Hiatt v. Duhe
238 So. 3d 484
La. Ct. App.2018Background
- Parents Leon Hiatt and Lauren Duhe separated after 11 years together; two minor sons (b. 2007, 2010). Hiatt filed a Petition to Establish Custody in Aug. 2016; Duhe answered and reconvened seeking custody or domiciliary status.
- Duhe alleged long‑term physical, emotional abuse by Hiatt and substance misuse; Hiatt alleged Duhe had depression/anxiety and claimed he was primary caregiver and the home owner.
- Trial court issued an ex parte temporary custody order to Duhe in Sept. 2016; after a show‑cause hearing the court ordered joint custody with Duhe domiciliary and set a permanent custody trial.
- Hiatt requested the children testify (Watermeier) and sought a custody evaluator; the court interviewed the elder child at school, stopped the interview due to emotional distress, denied court testimony and declined an evaluator.
- After hearings, the trial court (Mar. 30, 2017) awarded joint custody with Duhe domiciliary, specific weekday, weekend, holiday and summer schedules, ordered co‑parenting classes and parenting classes for Hiatt, and set co‑parenting guidelines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hiatt) | Defendant's Argument (Duhe) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of interim ex parte order | Trial court erred in case management leading to temporary order | Order was proper and later superseded by joint custody | Moot — temporary order no longer in effect |
| Children testifying at trial | Children should be allowed to testify under Watermeier | Court properly protected children; prior school interview showed distress | Court did not abuse discretion in excluding child testimony |
| Appointment of custody evaluator | An evaluator was necessary for permanent custody decision | Evaluator not required; evaluator may be precluded by abuse allegations | Trial court within discretion to deny evaluator |
| Credibility of abuse/alcohol allegations | Trial court erred in believing Duhe's allegations about abuse and substance use | Duhe's allegations supported by testimony; court credited her | Court gave deference to trial court credibility findings and did not abuse discretion |
| Custody schedule and parenting time | Schedule unduly limits Hiatt and prevents homework help | Schedule reflects parties' work schedules and child's best interest | Custody allocation and schedule not an abuse of discretion |
| Consideration of Art. 134 factors | Court ignored or mechanically applied statute | Court used statutory factors as guidelines and considered evidence | Court sufficiently considered factors; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Leard v. Schenker, 931 So.2d 355 (La. 2006) (child custody reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- AEB v. JBE, 752 So.2d 756 (La. 1999) (trial court custody rulings entitled to great weight)
- Stobart v. State through Dept. of Transp. and Development, 617 So.2d 880 (La. 1993) (deference to trial court credibility findings and reasonable inferences)
- Mulkey v. Mulkey, 118 So.3d 357 (La. 2013) (best‑interest analysis is fact‑specific)
- Robertson v. Robertson, 64 So.3d 354 (La. App.) (trial court not bound to mechanical application of Art. 134)
- Jaligam v. Pochampally, 206 So.3d 298 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2016) (custody cases assessed on individual facts)
- Dvilansky v. Correu, 204 So.3d 686 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2016) (trial court best positioned to judge witness demeanor)
- Watermeier v. Watermeier, 462 So.2d 1272 (La. App. 5th Cir. 1985) (child testimony considerations)