Speights v. RockwoodSpeights v. Rockwood
This is a child custody case. The divorced father, a non-resident of Louisiana, appeals from a judgment awarding custody of his minor son to the mother, a resident of Lоuisiana. The father maintains that under LSA-R.S. 13:1700 et seq., the Louisiana court should have given full faith and credit to an earlier Texas decree awarding custody to him.
FACTS
Howard F. Speights, Jr., and Laurie P. Speights Rockwood were married in Clayton County, Georgia on October 29, 1977. On October 6, 1978, their son, Daniel, was born. Both husband and wife were in the United States Army, аnd on November 23, 1979, while stationed in West Germany, they physically separated. Shortly after their separation Laurie returned to the States with her son and resided in Arkansаs.
On January 16,1980 Howard filed suit in his home state of Georgia seeking a divorce from his wife and asking for the custody of Daniel. The divorce was granted on May 22, 1980, but no determination of child custody was made.
Between May 1980 and April 1982, Laurie lived in Batesville, Arkansas; Hereford, Texas; Vidor, Texas; and Beaumont, Texas. While Laurie was living in Beaumont, Howаrd had her personally served with a petition to determine child custody which he had filed in the Domestic Relations Court for Jefferson County, Texas. On February 12, 1982 both parties represented by counsel, appeared before the Honorable James M. Farris for a temporary custody proceeding. After the hearing, both рarties were awarded joint custody pending the final custody decree. Physical custody was awarded to the father, and the mother was restrained from removing the child from Jefferson County.
Shortly after the temporary custody hearing but before the father could obtain physical custody of Daniel, Laurie left the State of Tеxas with her son and established residency in Vernon Parish, Louisiana.
Howard and his attorney, along with Charles Smallwood, Laurie’s attorney, appeared before Judge Farris on April 8,1982 for final determination of child custody. Laurie was not present. After ruling that the Texas court had proper jurisdiction to determine the matter, Judge Farris awarded custody of Daniel to the father.
On October 25, 1982 Howard initiated an action in Vernon Parish, Louisiana, to obtain recognition of the Texas custody decree. On October 16, 1982 the trial court heard the issue of recognition of the foreign judgment. Although the trial court noted that the Texas court had jurisdiction and that Laurie had knоwingly fled the State of Texas with the child, it refused to
Laurie subsequently filed a reconventional demand to obtain the custody of Daniel. Howard interposed objections of lack of jurisdiction and res judicata to the Louisiana custody action which were overruled by the trial court. On June 14, 1983 the trial court awarded custody to the mother.
Howard has appealed the custody order of the Louisiana court specifying that the trial court erred in refusing tо give full faith and credit to the custody decree of the Domestic Relations Court for Jefferson County, Texas.
The issue in this case is whether the Uniform Child Custody Law denies jurisdiction to a Louisiana court over this case.
The Uniform Child Custody Law went into effect in Louisiana on October 1, 1978. The purposes of the law are to: provide some stability to reasoned custody decrees by discouraging relitigation; deter custody determinations by physical abduction; avoid jurisdictional competition and conflicting custody decrees; and attain a secure home environment necessary for a child’s well being. LSA-R.S. 13:1700(A); Revere v. Revere,
In Settle v. Settle,
“A close reading of the [Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction] Act discloses a schizophrenic attempt tо bring about an orderly system of decision and at the same time to protect the best interests of the children who may be immediately before the court. When put tо the test of a factual situation presenting an irreconcilable conflict between those two interests, we read the Act as making predominate [sic] the best interests of the children before the court.”
For the foregoing and following reasons we find that the Louisiana court had jurisdiction over the child custody matter and was not bound to simply recognize and enforce the Texas decree.
From the outset we note that we do not condone the actions of Laurie whereby she absconded with her child from Texas before a final custody decree could be rendered. Nevertheless from the general purposes of the Act it is clear that the mere physical presence of the child does not suffice to give jurisdiction to the Louisiana courts either to determine custody or tо modify a foreign custody decree. For a Louisiana court to have jurisdiction the home state test of LSA-R.S. 13:1702(A)(1) must be met or the best interest of the child, test of LSA-R.S. 13:1702(A)(2) must be satisfied. Moore v. Moore,
Under LSA-R.S. 13:1702(A)(1) Louisiana has jurisdiction to determine child custody because the child’s home state at the commencement of these proceedings was Louisiana. LSA-R.S. 13:1701(5) defines “home state” in pertinent part as:
“... the state in which the child immediately preceding the time involved lived with his parents, a parent, or a person acting as parent, for at least six consecutive months, ....”
When appellant initiated these proceedings to recognize the Texas custody decree, the child, his mother and stepfather had resid
In summation, the question presented this court was since Louisiana has jurisdiction as the home state of the minor child, is it precluded from exercising its jurisdiction for the determinаtion of child custody because the mother of the child left the jurisdiction of the State of Texas without the consent of the father who was entitled to custody. Our answer is no. In Hadley v. Hadley,
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. All costs are assessed against Howard F. Speights, Jr.
AFFIRMED.