Atkins v. Atkins
106 So. 3d 614
La. Ct. App.2012Background
- Katherine Atkins and Gus Atkins married May 27, 2005; their son Jackson born Aug. 4, 2005; Kathy has joint custody and is primary domiciliary parent of Kayleigh from a prior marriage.
- Kathy filed for an article 102 divorce Jan. 9, 2008, sought sole custody of Jackson, and moved Jackson to Crossett, Arkansas.
- Gus filed March 7, 2008 seeking joint custody and to be named primary domiciliary parent, objecting to Kathy’s relocation.
- An interim order (Mar. 31, 2008) awarded shared custody with weekly visitation and barred permanent relocation without further court order.
- Final proceedings culminated in a 2012 judgment granting joint custody and naming Gus as primary domiciliary parent, with Kathy ordered to pay child support; Kathy appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether relocation analysis properly applied under statutes | Kathy argues the court failed to analyze relocation under both La. R.S. 9:355.12 and La. C.C. art. 134 | Gus opposes relocation and contends the court considered best interests and relevant factors | Relocation analysis properly reviewed; court did not abuse discretion |
| Whether trial court’s custody judgment properly weighed best interests | Kathy contends the court erred in its weight given to factors and in recognizing Kathy’s relocation | Gus contends custody should favor stability and the primary domiciliary parent based on credibility and evidence | Court’s custody decision affirmed; no abuse of discretion in weighing factors |
Key Cases Cited
- Walker v. Walker, 880 So.2d 956 (La.App.2d Cir. 2004) (article 134 factors need not be expressly articulated; great deference to trial court’s credibility findings)
- Coleman v. Coleman, 87 So.3d 246 (La.App.2d Cir. 2012) (reaffirmed liberal weighing of custody factors in light of trial court credibility)
- D.M.B.T. v. M.A.T., 83 So.3d 3 (La.App.2d Cir. 2011) (best interests standard governs custody determinations; deference to trial court’s judgment)
- Shivers v. Shivers, 16 So.3d 500 (La.App.2d Cir. 2009) (emphasized fact-specific analysis in custody cases)
- Earle v. Earle, 998 So.2d 828 (La.App.2d Cir. 2008) (context for weighing parental fitness and credibility)
- Gathen v. Gathen, 66 So.3d 1 (La. 2011) (La. R.S. 9:355.12 does not prescribe weighting; trial court may assign weight as appropriate)
- Fuqua v. Fuqua, 57 So.3d 534 (La.App.2d Cir. 2011) (relocation decisions given substantial discretion to trial court)
- McCormic v. Rider, 27 So.3d 277 (La. 2010) (great weight given to trial court’s credibility determinations in custody matters)