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.

  • Preuett v. Preuett 4 So. 3d 260 La. Ct. App. 1st 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 |f,child as to justify a modification of the custody decree
  • Schmidt v. Schmidt 6 So. 3d 197 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    Comment (d) are applied to actions to change custody rendered in considered decrees.
  • Ramona Andrews Denton v. Bobby Gene Denton, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
  • Denton v. Denton 999 So. 2d 1261 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
  • Orrill v. Orrill 5 So. 3d 279 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    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.
  • Perry v. Monistere 4 So. 3d 850 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
  • Picou v. Picou 1 So. 3d 761 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    art. 134, Comment (b); and AEB v. JBE, 99-2668, p. 7 (La.11/30/99), .
  • Earle v. Earle 998 So. 2d 828 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
  • Beene v. Beene 997 So. 2d 169 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
  • Shelly Cole Roshto v. Damien Shane Roshto La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    Additionally, because the consent judgment was not a considered decree subject to the “heavy burden” Mrs. Roshto’s burden of proof was to show that a material change of circumstances had occurred since the May 1, 2006 judgment, and that her proposed modification of that judgment was in the best interest of the children.
  • Roshto v. Roshto 993 So. 2d 376 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    Additionally, because the consent judgment was not a considered decree subject to the "heavy burden" Mrs. Roshto's burden of proof was to show that a material change of circumstances had occurred since the May 1, 2006 judgment, and that her proposed modification of that judgment was in the best interest of the children.
  • Kees v. Kees 992 So. 2d 568 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
  • Brown v. Mock 987 So. 2d 892 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
    After a hearing on September 11, the court issued a "Ruling, Judgment & Order" finding insufficient evidence of a (La.
  • C.J.M. v. C.L. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
  • C.J.M. v. C.L. 987 So. 2d 317 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
  • Cjm v. Cl 987 So. 2d 317 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
  • Brantley v. Kaler 986 So. 2d 188 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
    Danny filed an answer denying all allegations and an exception of no cause of action, urging that the petition did not meet the requirements to modify a
  • Todd Baudin v. Sharmon Baudin Prevost La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    Similarly, , warranting a change in the custody 5 agreement.
  • Baudin v. Prevost 986 So. 2d 915 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    Similarly, warranting a change in the custody agreement.
  • Trina M. Smith v. Steven Wayne Smith La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    the Louisiana Supreme Court articulated the standard to be used when a modification of a considered custody decree is sought.
  • Thomas Neil Guidry, Jr. v. Theresa Kaiser Guidry La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    rmanent 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 the change of environment is substantially outweighed by its advantages to the child.”
  • Guidry v. Guidry 979 So. 2d 603 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
  • Lannes v. Lannes 977 So. 2d 1119 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
    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."
  • Smith v. Smith 977 So. 2d 1114 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
  • Blair v. Knight 977 So. 2d 303 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
  • Stroud v. Stroud 973 So. 2d 865 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
    and concluded that the father did not overcome the burden.
  • Valerie B. Bandy v. Patrick T. Bandy La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    5/15/98), a panel of this court discussed Article 136, revision comment (b), and the burden of proof of the party seeking to modify visitation as follows: the supreme court stated that in a case involving modification of a considered decree of permanent custody, the burden of proof for the petitioning party is to show that the continuation of the present custody is so deleterious to th
  • Bandy v. Bandy 971 So. 2d 456 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    3 Cir. 3/6/98) , , writ denied, 98-931 (La.5/15/98), , a panel of this court discussed Article 136, revision comment (b), and the burden of proof of the party seeking to modify visitation as follows: the supreme court stated that in a case involving modification of a considered decree of permanent custody, the burden of proof for the petitioning party is to show that the continuation of the present custody is so deleterious to the child so as to justify the modification, or that the harm likely
  • Gremillion v. Gremillion 966 So. 2d 1228 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    (citations omitted), the Louisiana Supreme Court explicitly laid out the burden of proof for modification of child custody 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 cus
  • Glynn P. Gremillion v. Anita Grimes Gremillion La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    (citations omitted), the Louisiana Supreme Court explicitly laid out the burden of proof for modification of child custody 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 continuati
  • Pahal v. Taylor 965 So. 2d 574 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
  • Hobbs v. Hobbs 962 So. 2d 1148 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
    Evans, supra ; Evans v. Lites, 30,632 (La.App.
  • Melissa Ann Whittington (Formerly Stracener) v. Chester Stracener La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    When “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, (La.
  • Whittington v. Stracener 964 So. 2d 407 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
    When “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.” Hensgens v. Hensgens, 94-1200, pp. 5-6 (La.App.
  • Darla Hutchinson v. Philip Reed La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
  • Robert Lee Laurence, III v. Sarah Ruth (Self) Laurence La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
  • Laurence v. Laurence 957 So. 2d 931 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
  • John Rene Gallet v. Crystal Suire Gallet La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    itness, 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.”
  • Gallet v. Gallet 955 So. 2d 277 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
  • Silbernagel v. Silbernagel 958 So. 2d 13 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2007
  • Bingham v. Bingham 954 So. 2d 842 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
    NOTES [1] In custody disputes seeking modification of a considered or litigated decree, requires the party seeking the change to prove that the continuation of the present custody is so deleterious to the child as to justify modification or to prove by clear and convincing evidence that any harm likely to be caused by a change of environment is substantially outweighed by the advantages to the
  • Pounds v. Spears 960 So. 2d 92 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
  • Cls v. Gjs 953 So. 2d 1025 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
    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."
  • Laura Leonard Leblanc v. Mitchel Brett Leblanc La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
  • LeBlanc v. LeBlanc 953 So. 2d 115 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
  • McCoy v. Brock 953 So. 2d 885 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
  • Rutledge v. Rutledge 945 So. 2d 307 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
    [2] At oral argument, counsel for both parents indicated that, since each parent requested modification of the alternating week custody plan, was not "on the table."
  • Hill v. Hill 944 So. 2d 873 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    the Louisiana Supreme Court articulated the standard to be used when a modification of a considered custody decree is sought.
  • Charles M. Hill, Jr. v. Connie Yvonne Hill La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    the Louisiana Supreme Court articulated the standard to be used when a modification of a considered custody decree is sought.
  • Nora E. Whipple v. David J. Whipple La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    rental fitness, the proponent has a higher burden of proof, and 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.”