Amy Goldberg v. Jarrod Goldberg

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

10-0452

AMY GOLDBERG

VERSUS

JARROD GOLDBERG

************

APPEAL FROM THE
ELEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF SABINE, NO. 60,961
HONORABLE STEPHEN B. BEASLEY, DISTRICT JUDGE

************

JIMMIE C. PETERS
JUDGE

************

Court composed of Jimmie C. Peters, Billy H. Ezell, and Shannon J. Gremillion,
Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Robert I. Thompson, III
900 Pierremont Road, Suite 102
Shreveport, LA 71106
(318) 865-2345
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT:
Amy Goldberg

William D. Dyess
870 West Main
Many, LA 71449
(318) 256-5667
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE:
Jarrod Goldberg

PETERS, J.

This litigation arises from a dispute over the custody of two minor children

born of the marriage of Amy Goldberg (Amy) and Jarrod Goldberg (Jarrod). The

matter is now before this court because Amy has appealed the trial court’s designation

of Jarrod as the domiciliary parent in a joint custody judgment. For the following

reasons, we affirm the trial court judgment in all respects.

DISCUSSION OF THE RECORD

Amy and Jarrod were married on August 1, 2003, in Baytown, Texas, and two

children were born of this marriage: Ethan Goldberg, born July 15, 2004, and Ayden

Parker Hall Goldberg, born August 10, 2006. The marriage relationship underwent

various separations and reconciliations, and the parties were ultimately divorced in

Ohio on September 7, 2007. The divorce decree named Amy as the “sole residential

parent and legal custodian” of the minor children, provided Jarrod with parenting

time that increased in three phases, and awarded Amy $828.13 per month in child

support.

At some unspecified point during or immediately after the divorce proceedings

Amy and the two children returned to Texas, and ultimately settled in her mother’s

home in Many, Sabine Parish, Louisiana. Jarrod also returned to Texas during the

same time period. After the divorce, both parties remarried: Jarrod married Jeanna

Elizabeth Goldberg (Jeanna)1 and Amy married Larry Metcalf (Larry).

On June 17, 2008, Amy filed a petition under La.R.S. 13:1827,2 seeking to

have the Ohio custody decree recognized and enforced in Louisiana. She attached an

affidavit to her petition asserting that Jarrod “took these children and has secreted

1
Jeanna is sometimes referred to in the record as “Gina.”
2
Louisiana Revised Statutes 13:1827 establishes the method by which a child custody
determination issued by the court of another state may be registered in Louisiana.

them since May 28, 2008 at an address and/or location unknown to [her], but believed

to be in the State of Texas in the Beaumont, Texas area.” Ultimately, on August 6,

2008, the trial court registered the Ohio judgment pursuant to La.R.S. 13:1827.3

On August 11, 2008, Amy filed a petition for a civil warrant, seeking to have

the children returned to her physical custody. Jarrod responded on August 28, 2008,

by filing his own petition seeking sole custody of the two children. The custody issue

ultimately went to trial on the merits on December 9, 2009.4 At that trial, the primary

evidence directed at the custody issue was provided by the testimony of Jarrod and

Amy,5 and through evaluation reports prepared by Dr. John C. Simoneaux, a

Pineville, Louisiana psychologist.

Upon completion of the evidentiary stage of the trial, the trial court took the

custody issue under advisement and, on January 7, 2010, rendered judgment awarding

the parents joint custody of the minors, designating Jarrod as the domiciliary parent,

and establishing the particulars of the joint custody plan. After the trial court denied

Amy’s motion to reconsider the judgment, she perfected this appeal, with two

assignments of error:

I. The trial court erred in not determining the proper burden of proof
that defendant-appellee had to meet, as the result of a prior Ohio
judgment, to change custody.

II. The trial court erred in not accepting the conclusions of Dr.
Simoneaux, especially in light of the paucity of other evidence
presented, when the court changed custody removing two

3
Initially, the trial court stayed the Louisiana proceeding pursuant to La.R.S. 13:1829 because
Jarrod had filed a similar suit in Hardin County, Texas.
4
The record contains numerous stipulations, agreements, and trial court orders relative to
interim issues of continued custody, support, visitation, and psychological testing, most of which are
not pertinent to the issues addressed at trial on the merits.
5
Amy’s mother and step-father also testified, as did Jarrod’s current wife.

