Morgan Mccann Thibodeaux v. Luke Joseph Thibodeaux

Supreme Court of Louisiana
August 06, 2025
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
MORGAN MCCANN THIBODEAUX
VS.
LUKE JOSEPH THIBODEAUX
No. 2025-CJ-00972
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Luke Joseph Thibodeaux - Applicant Defendant; Applying For Supervisory
Writ, Parish of East Baton Rouge, East Baton Rouge Family Court Number(s) F -
220,822, Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Number(s) 25 CW 0760;
_ _ _ _ _ _
August 06, 2025
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
CRC
JLW
JDH
WJC
JBM
PDG
JMG
08/06/2025 "See News Release 035 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 2025-CJ-00972
MORGAN McCANN THIBODEAUX
VS.
LUKE JOSEPH THIBODEAUX
On Supervisory Writ to the Juvenile Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge
PER CURIAM
Luke Joseph Thibodeaux, the father of two minor children, seeks review of a
July 24, 2025 judgment of the East Baton Rouge Family Court which designates the
father as the children’s domiciliary paren t, but goes on to provide “ the minor
children shall remain enrolled in school in the Central Community School System
so long as [the children’s mother] maintains her residence in Central, Louisiana.”
The authority of a domiciliary parent is set forth in La. R.S. 9:335(B) (3),
which provides:
(3) The domiciliary parent shall have authority to
make all decisions affecting the child unless an
implementation order provides otherwise . All major
decisions made by the domiciliary parent concerning the
child shall be subject to review by the court upon motion
of the other parent. It shall be presumed that all major
decisions made by the domiciliary parent are in the best
interest of the child. [emphasis added]
The July 24, 2025 judgment clearly designates the father as domiciliary
parent. Therefore, in the absence of an implementation order to the contrary, the
father retains authority for all decisions affecting the minor children, including
school choice.
The mother submits the portion of the judgment maintaining the children’s
enrollment in the Central Community School System constitutes an implementation
order. Although there is no specific form requirement for an implementation order,
such an order must satisfy certain requirements, including specifying the legal

2

authority and responsibility of the parents. La. R.S. 9:335(A); Hodges v. Hodges ,
2015-0585 (La. 11/23/15), 181 So. 3d 700, 710–11.
The July 24, 2025 judgment fails to specify any legal authority or
responsibility of the mother with respect to school choice; rather, it unilaterally
decrees the children will remain enrolled in the Central Community School System
so long as the mother maintains her residence in the district. This portion of the
judgment is an improper infringement on the father’s authority as domiciliary parent
under La. R.S. 9:335(B)(3) and must be reversed.

DECREE
For the reasons assigned, the portion of the July 24, 2025 judgment providing
that the children shall maintain enrollment in the Central Community School System
is reversed. The judgment is amended to provide that Luke Joseph Thibodeaux, as
domiciliary parent, shall have authority to make all decisions affecting the children,
including school choice subject to review by the court upon motion by the other
parent. If the other parent objects to the domiciliary parent’s choice of school, the
family court is directed to apply the presumption that the domiciliary parent’s choice
is in the best interest of the child, and to hear the motion in an expedited manner.