Mallori Elizabeth Diez v. Kyle Matthew Hudson

191n

STATE OF LOUISIANA

X FIRST CIRCUIT

2026 CU 0233

MALLORI ELIZABETH DIEZ

VERSUS

Judgment Rendered:
JUL 15 2026

On Appeal from the Family Court
In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge
State of Louisiana
Case No. 236288

The Honorable Kyle Russ, Judge Presiding

Mark D. Plaisance Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant
Marcus J. Plaisance Mallori Elizabeth Diez
Prairieville, Louisiana

Jennifer M. Moisant Counsel for Defendant/Appellee
Baton Rouge, Louisiana Kyle Matthew Hudson

BEFORE: LANIER, WOLFE, AND FIELDS, JJ.

LANIER, J.

In this custody dispute, the mother challenges the trial court's September 30,

2025 judgment that modified a prior custody agreement. For the reasons that follow,

we affirm the trial court' s judgment and issue this memorandum opinion in

compliance with Uniform Rules—Courts of Appeal, Rule 2- 16. 1( B).

According to the record, the parties, Mallori Elizabeth Diez and Kyle Matthew

Hudson, were married in October 2021; one child, MMH (DOB 2/ 10/ 22) was born

of their marriage. Mallori filed a petition for divorce in May 2024, seeking joint

custody of MMH, with her designated as domiciliary parent. The parties were

ultimately divorced by judgment signed June 26, 2025.

Following a hearing on preliminary issues, the trial court signed an interim

judgment on July 11, 2024, granting the parties shared physical custody of MMH.

Thereafter, the parties entered into a Stipulated Judgment, signed by the trial court

on August 29, 2024, agreeing to " pass on a hearing regarding certain issues pending

for trial." In addition to resolving issues such as physical custody, a holiday

schedule, child support, and health insurance, the parties agreed to joint custody of

MMH, pretermitting the designation of domiciliary parent. The judgment provided

further that all of the stipulations were made " without prejudice to either party to

seek a judicial modification without the necessity of showing a change in

circumstance."

In January 2025, Kyle filed a rule to modify custody requesting that he be

awarded primary physical custody and named domiciliary parent and that the trial

court issue a joint custody implementation plan. Kyle alleged that Mallori was

arrested and charged in connection with a battery she committed against his son from

2

a prior marriage.' Mallori also filed a rule to modify custody in which she sought,

among other things, to be named domiciliary parent.

The custody trial began on June 26, 2025, and continued for four, non-

consecutive days, during which the trial court heard extensive testimony from Kyle,

Mallori, and Beth Joffrion, Mallori' s mom, and considered the documentary

evidence filed into the record. At the conclusion of the trial, and after orally

considering the factors set forth in La. Civ. Code art. 134( A), the trial court granted

the parties joint legal custody of MMH, with Kyle designated as domiciliary parent.

The trial court signed a judgment on September 30, 2025, in accordance with its

ruling and ordering, among other things, that Mallori exercise physical custody of

MMM on the 1 st, 2nd, and 4th weekends of every month, from Friday after daycare

or 5: 00 p.m. until Sunday at 6: 00 p.m.; that the parties exercise physical custody of

MMH during the holidays and the summer as set forth in the judgment; that Mallori

pay child support to Kyle in the amount of $861. 00 per month; that the parties

continue to use Renee McCarthy as their parenting coordinator for a period of one

year and continue to communicate through Our Family Wizard until further order of

the court; that Kyle be found in contempt of court for previously failing to pay child

support and be ordered to pay $ 1, 000.00 in attorney fees plus court costs; and that

the parties shall be entitled to 50150 physical custody of NU\4H on a week -to -week

basis if Mallori relocates to Baton Rouge.

From this judgment, Mallori has appealed, arguing that a review of the Article

134 factors weighs in her favor and that she should be designated as domiciliary

parent. Mallori asserts the following assignments of error: ( 1) the trial court erred

in designating Kyle as domiciliary parent of MMH based on Mallori's move from

Baton Rouge to Mandeville after the divorce; and ( 2) the trial court erred in

1
According to the record, Kyle has two older sons from his prior marriage. Kyle was granted
custody of his sons in September 2021.

3

designating Kyle as domiciliary parent of NIMH where there was no evidence that

Kyle had any plan for NIMH's schooling, medical treatment, social growth, or daily

WReW

DISCUSSION

Each child custody case must be viewed in light of its own particular set of

facts and circumstances, with the paramount consideration being the best interest of

the child. See La. Civ. Code art. 131; Leger v. Leger, 2022- 1113 ( La. App. 1 Cir.

3/ 13/ 23), 363 So. 3d 519, 528, writ denied, 2023- 00512 ( La. 6/ 26/ 23), 363 So. 3d

1231. The trial court is in the best position to ascertain the best interest of the child

given each unique set of circumstances. Jenkins v. Jenkins, 2023- 0087 ( La. App.

1 Cir. 6/ 2/ 23), 370 So. 3d 61, 74. The trial court's determination on child custody

matters is entitled to great weight, and its discretion will not be disturbed on review

in the absence of a clear showing of abuse. Mulkey v. Mulkey, 2012- 2709 ( La.

