135 So. 3d 22
La. Ct. App.2013Background
- Parents (Randazzo and Prosperie) never married; child born Nov. 24, 2010. Mother moved with child from Louisiana to Katy, Texas in Aug. 2012.
- Father filed suit Sept. 7, 2012 seeking return of child, custody (domiciliary or shared), tax dependency exemption, and attorney fees; mother conceded technical violation of relocation notice statute.
- Trial court (Oct. 15, 2012) approved relocation implicitly, ordered shared custody on an alternating seven-day schedule after a one-month transition, required mother to provide transport, awarded father federal/state tax exemption, and awarded $500 in attorney fees and costs.
- Mother appealed, arguing trial court failed to properly apply best-interest/relocation factors, should have been named domiciliary parent, tax exemption award was improper, and attorney fees were unauthorized by statute.
- Appellate court reviewed best-interest factors (La. C.C. art. 134) and relocation factors (La. R.S. 9:355.14), affirmed shared custody, but found trial court erred by not designating a domiciliary parent and vacated the tax-exemption award; it affirmed the $500 attorney-fee award under the sanctions statute.
Issues
| Issue | Prosperie’s Argument | Randazzo’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether alternating seven‑day shared custody was in child's best interest/relocation decision | Trial court failed to consider statutory factors and acted on bias; mother should be domiciliary | Father argued relocation was not improper and shared custody appropriate | Affirmed shared custody; trial court did not clearly abuse discretion in finding relocation in child’s best interest |
| Failure to designate a domiciliary parent / implementation order | Mother argued she should be domiciliary as primary caregiver | Father sought joint/shared arrangement; trial court named no domiciliary parent | Amended: appellate court found error in not naming domiciliary parent; named Prosperie domiciliary given primary‑caregiver role and lack of implementation order or good cause |
| Award of federal/state tax dependency exemption to father | Mother: trial court made no statutory finding under La. R.S. 9:315.18 and support order pending, so award improper | Father obtained exemption at trial; trial court granted it | Vacated: appellate court held entitlement depends on child‑support order per statute; cannot determine until support order resolved |
| Award of $500 attorney fees for relocation notice violation | Mother: statutory amendment removed explicit “attorney fees” remedy; fees not recoverable under La. R.S. 9:355.6 | Father: sanctions available under La. R.S. 9:355.19 for frivolous/bad‑faith relocation; fees justified | Affirmed $500 fee: appellate court held §9:355.6 no longer authorizes attorney fees, but sanctions under §9:355.19 could support fees and trial court’s imposition was not clearly wrong given increased litigation costs from failure to give notice |
Key Cases Cited
- Martello v. Martello, 960 So.2d 186 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2007) (custody determinations are fact‑intensive and trial court afforded broad discretion)
- Curóle v. Curóle, 828 So.2d 1094 (La. 2002) (relocation decisions governed by best‑interest standard)
- Hernandez v. Jenkins, 122 So.3d 524 (La. 2013) (no preferential treatment to any single best‑interest factor)
- Gathen v. Gathen, 66 So.3d 1 (La. 2011) (trial court need not expressly analyze each statutory factor in reasons for judgment)
- Wolfe v. Hanson, 991 So.2d 13 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2008) (requirements for failing to designate domiciliary parent in joint custody context)
- Slaughter v. Board of Sup’rs of Southern Univ. & A&M Coll., 76 So.3d 465 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2011) (review standard for sanctions is manifest‑error/clearly‑wrong)
- Fransen v. City of New Orleans, 988 So.2d 225 (La. 2008) (statutory interpretation begins with plain language)
- Cleco Evangeline, LLC v. Louisiana Tax Comm’n, 813 So.2d 351 (La. 2002) (statutes construed according to fair import of words)