Evans v. Lungrin
708 So.2d 731, 1998 WL 47196 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A physical custody arrangement requiring a young child to alternate residences in four-month intervals between parents living in different states is not in the child's best interest because it deprives the child of necessary stability. A trial court's application of a repealed statute constitutes prejudicial legal error, requiring an appellate court to conduct a de novo review of the record.
Facts:
- Donna Coody Lungrin gave birth to her daughter, Lindsay, on April 27, 1994.
- Tommy Lee Evans, who was not married to Lungrin, was determined to be Lindsay's biological father through paternity testing.
- On April 11, 1995, Lungrin and Evans stipulated to a joint custody agreement, designating Lungrin as the domiciliary parent and providing Evans with a specific visitation schedule.
- The agreement required sixty days' prior notice of any change in residence.
- Lungrin's husband, a member of the U.S. Army, was transferred to the state of Washington.
- Lungrin subsequently moved with Lindsay to Washington, which made the previously stipulated visitation schedule unworkable.
Procedural Posture:
- Tommy Lee Evans filed a formal acknowledgment of paternity for Lindsay Coody.
- The parties consented to a court-ordered paternity test.
- On April 11, 1995, the parties entered into a stipulated judgment for joint custody, with Donna Coody Lungrin as the domiciliary parent.
- After Lungrin moved to Washington, Evans filed a rule in the trial court on August 31, 1995, seeking sole custody.
- The trial court, applying a repealed statute, awarded the parents equal physical custody in alternating four-month blocks and did not designate a domiciliary parent.
- Lungrin (appellant) appealed to the intermediate court of appeal.
- The court of appeal affirmed the four-month alternating custody but amended the judgment to reinstate Lungrin as the domiciliary parent.
- Both Lungrin and Evans petitioned the Supreme Court of Louisiana for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
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 joint custody plan that requires a young child to alternate physical custody in four-month blocks between a parent in Louisiana and a parent in Washington serve the child's best interest?
Opinions:
Majority - Johnson, J.
No. An equal, alternating, split physical custody arrangement is not in the best interest of a young child when the parents live in different states because it deprives the child of stability. The trial court committed prejudicial legal error by applying a repealed version of La. C.C. art. 131, which improperly created a presumption in favor of equal physical custody. Under the correct and current law, the sole consideration is the best interest of the child. Expert testimony indicated that a young child needs predictability, routine, and consistency, and that being separated from a primary caretaker for prolonged periods could be deleterious. Therefore, while joint legal custody is appropriate, the physical custody plan requiring Lindsay to move between Washington and Louisiana every four months is reversed. The case is remanded for the creation of a new custody implementation order, an independent expert evaluation, and a determination of a domiciliary parent.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the 'best interest of the child' as the paramount and singular standard in Louisiana custody cases, particularly in relocation scenarios. It explicitly rejects any legal presumption of equal time-sharing, emphasizing that a child's need for stability outweighs a mathematically equal division of physical custody. The court's willingness to conduct a de novo review due to the trial court's legal error reinforces the importance of applying the correct legal framework. This case serves as a key precedent against long-duration, alternating custody arrangements for young children when parents live far apart.