5/ 7/ 13), 118 So. 3d 357, 368.

In most child custody cases, the trial court's determination is based heavily on

factual findings. Jenkins, 370 So. 3d at 74. It is well- settled that an appellate court

cannot set aside a trial court's findings of fact in the absence of manifest error or

unless those findings are clearly wrong. See Kinnett v. Kinnett, 2020- 01134 ( La.

10/ 10/ 21), 332 So. 3d 1149, 1154. A court of appeal cannot simply substitute its own

findings for that of the trial court. Mulkey, 118 So. 3d at 368.

Article 134( A) provides the following non- exclusive list of factors that the

trial court shall consider, along with any other relevant factors, in determining the

best interest of the child:

1)The potential for the child to be abused, as defined by Children' s
Code Article 603, which shall be the primary consideration.

2) The love, affection, and other emotional ties between each party and
the child.

0

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.

4) The capacity and disposition of each party to provide the child with
food, clothing, medical care, and other material needs.

5) The length of time the child has lived in a stable, adequate

environment, and the desirability of maintaining continuity of that
environment.

6) The permanence, as a family unit, of the existing or proposed
custodial home or homes.

7) The moral fitness of each party, insofar as it affects the welfare of
the child.

8) The history of substance abuse, violence, or criminal activity of any
party.

9) The mental and physical health of each party. Evidence that an
abused parent suffers from the effects of past abuse by the other parent
shall not be grounds for denying that parent custody.

10) The home, school, and community history of the child.

11) The reasonable preference of the child, if the court deems the child
to be of sufficient age to express a preference.

12) The willingness and ability of each party to facilitate and
encourage a close and continuing relationship between the child and the
other party, except when objectively substantial evidence of specific
abusive, or illegal conduct has caused one party to have
reckless,

reasonable concerns for the child's safety or well-being while in the care
of the other party.

13) The distance between the respective residences of the parties.

14) The responsibility for the care and rearing of the child previously
exercised by each party.

The weight to be given each factor is left to the discretion of the trial court. Moore

v. Prater, 2021- 1430 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 6/ 3/ 22), 342 So. 3d 994, 1000. In making its

determination, the trial. court is not bound to make a mechanical evaluation of all

statutory factors listed in Article 134, but should decide each case on its own facts

and circumstances in light of Article 134 and all other relevant factors. Underwood

E

v. Underwood, 2021- 0277 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 10/ 21/ 21), 332 So. 3d 128, 140. One

court has observed:

In child custody cases where two parents are fervently competing
for custody and domiciliary status of the children, frequently the trial
court must determine the best interest of the children solely from the
testimony of the parents and their respective relatives or friends. This
naturally passionate and self-interested testimony is rarely objective,
leaving it to the trial court, who is in the best position to view firsthand
the demeanor and tone of the witnesses, to assess the credibility of the
witnesses, and decide how much weight to give the testimony in light
of the factors in La. C. C. art. 134.

Fuller v. Fuller, 54, 048 ( La. App. 2 Cir. 7/ 21/ 21), 324 So. 3d 1103, 1114, writ

denied, 2021- 01223 ( La. 9/ 27/ 21), 324 So. 3d 621.

In the instant case, the trial court noted that both Kyle and Mallori demonstrate

love and have affection for MMH, and that both parents are capable of providing

MMH with food, clothing, and basic material needs. Further, the trial court found

that there was no history of substance abuse by either Kyle or Mallori, that the moral

fitness of each parent appeared positive, that there were no mental or physical health

issues of either party such that it would be a significant issue for MMH, and that

both parents demonstrated a willingness to encourage a close relationship between

the minor child and the other parent.

Although the trial court found there was no danger or potential for MMH to

be abused by either Kyle or Mallori, the trial court did note its concerns with the

allegations against Mallori regarding Kyle' s son and also the alleged violence

perpetrated by Mallori against Kyle. The trial court acknowledged Mallori's reason

for moving with MMH[ to Mandeville following the parties' separation and the fact

that it may have been difficult on Mallori as she only had her mother there to help

her. However, the trial court noted that Mallori made the decision to move to

Mandeville and has stayed there for fifteen months, away from Kyle and his " very

large support network" in Baton Rouge. The trial court added that because of the

distance between the residences of the parties,, a situation created solely by Mallori's

0

decision to move, fifty-fifty custody of NIMH was not possible. The trial court

further expressed the importance of NfN4H having a relationship with her siblings.

Having carefully reviewed the record before us and the trial court's very

thorough oral reasons for judgment, it is evident that the trial court sufficiently

considered all relevant factors in making its determination herein. Accordingly,

while the record shows that Kyle and Mallori are both capable and responsible

parents of NMH, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in awarding the

parties joint custody with Kyle designated as domiciliary parent.

DECREE

For the above and foregoing reasons, we affirm the September 30, 2025

judgment of the trial court. All costs associated with this appeal are assessed against

plaintiff/appellant, Mallori Elizabeth Diez.

7