Braud v. Braud
261 So. 3d 950
La. Ct. App.2018Background
- Child D.B., born 2005; parents Tasha Hess Braud (plaintiff/appellant) and Justin Luke Braud (defendant/appellee) divorced in 2018 after separation in 2015.
- Prior to divorce the parties had an informal schedule: father had Wednesdays (occasionally overnight Thursdays), alternating weekends, and some holidays.
- Trial court entered an Amended Judgment (June 27, 2018) awarding shared physical custody with Ms. Braud as domiciliary parent: mother has Mondays/Tuesdays; father has Wednesdays/Thursdays (including overnight), alternating weekends; holidays divided equitably.
- Ms. Braud appealed, arguing the court automatically applied La. Civ. Code art. 131/132 presumptions for joint custody without properly applying the Art. 134 best-interest factors or considering the child’s preference.
- Trial court stated it would consider the child’s best interest; record included testimony touching on Art. 134 factors; neither parent sought ex parte interview of the child with the judge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether awarding shared equal custody was an abuse of discretion | Braud: court applied the joint-custody presumption mechanically under La. Civ. Code art. 131/132 and failed to apply Art. 134 factors and child’s preference | Braud: granting an extra overnight (Wednesdays) is a modest change consistent with prior practice and serves the child’s best interest | Court: No abuse of discretion; shared custody affirmed — plaintiff failed to rebut the presumption by clear and convincing evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Hiatt v. Duhe, 238 So.3d 484 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2018) (child custody review uses abuse-of-discretion standard and best-interest analysis)
- Leard v. Schenker, 931 So.2d 355 (La. 2006) (deference to trial court in custody matters)
- AEB v. JBE, 752 So.2d 756 (La. 1999) (trial court rulings in custody cases entitled to great weight)
- Robertson v. Robertson, 64 So.3d 354 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2011) (Art. 134 factors are a guide; not strictly required to be applied item-by-item)
- Dvilansky v. Correu, 204 So.3d 686 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2016) (deference to trial court credibility findings)
- Stobart v. State through Dept. of Transp. and Development, 617 So.2d 880 (La. 1993) (appellate court must not disturb reasonable credibility evaluations and factual inferences)