274 So. 3d 709
La. Ct. App.2019Background
- Parents divorced; custody dispute over minor C.G.; parties had entered multiple stipulated consent orders regarding joint custody and visitation beginning in 2015–2018.
- Father (Darrin) alleged mother (Rhonda) had significant drug involvement (boyfriend arrested, drug paraphernalia, witness affidavits alleging ongoing use/sales) and that the child’s school performance and behavior suffered.
- The parties earlier agreed (March 21, 2018 consent judgment) Rhonda would submit to monthly hair and urine drug testing for six months; she failed to produce consecutive negative tests and produced mixed results (positive tests in Dec. 2017 and Apr. 2018; one negative June 2018 test).
- School officials and staff testified that the child showed academic and behavioral improvement while primarily in father’s custody; school staff noted the child needs structure and has an autism-spectrum diagnosis.
- Trial court awarded joint custody with father as domiciliary parent and limited Rhonda to supervised visitation every other weekend (supervisor: Denise Ryland), with the order set for review; Rhonda appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Guidry (Plaintiff) Argument | Guidry (Defendant) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether changed circumstances justified modifying the prior stipulated custody order | Darrin: Yes — Rhonda’s drug activity, reintroduction of alleged drug associates, CPS involvement, and child’s decline constitute material change | Rhonda: Denies ongoing dependence, argues she has entered treatment and produced some negative tests; modification improper | Court: Affirmed — material change shown given substance-abuse evidence and failure to comply with testing requirement |
| Whether supervised visitation was appropriate | Darrin: Supervision necessary to protect child from exposure to drugs and unsafe adults | Rhonda: Supervision unnecessary; claims rehabilitation and some negative tests | Court: Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion ordering supervised visitation given prior positive tests and safety concerns |
| Standard and burden for modifying a stipulated custody decree | Darrin: Must show material change affecting child’s welfare and that modification is in child’s best interest | Rhonda: Contends burden not met; seeks more custody or lifting supervision | Court: Reiterated standard (material change + best interest) and found burden met |
| Sufficiency of evidence (drug test records and school testimony) | Darrin: Evidence of past positive drug tests, witness affidavits, and school testimony showing improvement under father | Rhonda: Presented some test results and treatment claims; disputed witnesses | Court: Evidence sufficient to support supervised visitation and custody modification; allowed future motions to lift supervision upon demonstrated rehabilitation |
Key Cases Cited
- E. R. v. T. S., 256 So.3d 551 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2018) (best interest of the child is paramount in custody decisions)
- Tracie F. v. Francisco D., 188 So.3d 231 (La. 2016) (same standard applies to initial and modification custody actions)
- Theriot v. Theriot, 177 So.3d 759 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2015) (party modifying a stipulation must show material change and best interest)
- Evans v. Lungrin, 708 So.2d 731 (La. 1998) (same burden for modifying custody under stipulated judgments)
- Shaffer v. Shaffer, 808 So.2d 354 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2000) (discussing standards for modification of custody decrees)
- Coleman v. Coleman, 87 So.3d 246 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2012) (trial court has broad discretion to order supervised visitation where child safety is a concern)