Lawson v. Lawson
121 So. 3d 769
La. Ct. App.2013Background
- Amanda and Berley Lawson divorced after separating in 2006; an initial consent judgment (Dec. 2006) named Amanda domiciliary parent and set visitation.
- Amanda moved with the child to Shreveport in Feb. 2007; Berley filed motions to enforce/modify custody and sought the child to remain in Red River Parish school.
- In June 2009 the parents agreed (read into the record) to alternate-week shared custody, Amanda to remain domiciliary, and to defer the school issue; an “Interim Judgment” reflecting that agreement was signed Aug. 10, 2010.
- Berley later sought to modify the 2010 judgment; after trial in 2012 the court found Berley failed to prove a material change in circumstance or that the requested relief was in the child’s best interest.
- The trial court kept the 2010 judgment in effect, denied moving the child for 8th grade, deferred a final high‑school-school decision until May 2013, and ordered updated psychological evaluations split between the parties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Amanda) | Defendant's Argument (Berley) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in keeping the 2010 judgment in effect | The court should have dismissed Berley’s motion and reverted parties to the initial 2006 judgment once it found no material change or best‑interest basis to modify | 2010 judgment is the operative consent judgment; any modification requires proof of material change and best interest | Court: 2010 judgment was a final consent judgment as to most issues; because Berley failed to meet his burden, the court correctly left the 2010 judgment in effect |
| Whether school choice was properly before the court | School choice was not properly before the court; as domiciliary parent Amanda has statutory decision authority | Berley raised school choice in his motions and the issue remained open; nondomiciliary can seek judicial review showing domiciliary decision is not in child’s best interest | Court: School choice was properly before the court; trial court could consider and hear child’s testimony |
| Whether the trial court erred by deferring final school decision until May 2013 | Amanda: domiciliary parent has presumptive right to choose school under La. R.S. 9:335(B)(3); court should not defer | Berley: judicial review is available; best interest may justify delay and monitoring | Court: Deferral was within discretion; best interest requires monitoring and further information (updated evaluation) before long‑term high‑school decision |
| Whether ordering updated psychological evaluations and splitting costs was error | Amanda raised that ordering evaluations and equal cost split was erroneous | Trial court ordered evaluation to assist best‑interest determination and split costs | Court: Issue unbriefed on appeal by Amanda and therefore abandoned; trial court order stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Trettin v. Trettin, 839 So.2d 1272 (La. App. 2d Cir.) (consent custody judgments are final and govern until modified)
- Evans v. Lungrin, 708 So.2d 731 (La.) (material-change standard for custody modification)
- Bergeron v. Bergeron, 492 So.2d 1193 (La.) (custody findings entitled to great weight; Bergeron standard)
- Bergeron v. Bergeron, 6 So.3d 948 (La. App. 2d Cir.) (discussing domiciliary parent presumptive authority subject to judicial review)
- Earle v. Earle, 998 So.2d 828 (La. App. 2d Cir.) (best interest of the child is paramount in custody disputes)