Johnson v. Clofer, 251 So. 3d 597

Father Dexter Johnson filed to establish filiation, custody, and visitation for twins born June 24, 2014; he is listed as father on birth certificates and sought shared custody and the tax dependency exemption.
Hearing occurred September 22, 2017; mother Tomika Clofer did not participate at that hearing (appeared later after submission), and she did not file any objection to the petition.
Johnson testified to significant involvement with the children, payment of most child support, insurance coverage, and proposed a 3-3-4-4 shared physical custody plan.
Trial court (Oct. 26, 2017) found Johnson the natural father, awarded joint custody, named Clofer the domiciliary (primary) parent, set a visitation schedule for Johnson, and denied his request for the tax exemption.
Johnson moved for a new trial (denied orally Dec. 22, 2017) and appealed; he argued the trial court’s domiciliary-parent designation lacked adequate evidentiary support under best-interest factors.
Appellate court vacated only the portion of the judgment naming Clofer domiciliary parent and remanded, finding the record insufficient to evaluate multiple La. C.C. art. 134 best-interest factors as to Clofer.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion by naming Clofer domiciliary parent	Johnson: No evidence was presented on many art. 134 factors re: Clofer; court relied on scant evidence and should have awarded shared or different designation	Clofer: (no record contest at hearing; appeared after submission) implicit argument that children resided mainly with her and trial court may keep continuity	Court: Vacated domiciliary-parent designation and remanded because record lacked sufficient evidence to assess multiple best-interest factors
Whether trial court properly weighed Johnson’s uncontradicted evidence	Johnson: Trial court improperly disregarded his uncontested testimony and proposed parenting plan	Clofer: (no contest)	Court: Even accepting Johnson’s evidence, insufficient information about Clofer required remand for further proceedings
Whether denial of tax dependency request was proper	Johnson: Requested tax exemption annually	Clofer: Not argued in record	Court: Denial affirmed as to immediate claim; court noted statutory showing lacked but allowed claim on alternating years upon proper showing (per statute)
Whether denial of new trial was improper	Johnson: New trial should have been granted because judgment contrary to evidence	Clofer: No contest in record	Court: Appeal proceeded; appellate remedy was vacatur in part and remand rather than granting new trial at that stage

Robertson v. Robertson, 64 So.3d 354 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2011) (trial court should decide custody under facts guided by art. 134 factors; discretion afforded trial court)
Robert v. Robert, 17 So.3d 1050 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2009) (custody decisions guided by best-interest factors and reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Martin v. Martin, 89 So.3d 526 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2012) (custody determinations entitled to great weight on appeal)
Bridges v. Bridges, 33 So.3d 914 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2010) (appellate review of custody requires clear showing of abuse of discretion)
Harvey v. Harvey, 133 So.3d 1 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2013) (best-interest analysis must be case-specific; factors are non-exclusive)
Byrd v. Byrd, 621 So.2d 124 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1993) (vacatur and remand warranted where record insufficient to support custody award)