Cited by

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

227 citing documents.

Pipes v. Pipes 293 So. 2d 925 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
and again reiterated this rule in the Estes decision.
LeBlanc v. LeBlanc 293 So. 2d 883 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
The court was most impressed with the fact that the children were both well aware of the volatile relationship their mother had with several men, even to a week before the trial.” , (1971), as follows (omitting citations): “(1) The paramount consideration in determining to whom custody should be granted is always the welfare of the children .
Hilliard v. Richard 291 So. 2d 875 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1974
20 , (1972) , (1971) the following summary of the applicable legal principles: "`(1) The paramount consideration in determining to whom custody should be granted is always the welfare of the children.
Wood v. Beard 290 So. 2d 675 La. 1974
(1971) and cases there cited.
Earnest v. Earnest 286 So. 2d 747 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
[ , (1971)] (2) "The general rule is that it is in the best interest of the children of the marriage to grant custody to the mother, especially when they are of tender years.
Cook v. Wingo 281 So. 2d 867 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1973
Also particularly applicable here is the established rule that the determination of the trial judge in child custody and visitation matters is entitled to great weight, and his discretion will not be disturbed on review in the absence of a clear showing of abuse thereof, , (1971).
Gonzaque v. Samuels 284 So. 2d 373 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
(1971) and Estes v. Estes, 261 La.
State in Interest of Johnson 283 So. 2d 333 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1973
[2] , (1971), that when the court has previously made a decree of permanent custody, the party seeking a change has 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.
Borras v. Falgoust 285 So. 2d 583 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1973
(1971), in support of this position.
Abreo v. Abreo 281 So. 2d 695 La. 1973
(1971), and the cases cited therein.
Miyagi v. Miyagi 279 So. 2d 718 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
In ruling on the question of custody, the trial court said: “Further, the court is of the opinion that the children are, and have been, in relatively good circumstances considering all of the tragic circumstances of the past and that their best interests and welfare require that custody be awarded to their father.” , (1971), as follows: “1.
Nieto v. NEITO 276 So. 2d 362 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1973
The Supreme Court of Louisiana has set out the general legal principles applicable to awards of custody, together with the bounds of appellate review, , (1971).
Gustin v. Rouillier 275 So. 2d 825 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
20 , (1972); , (1971); and Drouin v. Hildenbrand, 235 La.
Stuckey v. Stuckey 276 So. 2d 408 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1973
In evaluating the question of the alleged abuse of discretion by the trial judge, , (1971), quoting as follows: "Upon appellate review, the determination of the trial judge in child custody matters is entitled to great weight.
Payne v. Payne 274 So. 2d 879 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
(1971); Estes v. Estes, 261 La.
Poole v. Poole 270 So. 2d 215 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
20 , (1972), the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana stated: "* * * , (1971), we summarized the applicable legal principles as follows: (extensive citation of authorities omitted): "(1) The paramount consideration in determining to whom custody should be *217 granted is always the welfare of the children.
Wood v. Beard 280 So. 2d 567 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
[ , ] Although the Webb case involved an attempt to change a previous judicial award of custody and in the case at bar the question of custody is being presented to the courts for the first time, we think that the principles of law therein expressed are equally applicable here.
LeBlanc v. Aucoin 276 So. 2d 737 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
which the Lower Court distinguished from the present case, the Supreme Court said: “A judicially separated wife is not required to live in monastic seclusion, without any male acquaintances (although of course if she engages in a calculated and continued public course of misconduct, such will be rega
Malone v. Malone 271 So. 2d 598 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
2d Cir. 1971), reversed at , (1971).
Carmichael v. Carmichael 265 So. 2d 668 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1972
tionship because some day they intend to marry.” Following the discussion of the testimony and the witnesses, the court concluded: “The court is very reluctant to disrupt the children and remove the custody from the mother, however, the court finds that the mother is morally unfit and feels that the welfare of the children will best be served by awarding custody to the father.” , , our Supreme Court enunciated the rule requiring that great weight be given to the trial court’s decision in matters
Webb v. Webb 264 So. 2d 925 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
and cases cited therein.
Rayner v. Rayner 263 So. 2d 732 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
and Estes v. Estes, 261 La.
Terebelo v. Spencer 261 So. 2d 702 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
A recent case involving a , (1971).
Powell v. Powell 261 So. 2d 692 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
“He is in a better position to evaluate the best interests of the children from his total overview of the conduct and character of the parties and the children and of community standards.” , (1971).
Penton v. Penton 260 So. 2d 5 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
(1971) as follows: “ ‘(1) The paramount consideration in determining to whom custody should be granted is always the welfare of the children.
Estes v. Estes 258 So. 2d 857 La. 1972
(1971), we summarized the applicable legal principles as follows: (extensive citation of authorities omitted) : “(1) The paramount consideration in determining to whom custody should be *26 granted is always the welfare of the children.
Nolte v. Nolte 258 So. 2d 118 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
349 (1939); Fulco v. Fulco, La., (1971).