Manno v. Manno
154 So. 3d 655
La. Ct. App.2014Background
- Parents Molly and Mark Manno entered a consent custody judgment on November 27, 2007, granting joint custody with Molly as domiciliary parent after earlier (2006) sexual abuse allegations against Mark were investigated but not prosecuted.
- Molly later sought supervised visitation (January 2011) and then modification of custody alleging ongoing effects of prior sexual abuse and, in 2013, claimed she had been coerced into dismissing the earlier allegations and signing the consent judgment.
- A 2010 Utah evaluation by Dr. David Corwin concluded A.W.M. showed trauma, but much of Corwin’s opinions relied on events predating the consent judgment.
- Trial court limited admissibility of evidence to events occurring after November 27, 2007 (the consent judgment date), excluding most pre-judgment abuse evidence absent a compelling reason.
- During litigation a lewd photo taken by Mark inadvertently appeared on the child’s phone; court temporarily restricted Mark to supervised visitation and later required psychological evaluation and treatment recommendations for Mark.
- After a multi-day trial the court awarded joint custody to both parents, named Molly domiciliary parent, ordered specified visitation, and denied Molly’s attempt to relitigate pre-judgment abuse claims; Molly appealed and Mark answered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Manno) | Defendant's Argument (Mark) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of evidence predating the consent judgment | Molly argued the child’s present symptoms and best-interest analysis require considering the child’s entire history, including alleged sexual abuse before Nov. 27, 2007. | Mark argued those matters were resolved/known at the time of the consent judgment and are not relevant to a modification absent a material post-judgment change. | Trial court did not abuse discretion in excluding evidence before the consent judgment absent a compelling reason; exclusion affirmed. |
| Claim that Molly was coerced into dismissing charges and signing consent judgment | Molly contended she was coerced/duressed and sought to attack the validity of the consent judgment. | Mark (and record) pointed to prior hearings and juvenile court findings that dismissal was free, voluntary, and without coercion; Molly waited years and did not seek timely annulment. | Court held duress/annulment claims untimely/not preserved; exclusion and refusal to revisit the consent judgment affirmed. |
| Weight of expert recommendations re: custody (Dr. Simoneaux recommended shared/equal custody) | Molly sought sole custody; relied on evidence of harm and experts (e.g., Corwin) to justify modification. | Mark sought shared custody; trial court considered expert opinions but has discretion to accept or reject experts and tailor custody order to child’s best interest. | Trial court’s award of joint custody (Molly domiciliary) was within its broad discretion despite expert recommending equal custody; affirmed. |
| Relevance of Corwin report based largely on pre-judgment events | Molly relied on Corwin’s conclusions of trauma to support supervised visitation/ modification. | Mark and court noted Corwin’s opinions relied largely on excluded pre-judgment events, reducing their admissible weight. | Trial court properly limited Corwin’s testimony where it depended on excluded pre-judgment evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bergeron v. Bergeron, 492 So.2d 1193 (La. 1986) (standard for custody modification where original decree was contested vs. stipulated)
- Evans v. Lungrin, 708 So.2d 731 (La. 1998) (party seeking modification after a stipulated decree must show material change and that modification is in child’s best interest)
- Walker v. Walker, 880 So.2d 956 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2004) (court must consider La. C.C. art. 134 factors in best-interest determination)
- Chandler v. Chandler, 132 So.3d 413 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2013) (trial court’s broad discretion in custody matters and credibility determinations)
- Crowson v. Crowson, 742 So.2d 107 (La. App. 2d Cir. 1999) (relevance of evidence predating a stipulated judgment and when exclusion is improper)
- Green v. K-Mart Corp., 874 So.2d 838 (La. 2004) (trial court may accept or reject expert testimony and substitute its own judgment where warranted)