Rhonda Jean Hernandez v. Randy James Theriot
Rhonda Jean Hernandez v. Randy James Theriot, No. CA-0003-1088 (La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. Feb. 4, 2004).
Opinion text
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT
03-1088
RHONDA JEAN HERNANDEZ
VERSUS
RANDY JAMES THERIOT
**********
APPEAL FROM THE
SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF IBERIA, NO. 74,818
HONORABLE CHARLES LEE PORTER, DISTRICT JUDGE
**********
PER CURIUM
**********
Court composed of Billie Colombaro Woodard and Elizabeth A. Pickett, Judges and
Arthur J. Planchard, Jr., Judge Pro Tempore.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
R. Michael Moity Jr.
114 W. Washington St.
New Iberia, LA 70560
Counsel for: Defendant-Appellant
Randy James Theriot
Alicia Johnson Butler
P.O. Box 9097
New Iberia, LA 70562
Counsel for: Plaintiff-Appellee
Rhonda Jean Hernandez
PER CURIUM.
Randy James Theriot appeals the trial court’s ruling on a rule for custody filed
by his ex-wife, Rhonda Jean Hernandez. The rule was filed on May 17, 2001, asking
that the domiciliary custody of the minor child, Reggie Theriot, be changed to the
mother. The minutes suggest that a hearing was held on the rule on October 23,
2001, at which time the matter was taken under advisement. A minute entry made on
December 4, 2001, shows that the court ordered joint custody with alternating
physical custody. Although the parties each attach to their brief a copy of reasons for
judgment concerning the custody issue which were apparently handed down by the
trial court on February 15, 2002, these reasons do not appear of record. In his motion
for appeal, the Appellant refers to a final judgment rendered August 9, 2002.
However, that judgment adjudicates child support not child custody. We find in the
record no judgment concerning custody dated subsequent to the October hearing on
that issue. Nonetheless, counsel for appellant moved for and was granted an appeal.
In the absence of a final signed judgment on the custody issue, this court may
not entertain an appeal on that issue. Therefore, the appeal of this matter is dismissed.
The parties may, of course, reassert the appeal within the delays provided by law, after
rendition of judgment. Costs of this appeal are assessed to the Appellant.