A Primer on Child Custody in Louisiana
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
A PRIMER ON CHILD CUSTODY IN LOUISIANA Monica Hof Wallace* This Article is the fifth in a series of primers on Louisiana Family Law. The Louisiana Civil Code of 1870, as amended to date, operates as the primary source of law, with other ancillary statutes and codes on particular subject matters. The law of child custody appears in Section 3 of Chapter 2 in Title V on Divorce. Chapter 2 covers Provisional and Incidental Proceedings and the section on child custody is preceded by spousal support and education claims. While the section on child custody only comprises eight articles, the jurisprudence interpreting issues of custody and visitation, and the revised statutes addressing restrictions on custody and visitation, provide a wealth of law in this area. The best interest of the child remains the hallmark of every decision, and courts are given wide discretion due to its fact-intensive nature. I. EARLY HISTORY OF CUSTODY LAW IN LOUISIANA .......... 4 A. THE REVISION OF 1888 AND THE SHIFT TO MATERNAL PREFERENCE ..................................................................... 5 B. THE REVISION OF 1979 AND EQUAL RIGHTS TO PARENTS ............................................................................ 6 C. THE REVISION OF 1981 AND THE INSTITUTION OF JOINT CUSTODY ................................................................. 7 D. THE REVISION OF 1993 ..................................................... 13 II. TYPES OF CUSTODY PROCEEDINGS .................................. 17 A. CUSTODY INCIDENTAL TO DIVORCE .................................. 18 B. CUSTODY INCIDENTAL TO AN ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE ....................................................................... 18 C. CUSTODY INCIDENTAL TO A PATERNITY ACTION .............. 20 D. CUSTODY WHEN THE PARENTS ARE UNMARRIED ............. 21 E. WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS ................................................. 21 * Dean Marcel Garsaud, Jr. Distinguished Professor; Interim Director, Advocacy Center, Loyola University New Orleans College of Law. 1 2 Loyola Law Review [Vol. 65 F. TEMPORARY CUSTODY ....................................................... 23 G. VOLUNTARY TRANSFER OF CUSTODY IN JUVENILE COURT .............................................................................. 26 III. PROVISIONAL CUSTODY BY MANDATE ........................... 29 IV. COURT-ORDERED MEDIATION .......................................... 33 V. USE OF EXPERT WITNESSES ............................................... 35 VI. USE OF PARENTING COORDINATORS .............................. 42 VII. DRUG TESTING IN CUSTODY OR VISITATION PROCEEDINGS .................................................................... 49 VIII. CUSTODY HIERARCHY ...................................................... 50 A. CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF PARENTS TO CUSTODY ......... 51 B. PARENTAL AGREEMENT .................................................... 53 C. COURT-ORDERED JOINT CUSTODY .................................... 57 1. PHYSICAL CUSTODY ................................................... 58 2. LEGAL CUSTODY ........................................................ 60 D. COURT-ORDERED SOLE CUSTODY ..................................... 65 E. COURT-ORDERED NONPARENT CUSTODY ......................... 69 F. CUSTODY OF CHILDREN OF SAME-SEX COUPLES .............. 74 IX. BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD FACTORS ...................... 81 A. FACTOR 1: THE POTENTIAL FOR THE CHILD TO BE ABUSED ............................................................................ 82 B. FACTOR 2: THE LOVE, AFFECTION, AND OTHER EMOTIONAL TIES BETWEEN EACH PARTY AND THE CHILD .............................................................................. 83 C. FACTOR 3: THE CAPACITY AND DISPOSITION OF EACH PARTY TO GIVE THE CHILD LOVE, AFFECTION, AND SPIRITUAL GUIDANCE AND TO CONTINUE THE EDUCATION AND REARING OF THE CHILD ...................... 84 D. FACTOR 4: THE CAPACITY AND DISPOSITION OF EACH PARTY TO PROVIDE THE CHILD WITH FOOD, CLOTHING, MEDICAL CARE, AND OTHER MATERIAL NEEDS .............................................................................. 86 E. FACTOR 5: THE LENGTH OF TIME THE CHILD HAS LIVED IN A STABLE, ADEQUATE ENVIRONMENT, AND THE DESIRABILITY OF MAINTAINING CONTINUITY OF THAT ENVIRONMENT ....................................................... 87 F. FACTOR 6: THE PERMANENCE, AS A FAMILY UNIT, OF THE EXISTING OR PROPOSED CUSTODIAL HOME OR HOMES ............................................................................. 88 G. FACTOR 7: THE MORAL FITNESS OF EACH PARTY, INSOFAR AS IT AFFECTS THE WELFARE OF THE CHILD .............................................................................. 90 2019] Custody 3 H. FACTOR 8: THE HISTORY OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE, VIOLENCE, OR CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OF ANY PARTY ........ 