Bilytha Lafaye Druilhet v. MacE Eugene Copeland IV, CA-0025-0707

Background

Ms. Druilhet and Mr. Copeland married in November 2023, had one child in May 2024, and separated in January 2025 after alleged domestic violence. 1
After Mr. Copeland’s arrest for domestic abuse battery and child endangerment, Ms. Druilhet obtained an ex parte emergency custody order and later sought a protective order. 2
At the May 8 custody hearing, Ms. Druilhet testified to multiple assaults by Mr. Copeland and the trial court awarded her temporary sole custody with supervised visitation for Mr. Copeland if released. 3
At the May 29 contradictory hearing, both parties appeared, the court found Ms. Druilhet credible, found multiple instances of domestic violence, made the injunction permanent, awarded Ms. Druilhet sole custody, and denied Mr. Copeland visitation pending completion of a 26-week program. 4
Mr. Copeland sought new trial and recusal, both were denied as untimely, and he appealed the permanent protective order and custody rulings. 5

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Due process and notice for custody/protective order proceedings 6	Druilhet argued Copeland had notice and participated in the key hearing.	Copeland argued he was denied meaningful participation and service.	The court found due process satisfied and rejected the notice challenge. 7
Whether the trial court properly addressed custody and visitation in the protective-order case 8	Druilhet argued the Family Violence Act authorized custody and visitation relief.	Copeland argued custody and visitation exceeded the pleadings and needed separate procedures.	The court held custody and visitation were properly decided under the Family Violence Act. 9
Whether evidence supported a history of family violence and the permanent injunction 10	Druilhet relied on testimony and photographs showing repeated abuse.	Copeland argued the court relied on irrelevant or pre-marital incidents.	The court found no abuse of discretion and upheld the violence finding. 11
Whether the court erred by limiting testimony / self-incrimination warnings 12	Druilhet argued the court merely explained Copeland’s rights.	Copeland argued the court chilled his testimony and penalized demeanor.	The court found no curtailment of Copeland’s evidence or testimony. 13
Whether denial of new trial, recusal, and cumulative-error relief was error 14	Druilhet argued the post-judgment motions were untimely and unsupported.	Copeland argued the rulings were biased and the combined errors required reversal.	The court found the motions untimely and no cumulative error warranting reversal. 15

Key Cases Cited

Flemming v. Flemming, 114 So.3d 1285 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2013) (lack of adequate notice implicates procedural due process 16)
Fairbanks v. Beninate, 308 So.3d 1222 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2020) (due process depends on time, place, and circumstances 17)
In re A.J.F., 764 So.2d 47 (La. 2000) (persons affected by state action must be notified and heard meaningfully 18)
Ned v. Laliberte, 277 So.3d 517 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2019) (trial courts have wide discretion in issuing protective orders 19)
Fontenot v. Newcomer, 63 So.3d 1149 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2011) (domestic abuse protective orders are reviewed for abuse of discretion 20)
Craig v. Bishop, 283 So.3d 521 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2019) (credibility determinations are reviewed under manifest error 21)
Rabalais v. Nash, 952 So.2d 653 (La. 2007) (manifest error requires no reasonable factual basis and clear wrongness 22)
Evans v. Lungrin, 708 So.2d 731 (La. 1998) (legal error requires de novo review when it materially affects substantial rights 23)
Melancon v. Russell, 258 So.3d 955 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2018) (Family Violence Act relief need not be separately pleaded if abuse is raised or tried by consent 24)
Michelli v. Michelli, 655 So.2d 1342 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1995) (Family Violence Act protects children and requires only past violence, not frequent or continuous events 25)
Durand v. Rose, 366 So.3d 484 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2022) (Family Violence Act turns on family violence and its history 26)
Patrick v. Ctr. for Restorative Breast Surgery, LLC, 348 So.3d 176 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2022) (abuse of discretion is highly deferential 27)
Durkheimer v. Landry, 366 So.3d 674 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2023) (abuse of discretion occurs when ruling is arbitrary or based on an erroneous view of law 28)
Richey v. Richey, 733 So.2d 618 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1999) (privilege against self-incrimination applies in civil proceedings 29)
State v. Johnson, 432 So.2d 815 (La. 1983) (self-incrimination privilege applies where answers may subject a witness to criminal responsibility 30)
La. Livestock Sanitary Bd. v. Pickett, 323 So.2d 521 (La. 1975) (proper procedure is to invoke privilege question by question 31)