DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

227 citing documents.

  • Distinguished Cleeton v. Cleeton 383 So. 2d 1231 La. 1980
    (1971), relied upon by Mrs. Cleeton, is factually distinguishable from the case at bar, although that case does recognize that the mother's right to custody should be denied where she is morally unfit, or where she engages in a calculated and continued public course of immoral conduct.
  • Burt v. McKee 384 So. 2d 489 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1980
  • Atteberry v. Atteberry 379 So. 2d 18 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
    There is some question in the jurisprudence as to whether the 1977 amendment to Article 157 , (1971), to the effect that unless the mother is proven unfit or unable to care for the minor children, custody must be awarded to her.
  • Johnson v. Johnson 381 So. 2d 1317 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    (1971) that the criterion for the change of custody is a finding that the mother is unfit and that the children’s continued presence in the environment provided by the mother is so detrimental to the children as to justify removing them from the
  • Dickey v. Dickey 383 So. 2d 808 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    (1971), for the maternal preference rule.
  • Paul v. Cloud 378 So. 2d 586 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
    In Re Cole, supra; (La.App.
  • Bordelon v. Bordelon 381 So. 2d 871 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
    (1971), in which the Supreme Court laid out four legal principles to be considered in appellate review of custody cases.
  • Schober v. Schober 380 So. 2d 139 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    Once an award of custody has been made “the party seeking the change bears a heavy burden of proving that the continuation of the present custody is so deleterious to the children as to justify removing them from the environment to which they are accustomed.” , (1971).
  • Bride v. Thom 378 So. 2d 152 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
  • Latino v. Latino 378 So. 2d 176 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
  • Wilson v. Wilson 378 So. 2d 169 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    It is settled that, following a “considered decree” of custody, one seeking a change of custody bears the burden of proving “that the continuation of the present custody is so deleterious to the children as to justify removing them from the environment to which they are accustomed.” , (1971)
  • Heymann v. Lewis 414 So. 2d 787 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
    Thus, the custody disposition was not a "considered decree" , (1971).
  • Thornton v. Thornton 377 So. 2d 417 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1979
  • Arnold v. Arnold 376 So. 2d 528 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
  • Shanklin v. Shanklin 376 So. 2d 1036 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    (1971), as follows: (1) The paramount consideration in determining to whom custody should be granted is always the welfare of the children.
  • State ex rel. Sharp v. Sharp 375 So. 2d 167 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    (1971), the Supreme Court formulated the guiding principles to be used in making custody determinations.
  • Schexnayder v. Kincke 372 So. 2d 742 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
  • Schexnayder v. Schexnayder 371 So. 2d 769 La. 1979
    The trial judge, in his written reasons, , : "Here the husband obtained a divorce from the mother on the ground of adultery.
  • Doyle v. Doyle 371 So. 2d 344 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
  • Coltharp v. Coltharp 368 So. 2d 793 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1979
    603 , (1955) , (1971), provides: When the trial court has made a considered decree of permanent custody the party seeking the change must prove the continuation of the present custody is deleterious to the children to justify removing them from the environment to which they are accustomed and further must show that t
  • Myers v. Myers 370 So. 2d 172 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    In response appellee argues that the initial award of custody to the father is not a “considered decree” within the intendment of the “double burden” standard in that she did not appear at the initial hearing to contest the award of custody and, in any event, , (1971) discarded the “double burden” standard.
  • Cleeton v. Cleeton 369 So. 2d 1072 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
  • Hegan v. Hegan 367 So. 2d 147 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1979
    Defendant appeals, alleging the trial court erred in the following respects: (1) in failing to grant a new trial to consider the medical evidence contained in the depositions; (2) in failing to apply the "maternal preference rule" , (1971) and (3) in applying a "double burden rule" to defendant's claim for custody, requiring her to show not only her own fitness but to also show the unfitness of plaintiff.