2

brothers, 5 and 4-year-old [sic], from the only caregiver they had
had and from the stable environment they had been raised in.

OPINION

Each child custody case must be viewed in light of its own particular set of

facts and circumstances, with the paramount goal of reaching a decision that is in the

best interests of the children. Barberousse v. Barberousse, 556 So.2d 930 (La.App.

3 Cir. 1990). On appeal, a trial court’s ruling on a change of custody request may

only be disturbed if the reviewing court determines that the trial court abused its

discretion in making its ruling. Franklin v. Franklin, 99-1738 (La.App. 3 Cir.

5/24/00), 763 So.2d 759. In addition, a reviewing court may set aside the trial court’s

findings of fact only upon determining that the trial court was manifestly erroneous

or clearly wrong. Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La.1989). The issue is whether the

trial court’s conclusion was reasonable in light of the entire record. Mart v. Hill, 505

So.2d 1120 (La.1987).

In seeking a review of the trial court’s judgment, Amy first suggests that,

because the trial court committed legal error in not providing written reasons for its

judgment, this court should perform a de novo review of the record as a whole. In

rejecting this argument, we note that Amy did not avail herself of La.Code Civ.P. art.

1917, which requires a trial court to provide written reasons for judgment “when

requested to do so by a party.” Thus, there is no merit in her argument that the trial

court’s failure to provide written reasons for judgment is a legal error. Meyers v.

Fairfield Inn, 01-801 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/12/01), 801 So.2d 632, writ denied, 02-119

(La. 3/22/02), 811 So.2d 933. We will review the factual findings pursuant to the

manifest error standard of review. Rosell, 549 So.2d 840.

3

Assignment of Error Number One

In her first assignment of error, Amy argues that the Ohio judgment should be

analyzed as a considered decree, and that the trial court erred in not designating it as

such. According to Amy, this determination of whether the Ohio decree is a

considered decree or a consent decree is essential to determine the burden of proof

to be applied to Jarrod’s request to change custody.

While we agree that the determination of the Ohio judgment is necessary to

establish Jarrod’s burden of proof, we do not agree with Amy that the Ohio judgment

is a considered decree as contemplated by the holding in Bergeron, and we do not

agree with Amy’s suggestion that this court remand the matter to the trial court to

determine the nature of the decree. The content of the Ohio judgment makes it clear

that it was rendered as a consent decree. In fact, the judgment itself is titled as an

“AGREED JUDGMENT ENTRY - DECREE OF DIVORCE.” Furthermore, the

preamble paragraph of the judgment recites that both parties were present in court

with their attorneys and that “[t]he parties being desirous of resolving the pending

matters before the Court, entered into an agreement, which was read into the record

and acknowledged by both parties before the court.” (Emphasis added.) The initial

paragraph concludes that “[t]he Court hereby adopts, approves and incorporates

herein, said agreement and makes it an Order of the Court.” (Emphasis added.)

When the prior custody judgment is a consent decree, the party seeking a

change is only required to establish that a material change of circumstances has

occurred since the original decree and that the proposed custody arrangement is in the

best interest of the minor child. Schuchmann v. Schuchmann, 00-94 (La.App. 3 Cir.

6/1/00), 768 So.2d 614. However, when there is a prior considered decree

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.” Bergeron v. Bergeron, 492 So.2d 1193, 1200 (La.1986).

Because the Ohio judgment is a consent judgment, Jarrod was not bound by the

stringent burden of proof required by the Bergeron decision. Instead, Jarrod needed

only establish a material change of circumstances since the original decree, and that

the proposed change of custody is in the best interests of the minor children.

Schuchmann, 768 So.2d 614. We find no merit in Amy’s first assignment of error.

Assignment of Error Number Two

In this assignment of error, Amy addresses the sufficiency of the evidence

presented. While she does not argue the sufficiency of the evidence with regard to

the “material change of circumstances” element, she asserts that the evidence does not

justify a finding that Jarrod satisfied the “best interests” element by the clear and

convincing evidence standard of La.Civ.Code art. 132.

The testimony presented at trial is rather sparse. It does establish that, at the

time of trial, Jarrod resided in Dayton, Texas, with his current wife, Jeanna, and her

thirteen-year-old son. Part of the reason for his custody change request was his

serious concern about how Amy was caring for the two children. Jarrod testified that

when the two boys were with him in the summer of 2008, neither child was potty-

trained6 and Ethan had severe dental problems. Jarrod also expressed concern with

Amy’s marriage to Larry Metcalf, a convicted felon who was serving time in the state

6
At that time, Ethan was four years of age, and Ayden was two.

5

penitentiary when Amy married him. He and his current wife testified that they had

a stable relationship, both were in favor of the attempt to gain custody, and that the

children got along well with Jeanna’s son.

