163 So. 3d 911
La. Ct. App.2015Background
- David and Samantha Szwak married in 1998, divorced in 2004, and have two children aged 15 and 12.
- They previously shared joint custody and co-domiciliary status per an interim plan and Dr. Susan Vigen's evaluation; a parenting coordinator and a modified interim schedule followed in 2009.
- In 2012, David was involved in a battery incident with his older son; Samantha obtained multiple protective orders against David in 2012, leading to supervised visitation for him.
- Dr. Richard Williams conducted a court-ordered mental health evaluation in 2012 and 2013, with findings affecting custody recommendations.
- In 2013–2014, custody litigation proceeded alongside the protective-order proceedings, culminating in an October 2014 trial court order granting joint custody with Samantha as domiciliary parent and a JCIP.
- The trial court’s comprehensive custody ruling emphasized the children’s preferences, expert testimony on parental fitness, and concerns about both parents’ conduct, with the final judgment entered November 6, 2014.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Best interest standard for custody | David argues sole custody best serves the children. | Samantha argues joint custody with her as domiciliary parent serves best | Affirmed joint custody; no clear abuse of discretion; substantial time awarded to David. |
| Adequacy of David's access under joint custody | David contends he should have more frequent contact. | Samantha contends frequent contact balanced with children’s preferences. | Court found substantial contact achieved; allocation of custody time upheld. |
| Vacatur of the final protective order | David seeks vacatur of the 2012 final protective order. | Samantha maintains discretion of the order’s continuance. | Trial court’s denial of vacatur affirmed. |
| Costs allocation | David contends all costs should not be imposed on him alone. | Samantha argues fairness given ongoing disputes. | Reversed; costs split equally; appellate costs assessed to David. |
| Sealing of the record | David requests sealing to protect privacy. | Public access outweighed by insufficient showing of risk. | Record sealing denied; open-record preference upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chandler v. Chandler, 132 So.3d 413 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2013) (custody factors; best interest not mechanically applied)
- Semmes v. Semmes, 27 So.3d 1024 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2009) (custody factors framework)
- Langford v. Langford, 138 So.3d 101 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2014) (substantial time rather than equal split under joint custody)
- Stephenson v. Stephenson, 847 So.2d 175 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2003) (joint custody considerations and parental fitness)
- Manno v. Manno, 154 So.3d 655 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2014) (application of Art. 134 factors; evidence weighed in custody decisions)
- C.M.J. v. L.M.C., 156 So.3d 16 (La. 2014) (appellate deference to trial court custody determinations)
- Mulkey v. Mulkey, 118 So.3d 357 (La. 2013) (custody determination and trial court discretion)
- Gerhardt v. Gerhardt, 70 So.3d 863 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2011) (caution against overturning trial court custody rulings)
- Copeland v. Copeland, 966 So.2d 1040 (La. 2007) (open records; balancing privacy vs public access in child contexts)
- Capital City Press v. East Baton Rouge Parish Metro. Council, 696 So.2d 562 (La. 1997) (public records right vs privacy protection)
- In re Kemp, 32 So.3d 1050 (La. 2010) (privacy interests in family records; sealing considerations)