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.

  • Quinton D. Steele v. Jasmine S. Ashworth La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
    applied to Appellant’s request to change custody.
  • Mockbee v. Mockbee 165 So. 3d 101 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
  • Steele v. Ashworth 151 So. 3d 177 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    applied to Appellant’s request to change custody.
  • Melissa Alston Porter v. Jeff D. Porter La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
    Jeff listed a number of acts or omissions on the part of Melissa, which he asserted reflected instances of poor decision making sufficient to warrant modification of the custodial arrangement.
  • Laney Ray Barlow, Jr. v. Sandra Guillot Barlow La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
  • Barlow v. Barlow 149 So. 3d 856 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
  • Lawrence v. Lawrence 147 So. 3d 821 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
    es that in order to change her designation, Tony has the heavy burden of proving her status as domiciliary parent is “so deleterious to the child as to justify a modification of the custody decree,” or of proving by “clear and convincing evidence that the harm likely to be caused by the changing of that designation is substantially outweighed by its advantages to the child.” (La.
  • Edward Gary Mitchell v. Sandra Marie Mitchell La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
    3 Cir. 1992) (citations omitted): When no evidence is adduced at the district court level prior to the entry of the joint custody order which is sought to be modified, that joint custody decree is not a “considered decree” within the meaning of Bergeron [v. Bergeron, ].
  • McMellon v. McMellon 161 So. 3d 769 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
  • Wilson v. Finley 146 So. 3d 282 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
    | ^ Semmes, supra; Slaughter, supra.
  • Danny R Odell v. Billie Kellerhuis Odell La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
    With regard to his request, Mr. Odell was, of course, since it is unquestioned that he sought to change the custodial arrangement provided by the considered decree of August 2011.
  • Odell v. Odell 139 So. 3d 1275 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    With regard to his request, Mr. Odell was, of course, since it is unquestioned that he sought to change the custodial arrangement provided by the considered decree of August 2011.
  • Koussanta v. Dozier 142 So. 3d 202 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2014
    dy, 2 the party seeking a change bears the difficult burden of proving that the continuation of the present custody situation is so deleterious to the child as to justify a modification of the custody decree, or of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the harm likely to be caused by a change of environment is substantially outweighed by its advantages to the child.”
  • 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
  • Hanks v. Hanks 140 So. 3d 208 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    Ann also notes the Interim Custody Order was made as a "stipulation without prejudice to either party.” The stipulation, however, was simply designed to avoid the original custody arrangement, agreed to by the parties, from becoming a (La.
  • Damien Deron Williams v. Rebecca Anderson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
    He further argues that for Ms. Anderson to seek any change in custody from this order, : 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 an
  • Dominick Aaron Foret v. Candice Brook F. Foret La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
    The March 9, 2009 consent order was not a considered decree and, therefore, its modification is not subject to the “heavy burden”
  • Mary Norman Thompson v. Jeffrey R. Thompson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
    The prior custody agreement was an agreement made between Mary and Jeffrey, and thus
  • Bagwell v. Bagwell 132 So. 3d 426 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
    This stipulation provided that “in the event this matter is called for modification of custody, shall not be applicable.” (Emphasis added.)
  • T.D. v. F.X.A. 148 So. 3d 187 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
  • Bush v. Bush 137 So. 3d 49 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
  • Danette Williams McManus v. Bryan Keith McManus La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    Bryan appeals, asserting that after rendering a considered decree on December 18, 2012, and January 28, 2013,2 3 DISCUSSION Modification of Child Custody Bryan asserts that after rendering a considered decree, the trial court erred in designating Bryan as a temporary domiciliary parent, rather than domiciliary parent, in direct contravention of the heavy burden rule
  • McManus v. McManus 127 So. 3d 1093 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    Bryan appeals, asserting that after rendering a considered decree on December 18, 2012, and January 28, 2018, 2
  • Lawson v. Lawson 121 So. 3d 769 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
    As further explained in Trettin : Such judgment is provisional only in the sense that custody may be altered later, after material changes in circumstances occur, as illustrated in cases such as Evans v. Lungrin, 1997-0541 (La.02/06/98)
  • Mehe Hafaiedh Lambert v. Charles Willis Fontenot La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    In response, Mr. Fontenot filed peremptory exceptions of no right of action and no cause of action, alleging that the previous judgment was a considered decree and Ms. Lambert failed to allege a
  • Trent Harvey v. Kelly (Singleton) Harvey La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    manent 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 that the harm likely to be caused by a change of environment is substantially outweighed by its advantages to the child.‖
  • Harvey v. Harvey 133 So. 3d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    f 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 that the harm likely to be caused by a change of environment is substantially outweighed by its advantages to the child.”
