Julie Robert v. Harry Paul Robert, II

Supreme Court of Louisiana
August 05, 2025
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
JULIE ROBERT
VS.
HARRY PAUL ROBERT, II
No. 2025-CJ-00957
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Julie Robert - Applicant Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory Writ, Parish of
East Baton Rouge, East Baton Rouge Family Court Number(s) F-189174, Court of
Appeal, First Circuit, Number(s) 2025 CW 0629;
_ _ _ _ _ _
August 05, 2025
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
CRC
JLW
JDH
WJC
JBM
PDG
JMG
08/05/2025 "See News Release 035 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 2025-CJ-00957
JULIE ROBERT
VS.
HARRY PAUL ROBERT, II
On Supervisory Writ to the Juvenile Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge
PER CURIAM
This case arises from a dispute between parents over selection of a high school
for their minor son, H.R. The parties entered into a stipulated judgment whereby
they agreed to submit the issue of school choice to arbitration. They further
stipulated that following arbitration, any party aggrieved by the arbitrator’s decision
may approach the family court “in the position of a non -domiciliary parent and ask
that the matter be submitted to the Court, de novo, for a decision.” After interviewing
the parties a nd reviewing records, the arbitrator selected Parkview Baptist High
School.
The father sought judicial review. After a hearing, the family court rendered
judgment decreeing that H.R. should attend Catholic High School. The mother
sought supervisory review. The court of appeal denied writs, with one judge
dissenting. The mother now seeks emergency review in this court, on the ground
the school year will be starting soon.
Although the family court has not designated a domiciliary parent in this case,
the parties’ stipulated judgment is consistent with La. R.S. 9:335(B)(3) insofar as it
treats the arbitrator’s decision on school choice as if it was made by a domiciliary
parent and places the aggrieved party in the position of a non-domiciliary parent for
purposes of judicially challenging the arbitrator’s decision. Pursuant to La. R.S.
9:335(B)(3), the arbitrator’s decision is therefore entitled to the presumption that it

2
is “in the best interest of the child. ” See, e.g., Lawson v. Lawson, 48,296 (La. App.
2 Cir. 7/24/13), 121 So. 3d 769, 773–74 (“[i]n the judicial review, it is presumed that
all major decisions made by the domiciliary parent are in the best interest of the child
and the burden of proving they are in fact not in the best interest of the child is placed
on the non-domiciliary parent who opposes the decision.”).
In reaching its decision, the arbitrator found H.R. was caught between the
strong preferences of his parents, with his mother preferring Parkview Baptist High
School and his father preferring Catholic High School. The arbitrator found H.R.
was “unwavering” in his choice that he attend Parkview High School. Based on the
evidence, including the opinion of the child’s therapist, the arbitrator found it was
important to give effect to the child’s preference.
The record does not indicate the father produced any compelling evidence to
challenge the validity of the arbitrator’s decision or otherwise rebut the presumption
that the decision to recommend Parkview Baptist High School was in H.R.’s best
interest. Rather, it appears the family court simply substituted its judgment in place
of the arbitrator’s decision. This judgment is in error.
DECREE
For the reasons assigned, the May 27, 2025 judgment of the Family Court for
the Parish of East Baton Rouge is reversed. The December 20, 2024 decision of the
arbitrator recommending that the minor child H.R. attend Parkview Baptist H igh
School beginning in August 2025 is accepted and made the judgment of the court .
The case is remanded to the family court for further proceedings not inconsistent
with this judgment.