Amy testified that at the time of the trial on the merits, she was living with her

mother and stepfather. However, despite the testimony of both her and her mother

and step-father that all three had a close and supportive relationship with Ethan and

Ayden, Amy testified that she had remained in their home only because the trial court

had ordered her to do so and that she was planning to get an apartment of her own and

a job in the immediate future.7

With regard to her relationship with Larry Metcalf, Amy testified that she

married him while he was in prison because he needed support from “someone that

could write to him and send him packages.” She acknowledged that Larry was

currently incarcerated for theft. However, although she knew he had a prior criminal

history, she was not aware of the particulars of that activity. Amy testified that she

had divorced Larry, but had only done so at the insistence of the judge and her lawyer

because they convinced her it was in the children’s best interests.8 She was unsure

of the date of the divorce, but believed it was in May of 2009. When questioned

concerning the effect of her relationship with Larry on the children, Amy stated that

her marriage to Larry had nothing to do with her own life, much less the lives of the

children.

7
By an order rendered on October 6, 2008, and pursuant to stipulations of the parties, the trial
court had ordered that the litigants remain at their current residences.
8
Earlier pleadings in these proceedings make it clear that Amy’s relationship with Larry was
a significant issue. A May 12, 2009 interim agreement accepted by the trial court provided that Amy
agreed to have no contact with Larry although, at the time, she was still married to him.
Additionally, an October 23, 2009 interim stipulated judgment included the provision that Amy
“shall finalize her divorce from and have no contact with Larry W. Metcalf.”

6

By agreement of the parties, and pursuant to an October 6, 2008 trial court

order, Dr. Simoneaux interviewed Amy, Jarrod, and Jeanna.9 The reports prepared

as a result of these interviews contain significantly more factual background than

does the evidentiary record.

Jarrod’s interviews took place on January 8, 2009 and February 27, 2009,

Amy’s on January 20, 2009; and Jeanna’s on May 6, 2009. Dr. Simoneaux described

his evaluation of Jarrod as an “interim evaluation” because he had yet to see the other

parties. He described Jarrod as cooperative and patient during the process, and he

elicited a significant background from Jarrod that extended from the time he and Amy

began dating through the problems arising from this litigation. Without repeating that

history, it is sufficient to say that the couple had a most complicated relationship

which had numerous up and down periods. Jarrod’s quest for custody began when

he was able to locate Amy and the children after she left Ohio. He told Dr.

Simoneaux that when he observed the condition of the children, he realized he must

do something.

In the interview, Jarrod acknowledged his shortcomings as well as his problems

with Amy, and even identified a large number of positive traits possessed by Amy.

Still, he asserted that he was in a much better position to provide a structured

environment for his children. After completing the interview and administering a

number of psychological tests, Dr. Simoneaux concluded as an “interim” finding that:

Jarrod makes very provocative statements about Amy. He describes her
as being very unstable, with particular concern being expressed about
her drug abuse. Of course, if Jarrod’s concerns prove to be valid, this
would severely affect her ability to serve as an adequate parent to these
children. I am impressed that Jarrod has pursued this matter for some

9
The order also required that Dr. Simoneaux interview the two children, but this never
occurred.

7

time, and apparently at great expense, because he is genuinely concerned
about the welfare of these children. He argues that he and his wife
provide a stable environment, he has a good job, and he is emotionally
much more stable than then[sic] mother. He seems to have been
relentless in his efforts to be a part of his children’s lives. He spoke
very affectionately and emotionally about his concerns for these
children.

According to Dr. Simoneaux, Amy appeared “rather nervous” during her

interview, “but was cooperative with the evaluation process.” She also provided Dr.

Simoneaux with an extensive factual background, beginning from the dating process

through this litigation. Comparing the two factual backgrounds presented, it is clear

that the couple have very different concepts of how to live their lives. Although she

initially found Jarrod to be “[t]he best man in the world,” after marriage, Amy

concluded he was without emotion and spent far too much time reading. Their

different approaches to life resulted in separations and, ultimately, to Amy’s

involvement in an extramarital affair. Despite reconciliation after this affair, the

marriage did not last. When Amy left Ohio with the children, she moved into her

grandmother’s home, but with the man with whom she was involved in the

extramarital affair. In December of 2006, she moved to Sabine Parish and her

mother’s home.

