Alexander v. Alexander
2002 WL 31513159, 831 So.2d 1060 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In Louisiana, child custody determinations must prioritize the best interest of the child, rendering it an abuse of discretion to impose an evenly split physical custody schedule for very young children between parents residing 1700 miles apart due to a lack of stability and continuity. However, joint legal custody may still be appropriate given modern communication, and alimony pendente lite depends on the claimant's needs and the other party's ability to pay, considering all financial obligations.
Facts:
- Scott G. Alexander and Sharon Alexander were married on August 24, 1995, in Elizabethtown, Kentucky.
- In July 2000, Scott, a Staff Sergeant in the U.S. Army, was assigned to Fort Polk, Louisiana, and the couple moved to Vernon Parish.
- Two minor children were born of the marriage: Kenneth, who was three years old, and Christy, who was just over one year old, at the time of the trial.
- On December 6, 2001, Sharon left the family home in Fort Polk and took the children to her former home in Los Angeles, California, due to disagreements over Scott's uncontrolled spending.
- Sharon and Scott are both originally from Los Angeles, where both their parents and extended family still reside; neither parent has family members in Louisiana.
- Sharon had been the primary caregiver for the children, staying at home with them at all times since their birth.
- Scott's military duty schedule would require him to leave the children from 6:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on workdays, and he is subject to field deployments for weeks at a time.
- Sharon's plan for childcare involved leaving the children with her or Scott's parents, or her older siblings, in Los Angeles.
Procedural Posture:
- Less than a week after Sharon Alexander left Louisiana, Scott G. Alexander sued for divorce in a Louisiana state trial court.
- At a hearing on the matter, child custody and interim spousal support were also issues.
- The trial court granted Scott and Sharon joint care, custody, and control of their minor children, designating them co-domiciliary parents, with an evenly split custody schedule of 183 days for Scott and 182 days for Sharon, despite the significant distance between their residences.
- The trial court also ruled that Scott would not be required to pay interim periodic spousal support to Sharon as long as he continued to pay the couple's substantial community outstanding debts.
- Sharon Alexander appealed the trial court's decision to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit, challenging the split custody arrangement and the interim spousal support ruling.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by ordering an evenly split physical custody arrangement for very young children in alternating six-month increments between parents residing 1700 miles apart? 2. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by granting joint legal custody to parents residing a significant distance apart? 3. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by not ordering Scott Alexander to pay interim spousal support to Sharon Alexander, given his continued payment of substantial community debts?
Opinions:
Majority - Yelverton, J.
1. Yes, the trial court abused its discretion by ordering an evenly split physical custody arrangement for very young children between parents residing 1700 miles apart. The paramount consideration in custody cases is always the best interest of the child, as per La. Civ.Code art. 131 and precedent like Bergeron v. Bergeron. Joint custody does not necessitate equal physical time, but rather substantial time, and equal time is not required by law, especially given the considerable distance. Switching homes every six months, particularly for young children, is detrimental to stability and continuity of environment, which is a crucial factor in custody matters, as established in cases such as Ezell v. Kelley and Evans v. Lungrin, which found similar long-distance alternating custody plans to be abuses of discretion. The court noted the lack of factual basis or expert testimony to support the 50-50 plan being in the children's best interest. Sharon had been the primary caregiver and could provide a more stable environment with the support of her extended family in Los Angeles, whereas Scott's plan involved significant reliance on a post nursery and his military duties presented challenges to consistent care. The court therefore reversed the physical custody award, granting Sharon sole physical custody and remanding for a determination of a reasonable visitation plan for Scott. 2. No, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by granting joint legal custody. The distance between parents, while a factor, assumes less importance in determining joint legal custody due to modern communication methods like telephone. The court cited Evans v. Lungrin, which held that removal of a parent from Louisiana should not, by itself, constitute sufficient reason to terminate joint legal custody. Scott can still participate in decision-making concerning his children, therefore, the award of joint legal custody is upheld. 3. No, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by not ordering Scott Alexander to pay interim spousal support to Sharon Alexander. Alimony pendente lite is determined based on the claimant's needs, the other party's ability to pay, and the marital standard of living, as outlined in La. Civ.Code art. 113. The primary inquiry is whether the claimant has sufficient income to maintain their pre-divorce standard of living, and the secondary inquiry is the defendant's means, considering their entire financial condition. The trial court is vested with wide discretion in these matters. The court considered Sharon was receiving monetary help and free board from her parents, and the substantial community debts Scott was solely responsible for paying. It concluded that Scott would not have sufficient means to pay temporary alimony while shouldering these debts. This determination showed no abuse of discretion and was affirmed.
Concurring - Woodard, J.
Justice Woodard concurred in the result of the majority opinion.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the principle that the 'best interest of the child' is paramount in Louisiana custody disputes, particularly for young children. It establishes a strong precedent against long-distance, equally split physical custody arrangements that lack stability, even while affirming the viability of joint legal custody due to modern communication. Future cases involving geographically separated parents will likely face higher scrutiny for equal physical custody plans, demanding clear evidence that such arrangements serve the child's best interest over parental desires for equal time. Additionally, the case reiterates the broad discretion of trial courts in balancing spousal support needs against the paying spouse's full financial obligations, including community debts.
