In Re Custody of Landry
662 So. 2d 169, 1995 WL 588281 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court cannot award custody of a child to a non-parent unless it first makes an explicit finding that awarding custody to either natural parent would result in substantial harm to the child. Parents have a paramount right to custody that can only be overcome for compelling reasons supported by convincing evidence.
Facts:
- Margie Odet Wilson (mother) and Kenneth Craig Landry (father) lived together for over ten years and had three children.
- The parties were never married.
- On March 17, 1994, Wilson left the shared home where the family resided.
- The three minor children remained in the care of their father, Landry, after Wilson departed.
Procedural Posture:
- Kenneth Craig Landry (father) filed a petition for temporary custody against Margie Odet Wilson (mother) in a Louisiana trial court.
- The trial court granted temporary custody to Landry.
- The parties subsequently entered a stipulation agreeing that Landry would have temporary domiciliary custody, with Wilson having visitation, pending a final hearing.
- Wilson later filed a rule for sole custody.
- At a hearing on November 15, 1994, the trial court initially stated it would award domiciliary custody to Wilson but then vacated that ruling after hearing an unsworn, informal plea from Desdemona Landry, the children's paternal grandmother and a non-party to the case.
- After a subsequent hearing on December 5, 1994, the trial court awarded provisional custody to Desdemona Landry.
- Wilson, the appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First 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:
Does a trial court commit legal error by awarding custody of minor children to a non-parent without first making a specific finding that an award of custody to a natural parent would result in substantial harm to the children?
Opinions:
Majority - Gonzales, J.
Yes. A trial court commits legal error and abuses its discretion by awarding custody to a non-parent without first making the legal determination that parental custody would result in substantial harm to the children. Under Louisiana Civil Code article 133, parents possess a paramount right to custody that can only be divested for compelling reasons. The court found that the trial judge improperly based its decision on a 'best interest of the child' analysis instead of applying the required 'substantial harm' test. The trial court also committed reversible procedural errors by vacating an initial custody ruling based on the unsworn, informal statements of the children's paternal grandmother, a non-party, which violated the mother's due process right to confront and cross-examine witnesses. Finally, the trial court erred by interviewing the children in chambers without the parties' attorneys present and without making a record of the interview, which is required to protect the parties' rights and allow for meaningful appellate review.
Analysis:
This decision strongly reinforces the legal principle of parental preference in custody disputes against non-parents. It clarifies that the 'best interest of the child' standard is secondary to the threshold question of whether parental custody would cause 'substantial harm.' By mandating this specific finding on the record, the ruling makes it significantly more difficult for non-parents to gain custody over a natural parent. The case also serves as a crucial reminder of procedural due process, emphasizing that judicial decisions cannot be based on unsworn statements and that proper protocols must be followed for in-chambers interviews with minors to ensure a fair process and a complete record for appeal.
