DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Bergeron v. Bergeron, 492 So. 2d 1193.

506 citing documents.

  • Simmons v. Simmons 554 So. 2d 238 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
    CHANGE OF CUSTODY Martha, contends that the trial court erroneously found that Reuben carried his burden of proving that her conduct justified a change of circumstances sufficient to remove custody of Randy.
  • Schultz v. Schultz 553 So. 2d 1010 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    *1011 The appellant contends that the trial judge erred in failing to grant joint custody by not adhering to the dictates of Civil Code Art. 146, and in applying the stringent “change of circumstance rule”
  • McGee v. McGee 552 So. 2d 576 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
  • Clark v. Clark 550 So. 2d 913 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
  • Weems v. Weems 548 So. 2d 108 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
  • Reynolds v. Reynolds 548 So. 2d 64 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    Once a considered decree of custody is rendered by a trial court, as in the case sub judice, the party seeking a at 1200: “...
  • Soignet v. Soignet 546 So. 2d 541 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    The burden of proof on the party seeking a : When a trial court has made a considered decree of permanent custody the party seeking a change bears a heavy burden of proving that the continuation of the present custody is so deleterious to the child as to justify a modification of the custody decree, or of proving by clear and convincing evidence
  • Lunsford v. Lunsford 545 So. 2d 1279 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
    The mother contends the father did not prove, that the changes in the parents' circumstances after the joint custody decree materially affected the welfare of the children.
  • Reynier v. Reynier 545 So. 2d 663 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
    (child custody); (visitation rights).
  • Menge v. Menge 545 So. 2d 674 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
    Mr. Menge, appellee, (La.
  • Bishop v. Nelson 544 So. 2d 1320 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
  • Cucchiara v. Cucchiara 543 So. 2d 638 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    the Louisiana Supreme Court stated: When a trial court has made a considered decree of permanent custody the party seeking a change bears a heavy burden of proving that the continuation of the present custody is so deleterious to the child as to justify a modification of the custody decree, or of provi
  • Moore v. Moore 544 So. 2d 479 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
  • Hull v. Hull 542 So. 2d 205 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
  • Lozes v. Lozes 542 So. 2d 603 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
  • McBride v. McBride 537 So. 2d 776 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
    The mother appealed, contending the trial court erred “in modifying the custody order when the defendant failed to show that continuation of the present custody was deleterious to the child.” the trial court vacated a mother’s sole custody award and substituted a joint custody decree without requiring a showing that a change of circumstances had occurred that materially affected the child’s well being.
  • 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
  • Looney v. Looney 536 So. 2d 728 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    The trial court erred in granting a change of custody based exclusively on a “best interests”
  • Miller v. St. Clergy 535 So. 2d 563 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
    The present rule was filed in February 1987, (La.
  • Devillier v. Devillier 536 So. 2d 553 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • Ellis v. Ellis 536 So. 2d 521 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • Nugent v. Nugent 533 So. 2d 1370 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
  • Allen v. Allen 533 So. 2d 1068 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    at 1200 (La.1986), stated: When a trial court has made a considered decree of permanent custody the party seeking a change bears a heavy burden of proving that the continuation of the present custody is so deleterious to the child as to justify a modification of the custody decree, or of proving by clear and convinci
  • Ezell v. Kelley 535 So. 2d 969 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
    Articles 146(E) and 157(A)
  • Ward v. Ward 535 So. 2d 782 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
  • Pounders v. Rouse 528 So. 2d 672 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
  • Crockett v. Crockett 525 So. 2d 304 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • Stewart v. Stewart 525 So. 2d 218 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    Because the original joint custody plan was a stipulated judgment, and not a considered decree, the "heavy burden" does not apply.
  • Meredith v. Meredith 521 So. 2d 793 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
    the Louisiana Supreme Court restated the burden of proof in change of custody cases: When a trial court has made a considered decree of permanent custody the party seeking a change bears a heavy burden of proving that the continuation of the present custody is so deleterious to the child as to justify a mod
  • Murray v. Murray 521 So. 2d 754 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
  • Drewett v. Drewett 524 So. 2d 893 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • McIntyre v. McIntyre 519 So. 2d 317 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
  • Thomas v. Thomas 519 So. 2d 357 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
  • Key v. Key 519 So. 2d 319 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
  • State ex rel. J.G. 519 So. 2d 195 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    to support his theory that J.G., Jr. will be seriously harmed by removing him from his foster parents.
  • Leger v. Leger 520 So. 2d 857 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • Barnett v. Barnett 515 So. 2d 579 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • Len v. Len 515 So. 2d 643 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • Ezell v. Kelley 513 So. 2d 454 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
  • Sandifer v. Sandifer 514 So. 2d 510 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
  • Parker v. Payton 511 So. 2d 868 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
    Next, Nesbit Parker argues the court incorrectly placed the burden upon her, the natural parent, to prove by clear and convincing evidence that continuation of the custody (under a considered decree of permanent custody)
  • Risher v. Risher 511 So. 2d 1220 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
    The "heavy burden" therefore does not apply.
  • Bridgers v. Bridgers 509 So. 2d 793 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    must be applied in order to change the custody decree.
  • Moffatt v. Moffatt 508 So. 2d 851 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    indicated that in altering the custody arrangement, whether it is joint or sole custody, the best interest of the child should be considered uppermost.
  • Geisler v. Geisler 506 So. 2d 1332 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
  • Watermeier v. Watermeier 504 So. 2d 856 La. 1987
    this court described the burden of proof rule as follows: "...
  • Foy v. Foy 505 So. 2d 850 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
  • Hartt v. Jones 503 So. 2d 629 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    citing Estes v. Estes, 261 La.
  • Head v. Head 500 So. 2d 804 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    It is well settled jurisprudentially that “upon appellate review, the determination of the trial judge in child custody matters is entitled to great weight, and his discretion will not be disturbed on review in the absence of a clear showing of abuse.”