Coleman v. Coleman
87 So. 3d 246
La. Ct. App.2012Background
- Laura and Ed litigated custody and child support for their six-year-old daughter Emma; trial court awarded joint custody with Laura as domiciliary and Ed with supervised visitation.
- Ed's supervised visitation was to occur in his mother Molly Coleman’s home, supervised by Molly or Ed’s sister Beverly Coleman.
- Ed was ordered to pay $879.30 monthly child support starting June 1, 2011, and could seek to lift supervision when Emma turns ten.
- Ed has a long history of alcohol and drug abuse, multiple DWIs, felony convictions, and has not held an unencumbered nursing license; experts debated safety and supervision.
- Dr. Simoneaux and other experts expressed concerns about Ed’s relapse risk, while Dr. Williams found Ed in full remission with safeguards in place; the court weighed conflicting opinions.
- The final judgment was signed June 28, 2011; Laura appealed, Ed answered; the appellate court amended the start date for final support and affirmed the remainder.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether joint custody with supervised visitation is in Emma's best interests | Laura contends sole custody should be awarded due to Ed's history. | Ed argues joint custody with supervision is suitable given safeguards and Emma's bond with both parents. | No manifest error; joint custody with supervised visitation is in Emma's best interest. |
| Whether final child support should retroact to the date of judicial demand | Laura asserts statutory retroactivity to 2009 under La. R.S. 9:310. | Ed argues retroactivity is barred absent good cause; interim award ended with final judgment. | There was no good cause shown; final support begins June 28, 2011 (date of judgment). |
| Whether overnight supervised visitation by Ed's mother is appropriate | Laura challenges supervision by Ed’s mother based on risk; seeks stricter supervision. | Ed argues supervision by trusted relatives is appropriate and protects Emma. | No manifest error; overnight visits with supervision by Ed’s mother or sister is in Emma's best interest. |
| Whether Cody, Laura's adult son, may be around Emma and travel notices are proper | Laura argues Cody's presence must be allowed and travel rules are burdensome. | Ed and doctors warn Cody's influence is dangerous; travel notice requirements are reasonable. | Cody barred from Emma's presence; notice/consent for out-of-state travel upheld. |
| Whether Ed may later lift the supervision requirement at age ten without Bergeron standard | Laura contends Bergeron requires showing a change in circumstances for modification. | Modification of visitation is less than a change in custody; best interests standard applies. | Court may lift supervision at the appropriate time upon showing it's in Emma's best interest; Bergeron does not apply to visitation modification. |
Key Cases Cited
- Walker v. Walker, 880 So.2d 956 (La.App.2d Cir.8/18/2004) (courts are not required to mechanically enumerate article 134 factors)
- Barrios v. Barrios, 32 So.3d 324 (La.App.2d Cir.3/3/2010) (trial court's weighing of Article 134 factors within wide discretion)
- Mayo v. Henson, 957 So.2d 318 (La.App.2d Cir.5/9/2007) (great weight given to trial court's credibility determinations)
- Acklin v. Acklin, 690 So.2d 869 (La.App.2d Cir.2/26/1997) (visitation modification may proceed without Bergeron showing change in circumstances)
- Bergeron v. Bergeron, 492 So.2d 1193 (La.1986) (Bergeron standard governs changes in custody, not mere visitation modifications)
- Vaccari v. Vaccari, 50 So.3d 139 (La. 2010) (good cause may justify retroactivity of final child support to judicial demand date)