Bonnette v. Bonnette
185 So. 3d 321
La. Ct. App.2016Background
- Parents divorced after a 2009-born child; a 2011 stipulated joint custody judgment named Mother domiciliary parent while Father had visitation and planned relocation to Houston for work.
- Father remarried, established a permanent Houston home and stable environment for the child; sought modification of domiciliary status and relocation to Texas.
- Mother alleged Father sexually abused the child after a 2012 Thanksgiving trip; DCFS and the court-ordered play therapist found insufficient evidence; Mother continued to pursue evaluations and counseling.
- Court-appointed custody evaluator (Dr. Alan Klein) recommended joint custody with Father as domiciliary parent and play therapy; his report was provided to parties the morning of trial.
- After a two-day bench trial (January 2014) the district court maintained joint custody, named Father domiciliary parent, and allowed relocation to Houston; the trial court later amended its judgment to identify La. Civ. Code art. 134 and La. R.S. 9:355.14 factors as instructed on remand.
- Mother appealed the domiciliary change, relocation, denial of a continuance to review Dr. Klein’s report, and denial of a motion for new trial; appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court erred in changing domiciliary parent | Mother argued there was no proper basis to change domiciliary parent from her to Father | Father argued material change of circumstances (remarriage, stable home, better schooling) justified change and was in child’s best interest | Affirmed: appellate court found material change (de novo) and no manifest error in best-interest findings favoring Father |
| Whether relocation to Texas should be permitted | Mother argued relocation would harm child's relationship with her and was not in best interest | Father argued relocation was in good faith, improved quality of life, closer to half-sisters and better schooling | Affirmed: court applied La. R.S. 9:355.14 factors and found relocation in child’s best interest |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying continuance to review evaluator’s report | Mother argued she had inadequate time to prepare/cross-examine after receiving Dr. Klein’s report morning of trial | Father noted report was court-ordered, evaluator testified and was cross-examined; delay was minimal and Mother did cross-examine | Affirmed: denial not an abuse of discretion; Mother had opportunity to cross-examine and was not deprived of her day in court |
| Whether denial of motion for new trial was erroneous | Mother sought new trial based on inadequate preparation for cross-exam and later-filed protective order undermining trial evidence | Father argued December 2014 events post-dated trial and could not be newly discovered evidence; no prejudice shown | Affirmed: trial judge did not abuse discretion; grounds did not warrant new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Schmidt v. Schmidt, 6 So.3d 197 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2009) (standard of appellate review for custody modifications)
- Evans v. Lungrin, 708 So.2d 731 (La. 1998) (two-prong test for modifying stipulated custody: material change and best interest)
- Bergeron v. Bergeron, 492 So.2d 1193 (La. 1986) (caution against frequent custody changes; heightened scrutiny)
- Curole v. Curole, 828 So.2d 1094 (La. 2002) (abuse-of-discretion standard in relocation cases)