.
AFFIRMED

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: