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.

  • Jemison v. Timpton 77 So. 3d 1005 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
  • Gray v. Gray 65 So. 3d 1247 La. 2011
    Stat. 9:355.1 et seq., to the domiciliary parent’s request to relocate from Alabama to Kansas, to the non-domiciliary parent’s request for modification of custody.
  • Bonnecarrere v. Bonnecarrere 69 So. 3d 1225 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    manent custody, the party seeking a change bears a heavy | ñburden 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.”
  • Tommie Mack Granger v. Stephanie W. Granger La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    In his sixth assignment of error
  • Granger v. Granger 69 So. 3d 666 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    In his sixth assignment of error
  • D.M.B.T. v. M.A.T. 83 So. 3d 3 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
  • Silbernagel v. Silbernagel 65 So. 3d 724 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2011
  • Criticized Gathen v. Gathen 66 So. 3d 1 La. 2011
    Similarly, we criticized an earlier Court’s characterization of manifest error and abuse of discretion as being "substantially similar,” calling this treatment of the appropriate standard "equivocal.” In Berger-on, the Court conducted a very thorough anal
  • Jones v. Jones 63 So. 3d 1074 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
    we affirm the decision of the trial court.
  • Jason Randall Maxwell v. Jennifer Nicole Stanley (Lavigne) La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
  • Maxwell v. Stanley 57 So. 3d 1193 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
  • Celeste Sepulvado v. Joshua K. Sepulvado La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    Although the juvenile court’s custody order is not in the appeal record, counsel for Celeste, in brief, (La.
  • Gray v. Gray 55 So. 3d 826 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
  • Smith v. Pillow-Smith 52 So. 3d 264 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
  • Jade McCann Barnes v. Paul Dewayne Barnes La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    Modification of Custody In his second and third assignments of error, Paul contends that the trial court erroneously modified a 1 and erroneously failed to determine what custody arrangement is in the best interest of his and Jade’s children as required by La.Civ.Code art. 134.
  • Amy Goldberg v. Jarrod Goldberg La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    4 establishing custody, the party seeking the change must prove 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.”
  • Elliott v. Elliott 49 So. 3d 407 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
  • Pylant v. Pylant 41 So. 3d 1282 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
    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, 97-0541 (La.2/6/98)
  • Rachelle Starrett Preuett v. Ira Anderson Preuett La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    Following the remand, the trial court,6 after hearing testimony, rendered a final judgment in October 2009, in which it stated:7 8 [T]he evidence adduced by [Edwards] met both of the burdens of proof required by Bergeron v. Bergeron (La.1986) for a modification of the September 25, 2007 judgment, as continuation of the 4 The Honorable Peyton Cunningham, Jr. presided ad hoc over the hearing.
  • Preuett v. Preuett 38 So. 3d 551 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
  • Rosalind Reed Thibodeaux v. Lauren Wade O'Quain La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    DISCUSSION Trial court determinations in child custody matters are entitled to great weight, and appellate courts will not disturb an award of child custody “in the absence of a clear showing of abuse.”
  • Thibodeaux v. O'QUAIN 33 So. 3d 1008 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    DISCUSSION Trial court determinations in child custody matters are entitled to great weight, and appellate courts will not disturb an award of child custody “in the absence of a clear showing of abuse.”
  • LEARD v. Schenker 35 So. 3d 1152 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    the Louisiana Supreme Court described the appellate review standard by stating 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.” Id.
  • Barrios v. Barrios 32 So. 3d 324 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
    If he should fail to comply, resulting in a significant change of circumstances
  • Chiasson v. Chiasson 30 So. 3d 285 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
  • Semmes v. Semmes 27 So. 3d 1024 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
    Slaughter, supra; Cooper v. Cooper, 43,244 (La.App.2d Cir.3/12/08), .
  • Scott Mahfouz v. Angela S. Andries A/K/A Angela Harrison La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    DISCUSSION Both Scott and Angela agree that the September 7, 2005 judgment is a “considered decree, ”
  • Tommie Mack Granger v. Stephanie W. Granger La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    See La.Civ.Code art. 131.3 However, because Dr. Granger sought a modification of a considered decree
  • Granger v. Granger 25 So. 3d 162 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    3 However, because Dr. Granger sought a modification of a considered decree
  • Penn v. Penn 28 So. 3d 304 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
  • Estay v. Estay 24 So. 3d 1030 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
  • Herbert and Martha Dalme v. Leah Dalme La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    Millet v. Andrasko, 93- 0520, p. 5-6 (La.App.
  • Dalme v. Dalme 21 So. 3d 477 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    Millet v. Andrasko, 93-0520, p. 5-6 (La.App.
  • Rome v. Bruce 27 So. 3d 885 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
  • Susan Elizabeth Jackson Piccione v. Richard James Piccione La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    Ms. Piccione-Mitchell alleged that the rule filed by Dr. Piccione failed to state a cause of action because the parties previously litigated the issue of custody, resulting in the trial court issuing a
  • K. P. v. T. F. P. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
  • Piccione v. Piccione 20 So. 3d 576 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    Ms. Piecione-Mitchell alleged that the rule filed by Dr. Piccione failed to state a cause of action because the parties previously litigated the issue of custody, resulting in the trial court issuing a
  • K.P. v. T.F.P. 81 So. 3d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
  • Lawrence v. Julian 17 So. 3d 520 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
  • Smith v. Smith 16 So. 3d 643 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
    In cases where the original custody decree is a is inapplicable, the party seeking modification must prove: (1) that there has been a material change of circumstances since the original custody decree was entered; and (2) that the proposed modification is in the best interest of the child.
  • Jones v. Coleman 18 So. 3d 153 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
    Some cases have drawn upon the jurisprudentially developed auxiliary rules for the modification of existing joint custody decrees between the parents, namely, the material change in circumstances test for prior nonconsidered decrees 2 under Evans v. Lungrin, supra, *161
  • Shivers v. Shivers 16 So. 3d 500 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
  • Leps v. Rgp 11 So. 3d 633 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
  • L.E.P.S. v. R.G.P. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    ng 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.”
  • Lirette v. Wickramasekera 13 So. 3d 744 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    The Louisiana Supreme Court has stated that: [I]n cases where the original custody decree is a stipulated judgment, such as when the parties consent to a custodial arrangement, and no evidence of parental fitness is taken, the heavy burden of proof enunciated in Bergeron[ v. Bergeron, ] is inapplicable.
  • Renee T. Chark v. Steven Chark, Sr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    the supreme court established a heavy burden for one attempting to modify a prior considered decree establishing a custodial relationship.
  • Chark v. Chark 5 So. 3d 1062 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    the supreme court established a heavy burden for one attempting to modify a prior considered decree establishing a custodial relationship.
  • Gallet v. Gallet 10 So. 3d 255 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    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
  • Howard v. Oden 5 So. 3d 989 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
    However, after an initial considered decree, (La.
  • Rachelle Starrett Preuett v. Ira Anderson Preuett La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    He primarily argued that Ms. Preuett’s (La.1986), wherein the supreme court held: When a trial court has made a considered decree of permanent custody, the party seeking a change bears the difficult burden of proving that the continuation of the present custody situation is so deleterious to the 8 Mr. Preuett’s atto