Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Turner v. Turner, 455 So. 2d 1374.

116 citing documents.

Reynier v. Reynier 545 So. 2d 663 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
On appeal Mrs. Reynier asserts the trial judge erred in modifying the original judgment of visitation without a showing of a change in circumstances materially affecting the welfare of the child
Cazaudebat v. Bourg 544 So. 2d 116 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Cronier v. Cronier 540 So. 2d 1160 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Carney v. Carney, supra ; (La.App.
Lauga v. Lauga 537 So. 2d 758 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
Cenac v. Cenac 538 So. 2d 651 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
Christian v. Christian 535 So. 2d 842 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
In interpreting this article, noted that the court in furtherance of its obligations may order an investigation into the home lives of the parties, the psychological health of the child or any other factor which the judge deems to be important in his determination of the child's best interest.
Crockett v. Crockett 525 So. 2d 304 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
Murray v. Murray 521 So. 2d 754 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
Swope v. Swope 521 So. 2d 656 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
Key v. Key 519 So. 2d 319 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
Leger v. Leger 520 So. 2d 857 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
Ezell v. Kelley 513 So. 2d 454 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
Bergeron v. Bergeron, supra
Parker v. Payton 511 So. 2d 868 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
Richard v. Tarzetti 510 So. 2d 1361 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
the function of LSA-C.C.
Watermeier v. Watermeier 504 So. 2d 856 La. 1987
Foy v. Foy 505 So. 2d 850 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
S.J. v. S.M. 505 So. 2d 897 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
Sj v. Sm 505 So. 2d 897 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
Eiswirth v. Eiswirth 500 So. 2d 817 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Preau v. Preau 499 So. 2d 1270 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
Dungan v. Dungan 499 So. 2d 149 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
See and compare Bergeron, supra, at p. 1196 , and Bordelon v. Bordelon, supra; (La.App.
Robinson v. Robinson 499 So. 2d 152 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
Matter of Anderson 496 So. 2d 568 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
the court held that where the parents "are of such divergent views and lead such different lives" they are unable to settle their differences amicably or to insulate the children from their battles, joint custody is not in the best interest of the child.
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
Jordan v. Jordan 493 So. 2d 759 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
Article 146(A)(2); (La.App.
Bergeron v. Bergeron 492 So. 2d 1193 La. 1986
Robinson v. Robinson 490 So. 2d 688 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
Article 146(A)(2); (La.App.
Nicklson v. Nicklson 488 So. 2d 375 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Boykin v. Corless 488 So. 2d 1153 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
Pacheco v. Pacheco 486 So. 2d 1098 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
Dye v. Barnett 485 So. 2d 562 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Reynaud v. Reynaud 484 So. 2d 294 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Suffice it to say that Art. 146 dictates that the appropriate standard to apply in a child custody determination is the “best interest of the child.” (La.App.
Osborne v. McCoy 485 So. 2d 150 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
Pevey v. Pevey 484 So. 2d 959 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Lirette v. White 483 So. 2d 1142 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
Whitaker v. Whitaker 482 So. 2d 904 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
Article 146(A)(2); (La.App.
Veillon v. Veillon 480 So. 2d 464 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Stine v. Stine 479 So. 2d 681 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
Enlow v. Enlow 479 So. 2d 650 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Giles v. Giles 479 So. 2d 627 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
stated: The trial judge sits as a sort of fiduciary on behalf of the child, and must pursue actively that course of conduct which will be of the greatest benefit to the child.
Meylian v. Meylian 478 So. 2d 218 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
Warner v. Warner 476 So. 2d 1053 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Recently, reviewed and clarified the application of Civil Code Art. 146.
Sepulvado v. Sepulvado 474 So. 2d 518 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
C. There shall be a rebuttable presumption that joint custody is in the best interest of a minor child.” stated: “The article 146 presumption only compels the judge to award joint custody in those cases where other things are equal; or where there is insufficient evidence to rebut the presumption; or whenever neither parent alone would be able to manage a sole custody arrangement, and where it cannot be shown t
Scelfo v. Scelfo 474 So. 2d 1022 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Bergeron v. Bergeron 474 So. 2d 1014 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
The standard to be applied by the trial court in custody disputes is that of the best interest of the child
Johns v. Johns 471 So. 2d 1071 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
Dennis v. Melancon 471 So. 2d 1092 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Some degree of continuity of togetherness is necessary to achieve this type of relationship.” : “The appropriate standard to be applied by the trial court in determining the custody of a child of a dissolved marriage is that of the ‘best interest of the child.’ This standard is repeated throughout article 146, and is the sole criterion to be met in making the award.
Serrate v. Serrate 472 So. 2d 137 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
the Supreme Court ruled, "The appropriate standard to be applied by the trial court in determining the custody of a child of a dissolved marriage is that of the `best interest of the child.'
Franklin v. Franklin 470 So. 2d 634 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
the Supreme Court discussed the joint custody presumption as follows: The article 146 presumption only compels the judge to award joint custody in those cases where other things are equal; or where there is insufficient evidence to rebut the presumption; or whenever neither parent alone would be able t