97 I. FACTOR 9: THE MENTAL AND PHYSICAL HEALTH OF EACH PARTY .................................................................... 97 J. FACTOR 10: THE HOME, SCHOOL, AND COMMUNITY HISTORY OF THE CHILD ................................................... 98 K. FACTOR 11: THE REASONABLE PREFERENCE OF THE CHILD, IF THE COURT DEEMS THE CHILD TO BE OF SUFFICIENT AGE TO EXPRESS A PREFERENCE ................ 99 L. FACTOR 12: THE WILLINGNESS AND ABILITY OF EACH PARTY TO FACILITATE AND ENCOURAGE A CLOSE AND CONTINUING RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CHILD AND THE OTHER PARTY ...................................... 103 M. FACTOR 13: THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE RESPECTIVE RESIDENCES OF THE PARTIES .................. 105 N. FACTOR 14: THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CARE AND REARING OF THE CHILD PREVIOUSLY EXERCISED BY EACH PARTY .................................................................. 106 N. APPLICATION OF THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD FACTORS ........................................................................ 108 O. EXCEPTIONS TO IMMEDIATE APPLICATION OF THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD FACTORS ...................... 110 X. PSYCHOLOGICAL PARENT, DE FACTO PARENT, OR IN LOCO PARENTIS ......................................................... 110 XI. VISITATION ........................................................................... 116 A. PARENTAL VISITATION .................................................... 118 1. MANDATORY LIMITS ON PARENTAL VISITATION ....... 122 B. NONPARENT VISITATION ................................................. 128 1. STATUTORY SCHEME ................................................ 129 2. CONSTITUTIONALITY ................................................ 133 3. APPLICATION ............................................................ 138 XII. MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY AND VISITATION ........ 142 A. CONSIDERED DECREES .................................................... 144 B. CONSENT (OR STIPULATED) DECREES ............................. 148 C. PARENT SEEKING MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY AWARDED TO A NONPARENT ......................................... 149 XIII. RELOCATING A CHILD’S RESIDENCE .......................... 150 A. APPLICATION ................................................................... 156 XIV. UNIFORM CHILD CUSTODY JURISDICTION AND ENFORCEMENT ACT ....................................................... 158 A. INITIAL JURISDICTION ..................................................... 159 B. JURISDICTION TO MODIFY ............................................... 162 4 Loyola Law Review [Vol. 65 XV. UNIFORM INTERNATIONAL CHILD ABDUCTION PREVENTION ACT .......................................................... 164 I. EARLY HISTORY OF CUSTODY LAW IN LOUISIANA Louisiana derived its early laws on custody from the patriarchal traditions of Europe. In early Roman law, the father had absolute control over his children and their property.1 English feudal law also vested control of the children with the father, in large part to ensure that property was kept in the family and passed down through generations.2 In France, although the father was the primary property holder, custody was awarded to the spouse who was not at fault in the divorce, absent any unusual circumstances.3 Drawing from these traditions, Louisiana adopted a paternal preference for provisional custody but awarded permanent custody to the innocent spouse, regardless of gender.4 In the Code of 1870, provisional custody was granted to the father unless there was “strong reason[] to deprive him of it.”5 For permanent custody determinations, however, the law required the children to be placed under the care of the parent who obtained the separation or divorce, unless the “greater advantage of the children” required otherwise.6 Ultimately, courts awarded custody to the spouse who 1. 1 WILLIAM BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES ON THE LAWS OF ENGLAND 451 (George Sharswood ed., 1860). 2. See id.; Lois E. Hawkins, Joint Custody in Louisiana, 43 LA. L. REV. 85, 85–86 (1982). 3. Hawkins, supra note 2, at 86–87. 4. See LA. CIV. CODE art. 146 (1870). 5. Id. The full text of Civil Code article 146 provided: If there are children of the marriage, whose provisional keeping is claimed by both husband and wife, the suit being yet pending and undecided, it shall be granted to the husband, whether plaintiff or defendant, unless there should be strong reasons to deprive him of it, either in whole or in part, the decision whereof is left to the discretion of the judge. Id. Article 146 was derived from the Projet du Gouvernment, which contained no limitations at all: “If there are children of the marriage whose provisional administration is claimed by both husband and wife, it shall be granted to the husband, whether he be plaintiff or defendant.” Projet du Gouvernment,