Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Fulco v. Fulco, 254 So. 2d 603.

227 citing documents.

Carmelite Narcisse-Thomas v. Marc David Thomas La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2024
In Gathen, the Louisiana Supreme Court explained that the abuse of discretion standard applies because the trial court “is in a better position to evaluate the best interests of the children from [the court’s] total overview of the conduct and character of the parties and the children and of community standards.” 2010-2312, p. 10, 66 So.3d at 8 n.4 ( (1971)).
Dwane Link v. Shelley Fritz Link La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
Link v. Link 139 So. 3d 659 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
(1971); see also Messner v. Messner, 240 La.
Trent Harvey v. Kelly (Singleton) Harvey La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
In support of this argument, for the proposition that ―[t]he purpose of a custody determination is not to punish a parent for any [p]ast misconduct, it is rather to serve the best interests of the children of the marriage.‖ indicates that tubes were placed in Terryn’s ears in May of 2011, more than six months after Terryn’s in
Harvey v. Harvey 133 So. 3d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
In support of this argument, , (1971), for the proposition that “[t]he purpose of a custody determination is not to punish a parent for any [p]ast misconduct, it is rather to serve the best interests of the children of the marriage.” |sWe find no merit to this contention.
Gathen v. Gathen 66 So. 3d 1 La. 2011
(1971) (citing Messner v. Messner, 240 La.
Weaver v. Weaver 824 So. 2d 438 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
The trial court's consideration of hearsay evidence regarding her alleged past activities, and failure to consider that, even if true, they had been discontinued under the "reformation rule" , (1971).
Crowson v. Crowson 742 So. 2d 107 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
Long v. Dossett 732 So. 2d 773 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
Considering the review of a child custody order, , : Upon appellate review, the determination of the trial judge in child custody matters is entitled to great weight.
Boyd v. Boyd 647 So. 2d 414 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
Norris v. Norris 604 So. 2d 107 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
Bergeron v. Bergeron, supra; , (1971).
Hill v. Hill 602 So. 2d 287 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
Melancon v. Bergeron 598 So. 2d 694 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
(1971) for this proposition.
Bruscato v. Bruscato 593 So. 2d 838 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
Monteleone v. Monteleone 591 So. 2d 1228 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
[2] Other circuits have held that a consent judgment is not a or the third guideline of its predecessor, , (1971).
Jackson v. Jackson 573 So. 2d 217 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
Palazzo v. Coe 562 So. 2d 1137 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
Estes v. Estes, supra, and jurisprudence therein cited; , (1971) and jurisprudence therein cited.
State ex rel. Hulin 543 So. 2d 1046 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Lozes v. Lozes 542 So. 2d 603 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Lauga v. Lauga 537 So. 2d 758 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
Looney v. Looney 536 So. 2d 728 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
(1971).” It is evident that the learned trial judge based his decision on his conclusions that the Looneys were better equipped to offer the children, Sarah and Sylvia, a fully rounded, quality education; on the fact that the Looney home, which has always been in Lake Charles would provide Sylvia and S
Dubois v. Dubois 532 So. 2d 360 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
C.F.C. v. J.D.C. 539 So. 2d 47 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
McIntyre v. McIntyre 519 So. 2d 317 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
Bergeron, 492 So.2d at 1200 ; , (1971); (La.App.
Parker v. Payton 511 So. 2d 868 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
(1971); Guidry v. Guidry, supra .
Matter of Anderson 496 So. 2d 568 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Mosely v. Mosely 499 So. 2d 106 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Albarado v. Toler 495 So. 2d 355 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
The effects of this rule were softened by the "reformation rule" , (1971).
Bergeron v. Bergeron 492 So. 2d 1193 La. 1986
20 , (1972); , (1971); Speelman v. Superior Court of Santa Clara Cty., 152 Cal.App.3d 124 , 199 Cal.
Hicks v. Hicks 488 So. 2d 280 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Dykes v. Dykes 488 So. 2d 368 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
3rd Cir.1980); , (1971); and, (La.App.
Gras v. Gras 489 So. 2d 1283 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
Barton v. Minton 484 So. 2d 317 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Moore v. Moore 479 So. 2d 1040 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
3rd Cir. 1985); , (1971); and other cases too numerous to cite.
In re the Custody of Knoblock 476 So. 2d 544 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Brooks v. Brooks 469 So. 2d 398 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
State ex rel. T.T. 472 So. 2d 65 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Clark v. Clark 467 So. 2d 627 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
Guerra v. Serpas 466 So. 2d 709 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
(1971), to discontinue her misconduct or the child would be removed from her custody and placed in Mr. Serpas’ custody.
Doyle v. Doyle 465 So. 2d 167 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
Donaldson v. Keller 459 So. 2d 616 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Legrand v. Legrand 455 So. 2d 705 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
In an earlier case, , (1971), the court set out four principles relevant to custody changes, as summarized in Bordelon v. Bordelon, supra, at 1328: "...
Peters v. Peters 449 So. 2d 1372 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
Pleasant v. Pleasant, supra; Stewart v. Stewart, supra; (La.App.
Wickboldt v. Wickboldt 448 So. 2d 254 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Parrish v. Parrish 448 So. 2d 804 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
Guidry v. Guidry 441 So. 2d 384 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
(1971) as follows: "Upon Appellate review, determination of the trial judge in child custody matters is entitled to great weight.
Granger v. Ortego 434 So. 2d 663 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Matter of Parker 434 So. 2d 1256 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
NOTES [1] Prior to 1977, , which required a showing that the child was in danger of physical or psychological harm and that the party seeking custody could better provide for the child.
Lasseigne v. Lasseigne 434 So. 2d 1240 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Williams v. Williams 431 So. 2d 856 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983