282 So.3d 304
La. Ct. App.2019Background
- Brittany Turner and Michael Abrams, parents of two boys (born 2007 and 2012), litigated custody after Brittany left the children with her father in Shreveport in 2017; Michael retrieved the children and kept them until trial.
- Michael filed for sole custody alleging abandonment; Brittany countered and sought sole custody but testified she sought joint custody at trial.
- After a Hearing Officer Conference and a trial (July 2018, with a Watermeir interview of the older child), the trial court awarded joint custody but designated Michael (Monroe) as domiciliary parent during the school year; Brittany resides in New Orleans.
- The trial court evaluated La. C.C. art. 134 factors, finding several factors (2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9) favored Michael, some equal, and factor 12 favored Brittany.
- Brittany appealed claiming the trial court abused its discretion in crediting Michael and in naming him domiciliary parent; the appellate court affirmed but remanded for a determinative visitation schedule because the submitted plan was indeterminate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by crediting Michael's testimony over Brittany's (credibility/abandonment) | Brittany: Michael contradicted his petition, lacked corroboration, and her witnesses supported her account; his abandonment allegations were exaggerated. | Michael: His testimony described facts that justified his petition (children left with grandfather and contact ceased); discrepancies were typical of adversarial custody disputes. | No abuse of discretion; appellate court affirmed trial court's credibility determinations. |
| Whether the La. C.C. art. 134 factors support naming Brittany domiciliary parent | Brittany: Factors (stability, permanence, home/school continuity) and child preference favored her; she maintained primary care at times. | Michael: He had more current housing stability, continuous employment, and the children had recent school continuity in Monroe. | Trial court reasonably weighed factors and slightly favored Michael on several material factors; joint custody with Michael domiciliary affirmed. |
| Whether the visitation plan was adequate | Brittany: Visitation must be determinate, frequent, and regular given her non-domiciliary status and distance. | Michael: Submitted a visitation proposal but it was indeterminate and lacked a set schedule. | Visitation plan was inadequate; case remanded to trial court to set a determinate visitation schedule. |
Key Cases Cited
- Evans v. Lungrin, 708 So. 2d 731 (La. 1998) (best interest of the child is the paramount consideration in custody determinations)
- Hoskins v. Hoskins, 814 So. 2d 773 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2002) (appellate deference to trial court credibility findings in custody disputes)
- McIntosh v. McIntosh, 768 So. 2d 219 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2000) (La. C.C. art. 134 factors guide custody decisions; weight of factors is discretionary)
- Collins v. Collins, 830 So. 2d 448 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2002) (joint custody does not require strictly equal physical custody)
- Jones v. Jones, 877 So. 2d 1061 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2004) (substantial time, not strict equality, is mandated under joint custody framework)
- McCready v. McCready, 924 So. 2d 471 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2006) (trial court's opportunity to assess witness demeanor warrants deference on credibility)