Jeremy George, Et Ux. v. Robbie Dugas, Et Ux.
203 So. 3d 1043
| La. | 2016Background
- Three children (ages 6, 9, 14) were removed from biological parents Summer and Jeremy George in a 2010 CINC proceeding and placed with foster parents Bryan and Robbie Dugas.
- In July 2012 the district court entered a final CINC judgment placing the children with the Dugas, terminating the CINC proceedings, releasing DCFS supervision, and granting the Georges supervised visitation.
- The Georges later filed to regain custody; a district court (relying on precedent later overruled) returned the children to the Georges, concluding the Dugas had not borne the burden to show harm from transfer.
- The court of appeal reversed and rendered for the Dugas, holding the Georges had the burden to show a material change in circumstances and failed to do so.
- The Louisiana Supreme Court granted certiorari, heard argument, then sua sponte recalled the writ as improvidently granted (per curiam) and denied relief; Justices Weimer and Clark dissented (Weimer wrote a detailed dissent concluding the July 2012 order was a guardianship and that the Georges failed to meet the clear-and-convincing standard to modify it).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Georges) | Defendant's Argument (Dugas) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nature of July 2012 judgment: guardianship vs traditional custody | Judgment lacks formal guardianship findings so it is traditional custody | Judgment’s language, finality of CINC termination, and permanent placement indicate guardianship | Majority: writ recalled, no merits decision; Dissent (Weimer): judgment is guardianship on substance despite some formal defects |
| Applicable legal regime and burden of proof | Civil Code custody standard should apply (Georges argue focus on parents’ changed circumstances) | Children’s Code guardianship regime applies; challengers must meet Children’s Code standards | Majority: writ recalled; Dissent: Children’s Code guardianship regime (Article 724) governs and challengers bear burden of proof |
| Standard to modify/terminate placement | Georges: their rehabilitation and stability constitute a material change warranting custody return | Dugas: guardianship is intended to be permanent; statute requires clear-and-convincing proof of a substantial change in guardian’s or child’s circumstances or that advantages of change substantially outweigh harm | Majority: no decision; Dissent: Georges failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence the Article 724(D) standards — guardianship should remain with Dugas |
| Visitation remand | Georges seek custody; did not contest visitation remand | Dugas did not seek review of visitation remand | Appellate court remanded to determine visitation; Supreme Court majority declined to reach merits (left remand undisturbed implicitly); Dissent would leave appellate court’s visitation remand in place |
Key Cases Cited
- Bergeron v. Bergeron, 492 So.2d 1193 (La. 1986) (announcing stability-focused custody-modification standard used in guardianship statute)
- Tracie F. v. Francisco D., 188 So.3d 231 (La. 2016) (discusses burden to show material change in custody disputes; distinguishable where custody arrangements differ)
- Cutts v. Cutts, 931 So.2d 467 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2006) (precedent relied upon by trial court but later overruled by this court)
- Villaume v. Villaume, 363 So.2d 448 (La. 1978) (final judgments and limits on post-judgment substantive amendment)
- Evans v. Lungrin, 708 So.2d 731 (La. 1998) (when trial errors taint fact-finding, appellate court conducts de novo review)
- Sharp v. Zeller, 38 So. 449 (La. 1905) (interpretation favoring construction consonant with proper decree on facts and law)