196 So. 3d 96
La. Ct. App.2016Background
- Leslie and Beaux Bailey divorced after having two young children; Leslie sought to relocate with the children from Denham Springs, LA to Booneville, MS.
- At the trial court hearing the court granted Leslie’s relocation request, awarded joint custody, set a physical custody/holiday schedule, and did not designate a domiciliary parent.
- Children were very young (around five and two at time of appeal) and Leslie had been the primary day‑to‑day caretaker; Beaux was an involved, loving parent with close family support nearby.
- Booneville is approximately a 5.5 hour drive from Denham Springs, which would make regular shared parenting and participation in daily activities and schooling difficult.
- The trial court gave only brief oral reasons and did not expressly analyze the statutory relocation factors or whether Leslie acted in good faith.
- On appeal the court reviewed the relocation issue de novo because the trial court failed to apply the La. R.S. 9:355.14 factors; the court also found error in declining to name a domiciliary parent without statutory grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Leslie) | Defendant's Argument (Beaux) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Leslie’s proposed relocation to Booneville was in the children’s best interest under La. R.S. 9:355.14 | Relocation is justified to be near her family/support system; she will continue as primary caretaker | Relocation would impair Beaux’s ability to maintain daily involvement; long distance would harm children’s development and parental relationship | Court reversed relocation: trial court failed to consider statutory factors; de novo review showed relocation not in children’s best interest given age, travel distance, and loss of daily involvement with Beaux |
| Whether the trial court erred by not naming a domiciliary parent | (Implicit) Joint custody without naming domiciliary acceptable | Trial court must name domiciliary parent or state good cause/implementation order to decline | Court found abuse of discretion for failing to name domiciliary parent or state grounds; remanded to trial court to determine domiciliary status (in interim both parents given equal authority over major decisions) |
Key Cases Cited
- Gathen v. Gathen, 66 So.3d 1 (La. 2011) (trial court need not recite every statutory factor but must consider La. R.S. 9:355.14)
- Evans v. Lungrin, 708 So.2d 731 (La. 1998) (appellate court performs de novo review where legal error taints factfinding)
- Trahan v. Kingrey, 98 So.3d 347 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2012) (application of relocation factors and de novo review precedent)
- Wolfe v. Hanson, 991 So.2d 13 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2008) (court may decline to name domiciliary parent only with implementation order or good cause)
- Randazzo v. Prosperie, 135 So.3d 22 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2013) (trial court abused discretion by failing to name domiciliary parent when required)