166 So. 3d 348
La. Ct. App.2015Background
- Amy Hodges challenges a trial court judgment designating both parents as co-domiciliary and sharing equal physical custody.
- The petition for divorce was filed by Justin Hodges in May 2014; both parties requested joint custody and domiciliary status.
- The trial court awarded joint custody with equal physical custody and designated the parents as co-domiciliary in August 2014.
- Amy appeals, arguing there is no authority for co-domiciliary designation and requesting domiciliary status for herself.
- Louisiana RS 9:335 governs joint custody and requires either a domiciliary parent or an implementation order; designation of co-domiciliary parents is debated across courts.
- The court ultimately affirms the custody arrangement as to best-interest findings but remands for a proper joint custody implementation order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to designate co-domiciliary parents | Hodges argues no statutory authority for co-domiciliary designation after merits trial. | Trial court has discretion to designate co-domiciliary parents where in best interests and with a compliant implementation plan. | Designation as co-domiciliary parents affirmed; authority exists under RS 9:335 when best interests justify it. |
| Need for a joint custody implementation order | No implementation order was entered to allocate legal authority and responsibility. | An implementation order is required unless good cause shown not to issue one. | Remand for entry of a joint custody implementation order allocating legal authority and responsibility. |
| Best interests standard for co-domiciliary designation | Not explicitly argued beyond lack of authority. | The trial court’s factual findings support designation as best for the child. | Affirmed; trial court’s best-interest determination not clearly erroneous. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stewart v. Stewart, 86 So.3d 148 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 2012) (co-domiciliary designation may be allowed with implementation plan where in best interest)
- Molony v. Harris, 60 So.3d 70 (La.App. 4th Cir. 2011) (no authority for co-domiciliary status absent implementation order)
- Ketchum v. Ketchum, 882 So.2d 631 (La.App. 2nd Cir. 2004) (no authority for co-domiciliary status absent proper showing)
- Remson v. Remson, 672 So.2d 409 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1996) (acknowledges co-domiciliary concept in custody orders)
- St. Philip v. Montalbano, 108 So.3d 277 (La.App. 4th Cir. 2013) (recognizes exception for valid implementation order despite potential legality of co-domiciliary designation)