  • Dugas v. Dugas 366 So. 2d 977 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
  • Weyerman v. Carter 365 So. 2d 1147 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
  • Schexnayder v. Schexnayder 364 So. 2d 1318 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
    Fulco v. Fulco, 1971, , .
  • Hays v. Hays 365 So. 2d 563 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    (1971), the court set forth the following principles governing custody awards: "(1) The paramount consideration in determining to whom custody should be granted is always the welfare of the children.
  • Vidrine v. Demourelle 363 So. 2d 943 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
  • Harrison v. Harrison 359 So. 2d 266 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
  • Blaine v. Smith 357 So. 2d 1380 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    The change is within the trial judge’s authority to act for the best interest of the children, see Fulco v. Fulco, 1971, , , and the trial judge’s exercise of his discretion will ordinarily not be disturbed on review, Monsour v. Monsour, La.
  • State Ex Rel. Killman v. Gurley 354 So. 2d 755 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
    (1971) and specifically reiterated in Estes v. Estes 261 La.
  • Wollman v. GRAVAL 355 So. 2d 1057 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    The principles which control when considering a , (1971), as follows: “(1) The paramount consideration in determining to whom custody should be granted is always the welfare of the children.
  • Graval v. Graval 355 So. 2d 1057 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
    The principles which control when considering a , (1971), as follows: "(1) The paramount consideration in determining to whom custody should be granted is always the welfare of the children.
  • Delatte v. Delatte 358 So. 2d 974 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    Although it has often been stated that the mother has a paramount right to the custody of her children and that she should be awarded custody absent exceptional circumstances, e. g., , (1971), the more recent and better view is that the paramount consideration is always the best interest of the child.
  • Baber v. Baber 354 So. 2d 699 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    See Monsour v. Monsour, La.1977, ; Fulco v. Fulco, 1971, , .
  • Gorham v. Gorham 354 So. 2d 655 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
  • Firmin v. Miller 355 So. 2d 977 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
  • McCarstle v. McCarstle 356 So. 2d 491 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    In Monsour v. Monsour, La., (1977), the Supreme Court stated: " , (1971) we agreed with a trial judge who found that the child's mother had reformed, and that awarding custody to the reformed mother was in the child's best interest.
  • Truelove v. Truelove 350 So. 2d 969 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
  • Languirand v. Languirand 350 So. 2d 973 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1977
    See footnote one, , (1971), and 49 T.L.R.
  • Bushnell v. Bushnell 348 So. 2d 1315 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
    (1971) the Supreme Court laid out four legal principles to be considered in appellate review of custody cases which may be summarized as follows: (1) The paramount consideration is the welfare of the child.
  • Kerr v. Kerr 349 So. 2d 913 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
  • Stelly v. Montgomery 347 So. 2d 1145 La. 1977
  • Monsour v. Monsour 347 So. 2d 203 La. 1977
    (1971) we agreed with a trial judge who found that the child's mother had reformed, and that awarding custody to the reformed mother was in the child's best interest.
  • Cramer ex rel. Mowery v. Mowery 346 So. 2d 331 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    (1971) the Supreme Court set out the following legal principles to be considered in reviewing a trial court’s decision in a custody matter: (1) the paramount consideration in determining to whom custody should be granted is always the welfare of the children; (2) the general rule is that it is in the b
  • Dedman v. Roussel 346 So. 2d 860 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    2 And, in connection with the granting to Lyon of visitation rights with his minor daughter the judgment of divorce between him and his former wife specifically provides those rights shall “never be exercised in the presence of any drug users, and at no time shall said minor child be exposed to any immoral conduct.” , , the Supreme Court of Louisiana said: “Upon appellate review, the determination of the trial judge in child custody matters is entitled to great weight.
  • Greer v. Greer 346 So. 2d 846 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    (1971), the court set out some guidelines in custody cases.
  • Jones v. Jones 344 So. 2d 414 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
  • Crowe v. Crowe 344 So. 2d 408 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    (1971), and the cases cited therein.” 281 So.2d at 697.
  • Gautreaux v. Allen 345 So. 2d 103 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977