Creed v. Creed
647 So.2d 1362, 1994 WL 707238 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a child custody dispute between a natural parent and a non-parent, the parent has a paramount right to custody which can only be overcome by clear and convincing evidence that awarding custody to the parent would result in substantial harm to the child.
Facts:
- Denise Creed and Mark Creed were married and had two minor children, Sheena and Markus.
- After the couple separated due to marital problems, Denise Creed struggled financially and lived a transient lifestyle, often staying with family and friends.
- Denise Creed frequently left the children in the care of their paternal grandparents, James and Delila Creed, for weekends.
- Mark Creed, the children's father, admitted to physically abusing the children.
- Despite her financial struggles and lack of support from Mark Creed, Denise Creed ensured the children were well-nourished, loved, and generally well cared for.
- There was one disputed allegation that Denise Creed brought the children to the grandparents' home unbathed and disheveled on one occasion.
Procedural Posture:
- Denise Creed filed a Petition for Protective Orders against Mark Creed in a Louisiana trial court.
- Subsequently, Mark Creed filed a Petition for Divorce in the same court, seeking custody of the two minor children.
- After a hearing, the trial court granted custody of the children to the paternal grandparents, James and Delila Creed, finding that custody with either parent would result in substantial harm.
- The trial court ordered Mark Creed to pay child support to his parents and alimony to Denise Creed.
- Denise Creed, as plaintiff-appellant, appealed the trial court's custody determination to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a child custody dispute, does a parent's economic instability and transient lifestyle, without more, meet the 'substantial harm' threshold required under Louisiana law to award custody to a non-parent over the natural parent?
Opinions:
Majority - Saunders, Judge
No. A natural parent's right to custody cannot be overcome by a non-parent solely based on the parent's economic instability or lifestyle, as such factors do not, by themselves, constitute the 'substantial harm' required by law. The Louisiana Civil Code establishes a two-prong test before awarding custody to a non-parent: a court must find that (1) an award of custody to the parent would result in substantial harm to the child, and (2) an award to the non-parent is required to serve the child's best interests. The burden of proving substantial harm lies with the non-parent and requires compelling reasons and convincing proof. Here, while the trial court correctly found that the physically abusive father would cause substantial harm, it erred in its finding regarding the mother, Denise Creed. Her poverty and transient living situation are not sufficient grounds to deprive her of her paramount right to custody, especially when the record shows the children were loved, nourished, and otherwise well cared for. While the grandparents may be more financially stable, this factor alone cannot be used to deny a natural parent custody.
Analysis:
This decision strongly reaffirms the legal doctrine of parental preference in custody disputes against non-parents. It clarifies that the 'substantial harm' standard is a stringent requirement that cannot be met by merely showing a non-parent can provide a more financially stable or conventional home. The ruling protects economically disadvantaged parents from losing their children to more affluent relatives, focusing the legal inquiry on parental fitness and the risk of actual harm rather than a comparison of lifestyles. This precedent reinforces that courts should not engage in a 'better home' analysis but must instead find compelling evidence of unfitness that rises to the level of causing substantial harm to the child.