With regard to Larry, Amy told Dr. Simoneaux that he is currently incarcerated

and, at the time of the interview, had one year left on his sentence. While having no

information concerning Larry’s prior criminal history, Amy still asserted to Dr.

Simoneaux that Larry “loves those kids.” She acknowledged three live-in

relationships, and despite stating that she was in the process of obtaining a divorce

from her incarcerated husband, that relationship was “still ongoing.” Dr. Simoneaux

noted in his report that Amy stated that Larry “is ‘temporarily incarcerated,’ but said

8

that he writes letters every day to the boys telling how much he loves and cares for

them.”

In summarizing the interviews with Jarrod10 and Amy, Dr. Simoneaux stated

the following:

It seems that Amy is rather inconsistent in some of her reports. On the
one hand, she said that Jarred is a good father and she has no doubt that
he loves these children. On the other hand, she describes him as being
rigid, unemotional, and said that he does not really know the children
very well. She believes that she can provide the most stability for these
children, even though she expressed some displeasure about living in
her mother’s home, and she was inconsistent in reporting about the
stability of her relationship with her current husband. On the one hand,
she said that they are getting a divorce. On the other hand, it is clear
that she still loves him and still has contact with him. In fact, she has
the children call him “Daddy Ray.”

Psychological testing on Jarred indicated that he seems to be a rather
stable individual. If he has the traits identified by Amy, that is being
rigid, unaffectionate, etc.; those traits are not evident on the
psychological testing. Amy claims that he was unfaithful with her in
their marriage. Of course, she reconciled with him despite this
infidelity. She has been involved with a couple of other people. They
both are married, and I saw no evidence of any gross immorality on the
part of either that would affect this child. Jarred’s psychological testing
and the results of the interview proved him to be a fairly stable,
concerned parent. The largest concern I have about Jarred has to do
with the fact that he is very negative regarding Amy, though some of his
criticisms appear to be valid. I also have concerns, however, about his
present wife. Amy makes some provocative statements about her,
claiming that she is both obsessive compulsive and noting that she has
been engaged in serious harassment of Amy. Even though Jarred said
that his wife would participate in a psychological evaluation if needed,
she refused when that evaluation was indicated. I do not know her, and
cannot comment about whether or not she serves as a positive or
negative force.

Similarly, Amy’s current husband is a huge question mark. He is in
prison. Amy clearly is minimizing his legal entanglements. She gives
inconsistent reports about her future with this man, saying on the one
hand that they are divorcing, but on the other hand, clearly indicating
strong affection for him. This probably is indicative of the kind of
personality characteristic Jarred worries about. Psychological testing

10
In this report, Dr. Simoneaux misspells Jarrod’s name as “Jarred.”

9

supported the idea that Amy’s relationship with men is going to be
tenuous and tortured. That certainly seems to be the case.

If this case is viewed simply from the standpoint of who can provide the
most stable, traditional family environment for these children that
clearly appears to be Jarred. Jarred is in a marital relationship, he has a
stable job, and seems to have a stable residence. The biggest complaint
that Amy has about Jarred involves different approaches to parenting.
She implied that Jarred could be rigid to the point of being abusive, and
I saw no evidence for that. Even though Jarred does seem to have a
fairly stable lifestyle, and he has gone through great efforts to ensure
that he is a part of this child’s life, there are big question marks about
Jarred, particularly related to his present wife. For the most part,
however, with the information that I have available to me, it appears that
Jarred is capable of providing some degree of stability and maturity. I
have no doubt that he loves these children. I see no evidence that Jarred
would be abusive or neglectful in any way. I am concerned about his
ability, however, to support and encourage the children’s relationship
with Amy. If he were designated as the primary domiciliary custodian,
it would be necessary to ensure, though the court’s insistence, that he
continue to be as supportive of Amy’s relationship with the children as
possible.

