Bergeron v. Bergeron
55 U.S.L.W. 2215, 492 So. 2d 1193 (1986)
Rule of Law:
To modify a considered decree of permanent child custody, the moving party must prove either that the continuation of the present custody is so deleterious to the child as to justify a modification, or that the harm likely to be caused by a change of environment is substantially outweighed by its advantages to the child.
Facts:
- Burke Bergeron (Father) and Marie Bergeron McLee (Mother) divorced in 1978, and Mother was awarded sole custody of their two-year-old son, Terrence.
- Mother subsequently remarried twice and moved to Shreveport, while Father remained in Jefferson Parish.
- In late 1983, Mother allowed Terrence to visit Father for Christmas and remain through the spring semester; Father claimed this was a permanent surrender of custody, while Mother claimed it was temporary.
- Terrence returned to Mother in June 1984, but during a subsequent visit to Father in August 1984, Father improperly retained physical custody of the child despite Mother's protests.
- Father filed a petition to modify the custody arrangement to name himself sole custodian, alleging changes in circumstances including Mother's remarriages and his physical retention of the child.
Procedural Posture:
- The divorce court awarded sole custody to the Mother in the initial 1978 judgment.
- The Father filed three unsuccessful actions to modify custody between 1979 and 1981.
- The Father filed a fourth petition to change custody in the trial court.
- The trial court set aside the original decree and entered a joint custody order designating the Father as the primary custodian.
- The Mother appealed the modification to the Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision to modify custody.
- The Mother petitioned the Supreme Court of Louisiana for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a party seeking to modify a prior considered custody decree bear a heavy burden of proof to show that a material change in circumstances has occurred and that a change in custody is necessary for the child's best interest?
Opinions:
Majority - Dennis
Yes. The court affirmed that a heavy burden of proof is required to disturb a permanent custody award to ensure stability for the child. The court reasoned that while the legislature codified the 'best interest of the child' principle in 1977 and 1982, it did not intend to abrogate the jurisprudential rules designed to implement that principle, including the change of circumstances rule and the heavy burden of proof. The court emphasized that the threat of litigation and changing environments is damaging to children. Consequently, the court refined the burden of proof to allow modification not only when the current situation is deleterious but also in narrow cases where the benefits of changing custody clearly and substantially outweigh the harm of disrupting the child's life. Applying this to the present case, the court found that the Father's improper retention of the child and the Mother's remarriage did not meet this rigorous standard.
Analysis:
Bergeron is the seminal case in Louisiana family law regarding custody modification. It resolved confusion created by earlier legislative amendments (the 1977 Civil Code amendment and the 1982 Joint Custody Law) by clarifying that the 'best interest of the child' statute did not eliminate the judicial presumption in favor of maintaining the status quo. The decision establishes a high threshold for modification to prevent vexatious litigation and to protect children from the trauma of being shuttled between parents. It balances the need for stability against the need for flexibility in extraordinary cases where a change is overwhelmingly beneficial, even if the current situation isn't strictly 'deleterious.'
