Sanders v. Brown
110 So. 3d 1237
La. Ct. App.2013Background
- LeDonald Sanders and Felisha Brown are nonmarital parents of a son born September 7, 2010; Felisha is the domiciliary parent per the final judgment.
- The parties previously lived together (Sept 2010–Feb 2011) amid a troubled relationship; Sanders had relationships with other women during that period.
- A protective order against Sanders was denied January 6, 2012, after a period of no contact with the child.
- December 8, 2011, Sanders petitioned to establish paternity and custody, seeking domiciliary status for himself with Felisha having physical custody on weekends.
- The trial court granted joint custody with Felisha as domiciliary parent and Sanders having physical custody on weekends and certain holidays; final judgment entered April 26, 2012.
- Sanders appeals arguing the court failed to properly apply La. Rev. Stat. 9:335(A)(2)(b) to require equal sharing of physical custody.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether joint custody requires strict equal time sharing | Sanders argues 9:335(A)(2)(b) mandates equal sharing when feasible. | Brown contends equal sharing is not required; substantial time suffices if in the child’s best interest. | No strict equality required; substantial time suffices. |
| Whether de novo review is warranted for custody when equal sharing is not mandated | Sanders invokes Evans for de novo review on equal-sharing failure. | Court should defer to trial court discretion; no de novo review standard applies here. | De novo review not warranted; discretionary standard applies. |
| Whether the trial court properly applied La. C.C. art. 134 factors to determine best interest | Sanders argues the court erred by not appropriately weighing the factors. | Court adequately considered the statutory factors and credibility determinations. | Court properly applied factors; no reversible error. |
| Whether there was an abuse of discretion in awarding Felisha domiciliary status with Sanders having weekend custody | Joint custody with alternating weeks was feasible and in the child’s best interest. | Trial court weighed credibility and factors; discretion supported by the record. | No abuse of discretion; joint custody affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Evans v. Lungrin, 708 So.2d 731 (La. 1998) (de novo review not automatic in custody when equal sharing is not mandated)
- Barrios v. Ramos, 32 So.3d 324 (La.App.2d Cir. 2010) (9:335(A)(2)(b) does not require strict equality of time)
- Stephenson v. Stephenson, 847 So.2d 175 (La.App.2d Cir. 2003) (best interest standard; case-by-case custody determinations)
- Watson v. Watson, 46 So.3d 218 (La.App.2d Cir. 2010) (trial court has vast discretion; appellate reluctance to disturb custody plans)
- Coleman v. Coleman, 87 So.3d 246 (La.App.2d Cir. 2012) (art. 134 factors guide, not mechanical enumeration)
- Bergeron v. Bergeron, 6 So.3d 948 (La.App.2d Cir. 2009) (factors are a guide; relative weight within court’s discretion)