Amy loves these children, but she seems to be more focused on her
despair rather than the children’s best interest. She is inconsistent and
confusing. While she allows that the children need a relationship with
their father, and in one breath says that Jarred is a good father, and the
next breath she is complaining about him, his wife, etc. She
acknowledged that she is quite distressed when she does not have the
children in her care, but at the same time she indicates that the children
do need a relationship with their dad. She has involved them very
strongly in her current husband, who is now in jail. Further
inconsistencies are noted when she talks about her current living
situation. On the one hand, she seems appreciative of the fact that she
has her mother’s support and that she is able to live in the mother’s
home. Amy is not working and says that she has devoted full time to her
role as a parent. On the other hand, she indicated that she is not
completely happy with a lack of autonomy. I fail to identify any
substantive plans that she has for resolving this dilemma. Amy does not
appear to be particularly happy or satisfied. She imagines herself and
her life to be a certain way, but she is not always consistent or accurate
in those descriptions. Psychological testing does indicate that Amy has
some difficulties and that Jarred’s concerns about her stability are
probably well placed. Amy is certainly more unpredictable and
mercurial than is the case with Jarred. Again, I have no doubt that Amy
loves these children, and I do not believe she would bring any harm to
the children. Some of Jarred’s concerns, however, about her emotional
instability seem to be valid.

10

I do have some missing information, so these recommendations should
be rather tenuous. For example, I have relatively little information from
either attorney in support of the litigant’s claims. Additionally, the
current spouses of both of these individuals is a big question mark. I
would also assume that Amy’s mother is a strong and positive force in
this child’s life. I did not evaluate Amy’s mother, though she is a
significant parent figure. I trust, since the court apparently trusted Ms.
Metcalf’s mother, that she is a positive force. Further, I heard relatively
little from Jarred to indicate otherwise.

In light of the rather limited information that I have, it does appear that
Jarred may be able to provide the most consistent and stable
environment to this child. I say that, however, with some degree of
caution. Additional information could certainly change this
recommendation. Jarred enjoys the advantage of a stable, legally
committed relationship with his wife. He has good job stability, and
seems to be a mature force. He clearly has demonstrated an interest in
serving the best interest of his children. I do think he needs some help,
however, in learning how to be encouraging of the mother’s relationship
with the children, despite his reservations. Working with a childcare
professional may help him in this regard. Purely on the basis of his
ability to provide this kind of stability and consistency, it would seem
that Jarred is best suited to serve as a primary domiciliary custodian.
This will be necessary once the children reach school age, as the two
week/two week split will not be possible. If the court does order Jarred
to be a primary domiciliary custodian, then he should be entrusted with
the responsibility of ensuring that these children continues to have a
close and enduring relationship with their mother and the extended
maternal family.

Amy does have some problems, most of which are related to her future.
Amy is living with her mother and I am sure her mother would allow her
to stay there interminably. Her mother is obviously very close to these
children as well. Amy has a tenuous relationship with her husband; she
has no job, and no means of support apart from her mother. She has
personality characteristics that probably need to be resolved. Amy
would do well to enter therapy with a skilled therapist who could help
her resolve some of these difficulties. I think Robin Miley would be a
good choice as a therapist for Amy. I do think she needs extensive time
with her children and since Jarred lives in another state, she is probably
going to need some help from Jarred in facilitating communication and
transportation. I would urge that the court consider giving her very
liberal visitation, upwards of three weekends a month, including the
majority of most holidays and summers. She has been the primary
caregiver, along with her mother, and the children need to maintain a
relationship with her. It would not be excessive for her to have daily
telephone or Internet communication with these children as well.

11

Above all, these parties need to learn to communicate with regard to the
children’s welfare. Ms. Miley could also be an important force in
helping them learn how to co-parent these children despite the distances
between them. There is no doubt that they both love these children and
they both want what’s best for the children. The children do need,
however, stability and predictability in their lives. I would hope the
court could settle this now, so that the children could move on as they
start school.

Dr. Simoneaux’s report concerning his interview with Jeanna did not change this

summary to any significant degree. Dr. Simoneaux noted that “the children feel more

comfort in Amy’s home” and “[t]hey seem to feel closer to their mother and

grandmother” and recognized as a positive the facts that Amy was not working and

that she and her mother were both primary caretakers of the children. However, Amy

testified at the hearing that she plans to get a job and move out of her mother’s home.

Dr. Simoneaux emphasized that this is a very close case. In his final report Dr.

Simoneaux did suggest that Amy be the primary domiciliary parent, but only with

some conditions being placed on that recommendation: “assuming that Amy has

maintained her sobriety, she has developed some stability with regard to her lifestyle,

and she does attend the counseling that I suggested.” At the hearing, Amy said that

she had looked for jobs and possible places to live but had left her life on hold

pending the outcome of the hearing, and stated that she did not need any therapy.

