Yerger v. Yerger, 162 So. 3d 603

Loren Beau Yerger and Ashley Yerger married in 2006 and have two minor children (born 2007 and 2011). Parties separated and reconciled multiple times; divorce proceedings resumed in 2014.
In January 2011 the parties had interim joint custody with Ashley domiciliary; they later reconciled and dismissed an earlier divorce petition.
At the June 2014 custody hearing Beau sought shared custody (claiming prior week-on/week-off practice); Ashley sought joint custody with her as domiciliary parent citing stability and the child’s ADHD.
Evidence included Beau’s full‑time work, fishing tournaments and past bankruptcy/foreclosure risks; Ashley planned to live with her parents and testified to providing a structured routine and consistent medication for the child with ADHD.
The trial court found most La. C.C. art. 134 factors neutral but held factors (3) (capacity to provide material needs) and (5) (permanence of custodial home) favored Ashley, awarded joint custody with Ashley domiciliary and a physical‑custody schedule giving Beau alternating weekends (Thu 6 p.m. to Mon morning) and equal division of holidays/school breaks.
Beau moved for new trial arguing the court failed to require clear and convincing proof to deny shared/equal custody; the motion was denied. Beau appealed; the appellate court affirmed.

Issue	Ashley's Argument	Beau's Argument	Held
Whether trial court properly applied La. C.C. art. 134 factors (esp. factors (3) & (5)) in awarding joint custody with Ashley domiciliary	Ashley: She provides structure, has steady employment, a concrete plan to live with parents, and better routine for child with ADHD	Beau: Ashley lacks independent financial history; both homes equally suitable; he has parenting history and prior week-on/week-off agreement	Court: No abuse of discretion; factors (3) and (5) reasonably favored Ashley given structure, medication routine, and Ashley’s housing plan; joint custody with Ashley domiciliary affirmed
Whether trial court erred by not ordering shared/equal physical custody under La. R.S. 9:335	Ashley: Proposed plan gives Beau frequent and continuing contact; past attempt at shared custody failed; Beau failed to follow routines and medication schedule	Beau: Statute prefers equal sharing when feasible; both parents work and live locally; no evidence shared custody is infeasible	Court: Statute requires frequent and continuing contact but not strict equality; substantial time (alternating long weekends, shared holidays/school breaks) meets statutory goal; no abuse of discretion in denying equal/shared custody

Atkins v. Atkins, 106 So.3d 614 (La. App. 2d Cir.) (best interest is primary consideration in custody)
Watson v. Watson, 46 So.3d 218 (La. App. 2d Cir.) (trial court has vast discretion in custody decisions)
Slaughter v. Slaughter, 1 So.3d 788 (La. App. 2d Cir.) (credibility findings support trial court discretion)
McCready v. McCready, 924 So.2d 471 (La. App. 2d Cir.) (trial court’s credibility assessments afforded weight)
Thompson v. Thompson, 532 So.2d 101 (La.) (custody findings will not be reversed absent clear abuse of discretion)
Langford v. Langford, 138 So.3d 101 (La. App. 2d Cir.) (joint custody does not require strict equal physical time)
Stephenson v. Stephenson, 847 So.2d 175 (La. App. 2d Cir.) (substantial time, not strict equality, satisfies joint custody scheme)
Craft v. Craft, 805 So.2d 1213 (La. App. 2d Cir.) (same)
Wilson v. Finley, 146 So.3d 282 (La. App. 2d Cir.) (appellate review of custody requires clear showing of abuse of discretion)