  • Michael David Thompson v. Yetta Emma Fernandez Concina La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    DISCUSSION In this case, concerning changes in a considered custody decree, as follows: 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 just
  • Pamela Manuel v. Larry Rhinehart Bieber La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    In her Rule to Alter Custody and Other Associated Relief, Ms. Manuel sought a modification of a considered custody decree; therefore
  • Moore v. Moore 111 So. 3d 1120 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
  • Thompson v. Concina 156 So. 3d 666 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    DISCUSSION In this case, concerning changes in a considered custody decree, as follows: 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
  • Hebert v. Schexnayder 113 So. 3d 1097 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    decree, the party seeking its modification bears the 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 that the harm likely to be caused by a change of environment is substantially outweighed by its advantages to the child.”
  • Mulkey v. Mulkey 108 So. 3d 116 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
  • Diamand v. Davis 94 So. 3d 1027 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
    However, after an initial considered decree, the parent’s i.e., the concern for terminating | inrepeated litigation and continuing a child in an established living environment.
  • Corral v. Corral 93 So. 3d 793 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
    Semmes, supra; Slaughter, supra.
  • Kenneth Martin v. Beverly S. Martin, Now Woods La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    Wilson v. Wilson, 30,445 (La.App.
  • Dionysia F. Huval Prejean v. Ronald Joseph Prejean, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    the party seeking a modification must prove that continuation of the present situation is ―so deleterious to the child as to justify a modification of the custody decree, or of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the harm likely to be caused by a change of environment is substantially outweighed by its advantages to the child.‖
  • William Wesley Gregory v. Nicole Gregory La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
  • John Rene Gallet v. Crystal Suire Gallet La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    Because the then-existing custody regime resulted from a considered decree, criteria and determined that Mr. Gallet failed to meet that standard.
  • Gallet v. Gallet 86 So. 3d 179 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    Mr. Gallet’s request to change the custody and domiciliary status previously designated in a considered decree required him to satisfy the burden of proof set forth | wherein the supreme court explained that: 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 o
  • Coleman v. Coleman 87 So. 3d 246 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
    Future Lifting of Supervision Restriction Finally, Laura asserts that the trial judge was without authority to order that Ed may petition the court to change custody when Emma reaches the age of ten years without having to show a
  • Dunklin v. Dunklin 86 So. 3d 741 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
    Semmes, supra; Slaughter, supra.
  • Lunney v. Lunney 91 So. 3d 350 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    the Louisiana Supreme Court addressed the burden of proof applicable to modification of a child custody order, stating: Although the trial court retains a continuing power to modify a child custody order, there must be a showing of a change in circumstances materially affecting the welfare of the chil
  • Skipper v. Skipper 86 So. 3d 707 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
    Semmes, supra; Slaughter, supra.
  • Rooney v. Becnel 81 So. 3d 882 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
  • Mendoza v. Mendoza 82 So. 3d 411 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. ONE—
  • Rodriguez v. Wyatt 102 So. 3d 109 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    2 Cir. 4/6/05), , 727 the parties voluntarily executed a consent custody agreement which contained a provision that stated, “” The Second Circuit upheld the stipulation, stating that: ...
  • Willard A. Harp v. Penny Darryl Penney La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    In considering both Penny’s and the Harps’ request for sole custody, I recognize, as does the majority, that the consent agreement was not a
  • Deanna Arrington v. Joshua H. Arrington La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    and in modifying his visitation rights.