As previously stated, an award of custody is based on the best interests of the

children. La.Civ.Code art. 131. When parents cannot agree to a custody

arrangement, La. Civ.Code art. 134 provides twelve nonexclusive factors that the

court shall consider in determining the best interest of the child. While the trial court

did not state for the record that it considered these factors, we find that the analysis

of these factors support the trial court’s custody judgment. The factors are:

12

(1) The love, affection, and other emotional ties between each
party and the child.

(2) The capacity and disposition of each party to give the child
love, affection, and spiritual guidance and to continue the education and
rearing of the child.

(3) The capacity and disposition of each party to provide the
child with food, clothing, medical care, and other material needs.

(4) The length of time the child has lived in a stable, adequate
environment, and the desirability of maintaining continuity of that
environment.

(5) The permanence, as a family unit, of the existing or proposed
custodial home or homes.

(6) The moral fitness of each party, insofar as it affects the
welfare of the child.

(7) The mental and physical health of each party.

(8) The home, school, and community history of the child.

(9) The reasonable preference of the child, if the court deems the
child to be of sufficient age to express a preference.

(10) The willingness and ability of each party to facilitate and
encourage a close and continuing relationship between the child and the
other party.

(11) The distance between the respective residences of the
parties.

(12) The responsibility for the care and rearing of the child
previously exercised by each party.

Both the first and second factors balance equally between the parties because there

is no question that both parents love their children and would do their best to further

their educations. The third factor balances in favor of Jarrod, based on his testimony

that Amy had neglected both potty-training Ethan and his dental hygiene. The fourth

factor does not favor either parent, as the record before us demonstrates that the

children have not had a secure, consistent, stable environment since the divorce. The

13

fifth and sixth factors weigh heavily in favor of Jarrod when one compares his

relationship with his current wife against Amy’s relationship with her incarcerated

former husband. Jarrod and Jeanna have been married for over two years at the time

of the hearing and were raising Jeanna’s teenage son together. Amy, by contrast, had

married a man who was incarcerated in prison, then divorced him because the judge

and her attorney informed her it was in her children’s best interest to do so. Neither

the seventh, eighth, or ninth factor is relevant in this case, as both parties appear to

be in good health, the children are too young to have home, school, or community

histories, and the children are also too young to express a preference about their

custody arrangements. The tenth factor does not favor either party as the procedural

history in this case, the parties’ testimony at the hearing, and Dr. Simoneaux’s reports

show that neither party has been willing to encourage the children’s relationship with

the other parent. The eleventh factor, the distance between the parties’ residences,

favors having one domiciliary parent with the other receiving reasonable visitation

on weekends and holidays, rather than a split of equal time. Finally, the twelfth factor

weighs in favor of Amy, as she appears to have been the children’s primary caretaker

before the divorce and was awarded their sole custody, with Jarrod being given

phased-in visitation, by the Ohio court.

Further, at the hearing, although Jarrod stated that he would encourage their

children’s relationship with Amy if he were designated their domiciliary parent, he

qualified that statement by saying “I think that if [Amy] will get cleaned up and go

to rehab and get a job and a place to live, I have no problem with her seeing them as

often as she wants to on those conditions.” Additionally, in his February 6, 2009

report, Dr. Simoneaux stated that the “largest concern [he had] about Jarred [sic] has

14

to do with the fact that he is very negative regarding Amy, though some of his

criticisms appear to be valid.” Still, in his February 6, 2009 report, Dr. Simoneaux

suggested that Jarrod could “provide the most stable, traditional family environment

for these children . . . Jarred [sic] is in a marital relationship, he has a stable job, and

seems to have a stable residence.”

Reviewing the testimony and evidence presented at trial in light of the factors

provided in La.Civ.Code art. 134, we find that the trial court did not clearly abuse its

discretion in concluding that the children’s best interests were served by changing the

Ohio court’s custody award, granting the parents joint custody, designating Jarrod as

the domiciliary parent, and providing Amy with reasonable visitation.

DISPOSITION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s judgment in all respects.

We assess all costs of this appeal to Amy Goldberg.

AFFIRMED.

This opinion is NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. Rule 2-
16.3, Uniform Rules, Courts of Appeal.

15