4002 Precedential Processed

Edisen v. Edisen

Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit · Filed June 1, 1970 · 236 So. 2d 528

Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., September 25, 1972 267 So. 2d 581; La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., April 22, 1955 80 So. 2d 148; La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., June 11, 1931 135 So. 94

The holding in the court’s own words

We hold that judicial assumption of custody in loco parentis is reasonably responsive to such circumstances, so long as the principles generally governing child custody are not abused.

View full opinion text ↓

Quoted verbatim from the opinion — no paraphrase, nothing generated. Not yet human-reviewed. How we find the holding.

Cited by

Le Bouef v. Fontenot 390 So. 2d 266 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
Snell v. Snell 361 So. 2d 936 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1978
Morris v. Morris 350 So. 2d 971 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
Otis v. Otis 341 So. 2d 84 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
Vaughan v. Fair 337 So. 2d 675 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
Edisen v. Uskali 297 So. 2d 787 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
Succession of Walker 288 So. 2d 328 La. 1974
Pearson v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company 281 So. 2d 724 La. 1973

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

So-Cam, Inc. v. Atkins 189 So. 2d 742
Williamson v. Enterprise Brick Co. 190 La. 415

Opinion text

236 So.2d 528 (1970) Clayton B. EDISEN v. Mrs. Adele Elvira USKALI, Wife of Clayton B. EDISEN. No. 4002. Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit. June 1, 1970. Rehearing Denied July 6, 1970. *529 Montgomery, Barnett, Brown & Read, Walter M. Barnett and Peter H. Beer, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellee. Sydney J. Parlongue, Philip R. Riegel, Jr., New Orleans, for defendant-appellant. Before REDMANN, LeSUEUR and DOMENGEAUX, JJ. LeSUEUR, Judge. The parties to this action were judicially separated on October 4, 1967, and divorced on October 29, 1968. Each decree vested custody of their three minor children in Mrs. Edisen. On July 15, 1969, the trial court itself, in response to a rule filed by Dr. Edisen, took custody of the minors in loco parentis. A concurrent order was entered awarding temporary custody to Dr. Edisen, and Mrs. Edisen has appealed. Appellant suggests, at the outset, that there is little precedent for a court assumption of custody in loco parentis under circumstances akin to those at bar. This seems true. *530 At the same time, we are reluctant to interfere. This court must and will recognize the broad discretion soundly vested in district courts in managing child welfare, just as it respects and recognizes the primacy of child welfare over all secondary considerations in the exercise of that discretion. A unique custody decree demands greater rather than lesser attention to these principles for unique decrees are, in the usual order of things, the product of unique circumstances. Any number of circumstances may necessitate a greater measure of judicial supervision of child care than that normally enforced. We hold that judicial assumption of custody in loco parentis is reasonably responsive to such circumstances, so long as the principles generally governing child custody are not abused. Appellant argues, however, that these principles were abused in this case, alleging that the trial court acted arbitrarily without a hearing and without the evidence necessary to support a change of custody. The record will not support these charges. Rather, it seems clear that a hearing was held. The fact that the hearing was held in chambers pursuant to LSA-C.C.P. Art. 2595 is irrelevant. What is relevant is that all parties were afforded the opportunity to appear and that the court interrogated those whose to do so. As to the substantive weight of the evidence which prompted the trial judge to order a change of custody, we rely once more upon the scope of his discretion. Indeed, there is little else that could be done, for the record before us contains neither a transcript of the proceedings, nor a fact narrative by the trial court, nor a series of fact stipulations by the parties. These circumstances require dismissal of the appeal. See So-Cam, Inc. v. Atkins, La. App., 189 So.2d 742 (1st Cir. 1966), and Williamson v. Enterprise Brick Co., 190 La. 415 , 182 So. 556 . Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed at appellant's cost. Appeal dismissed.