Milissa Laprairie Morris v. Jimmy Morris

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

CW 04-1154

MILISSA LAPRAIRIE MORRIS

VERSUS

JIMMY MORRIS

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF RAPIDES, NO. 193,961-E
HONORABLE BERT DEXTER RYLAND, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

JOHN D. SAUNDERS
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of John D. Saunders, Marc T. Amy, and Michael G. Sullivan,
Judges.

Amy, J., concurs and assigns reasons.

WRIT DENIED.

Lauren Gay Coleman
Attorney at Law
5615 D Jackson St. Ext. #B
Alexandria, LA 71303
(318) 449-9857
Counsel for: Plaintiff/Applicant
Milissa Laprairie Morris

James Ogden Middleton, II.
Attorney at Law
1412 Centre Court, Ste 403
Alexandria, LA 71301
(318) 443-4377
Counsel for: Defendant/Respondent
Jimmy Morris

SAUNDERS, J.

This custody dispute comes before us on a writ application. Jimmy Morris

seeks amendment of a joint custody decree rendered by a Louisiana court wherein his

former spouse was named custodial parent. The children currently reside with their

mother and her third husband in Texas. Mr. Morris alleges that the children have

been subjected to domestic violence and neglect. The trial court ruled that it had

jurisdiction over the matter and Mrs. Adams sought supervisory writs. We find that

significant connection, continuing, and emergency jurisdiction all apply and affirm

the trial court’s judgment.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Jimmy Morris and Milissa Morris were married in 1994 and lived in Rapides

Parish, where all three of their minor children were born. The couple obtained a

judgment of divorce and a joint custody decree from the Ninth Judicial District Court

in 1999. Milissa Morris then married Chris Swindler and moved to Texas in

December of 2000. Mr. Morris has remarried and remains domiciled in Louisiana.

In 2001, Milissa divorced Mr. Swindler and subsequently married Jason Adams.

During a recent visit from his children, Mr. Morris filed a petition to modify

the custody agreement between himself and Mrs. Adams claiming that the children

asked to live with him and that Mrs. Adams is an unfit mother. Mr. Morris references

several incidents that he claims demonstrate the need to modify the custody

agreement. Morris claims that the children are victims of domestic violence. He cites

one instance where Mrs. Adams summoned the Texas authorities and gave a

statement providing that Jason Adams battered her and the children, destroyed several

household items in a violent rage, and bashed her windshield with a 2x4. Mrs.

Adams now claims that she lied to the police when giving this statement and that

these events never transpired. Mr. Morris also claims that the children were severely

injured because they were thrown from the bed of a pickup truck driven by Mrs.

Adams when she was involved in an accident. Mrs. Adams was arrested for child

endangerment in relation to this accident. On another occasion, Mrs. Adams was

taken by a friend to an emergency room in Texas where it was reported that she was

kicked, slapped, knocked down, and beaten with a golf club and remote control by

Jason Adams, who also threatened to kill her and the children and pulled the phone

from the wall so that the police could not be contacted. Mrs. Adams now claims that

both her friend and the deputy sheriff falsified these reports. Mr. Morris also claims

that, on one trip to pick up his daughters, both Jason and Milissa Adams had been

bonded out of jail earlier that day following arrests for disorderly conduct. He further

contends that the children are neglected as evidenced by the fact that he has found

worms in their stool, a rotten tooth, and repeated lice infestations. Additionally, Mr.

Morris alleges that the incidents of domestic violence have so impacted his daughter

Kourtney, that she now often hides in fear in a closet even when she is in no apparent

danger.

Mrs. Adams filed an exception of lack of jurisdiction in response to Mr.

Morris’ petition. This exception was denied and Mrs. Adams sought supervisory

writs from this court.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

1) The trial court erred in denying Mrs. Adams’ Exception of Jurisdiction.

-2-

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When reviewing questions of law, appellate courts are to determine if the trial

court’s ruling was legally correct or not. Cleland v. City of Lake Charles, 02-0805

(La.App. 3 Cir. 3/5/03), 840 So.2d 686, writ denied, 03-1380 (La. 9/19/03), 853

So.2d 645.

DISCUSSION

The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act sets forth factors to be considered

by courts before assuming jurisdiction over custody disputes. In the instant matter,

Mrs. Adams essentially argues that the Ninth Judicial District Court lacks jurisdiction

to adjudicate this matter because the children currently live in Texas making it their

“home state” pursuant to La.R.S. 13:1702(C). We disagree.

Louisiana courts have jurisdiction to make custody determinations if:

(1) This state (i) is the home state of the child at the
time of commencement of the proceeding, or (ii) had been
the child's home state within six months before
commencement of the proceeding and the child is absent
from this state because of his removal or retention by a
person claiming his custody or for other reasons, and a
parent or person acting as parent continues to live in this
state; or
(2) It is in the best interest of the child that a court of
this state assume jurisdiction because (i) the child and his
parents, or the child and at least one contestant, have a
significant connection with this state, and (ii) there is
available in this state substantial evidence concerning the
child's present or future care, protection, training, and
personal relationships; or
(3) The child is physically present in this state and (i)
the child has been abandoned or (ii) it is necessary in an
emergency to protect the child because he has been
subjected to or threatened with mistreatment or abuse or is
otherwise neglected or dependent; or

-3-

(4) (I) It appears that no other state would have
jurisdiction under prerequisites substantially in accordance
with Paragraphs (1), (2), or (3), or another state has
declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that this
state is the more appropriate forum to determine the
custody of the child, and (ii) it is in the best interest of the
child that this court assume jurisdiction.

La.R.S. 13:1702. While the child’s home state may be the preferred forum, the above

quoted language does provide for alternative fora. In appropriate circumstances, a

Louisiana court may exercise significant connection, continuing, or emergency

jurisdiction. All apply here.

This court has recently addressed significant connection jurisdiction in

affirming a trial court’s exercise of jurisdiction under similar circumstances.

Lindmeier v. Lindmeier, 03-1392 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/3/04), 867 So.2d 165, writ denied,

04-0877 (La. 4/21/04), 870 So.2d 280. In Lindmeier, we gave weight to the fact that

the minor child spent a significant amount of her young life in Louisiana before

moving to Canada with her father. Lindmeier, 867 So.2d 165. We also considered

the fact that the vast majority of the child’s extended family continued to reside in

Louisiana. Id.

As in Lindmeier, the minor children at issue here spent a significant portion of

their lives in Louisiana. Their parents were married in 1994 and divorced in 1999.

The children remained in Louisiana throughout this period and did not move to Texas

until their mother relocated in 2000. We also note that Kourtney, the oldest of the

three children, spent nearly all of the 2001-2002 school year in Alexandria while

living with her father. Given these facts, it is apparent that the time spent by the

children in Louisiana and Texas is, at a minimum, comparable.
-4-

The significant amount of time spent in Louisiana is one example of the

connections with this state. Further tipping the jurisdictional scales in favor of

Louisiana is the fact that the overwhelming majority of the children’s extended family

reside in this state. Mrs. Adams is their only relative in Texas, while their father,

aunts, uncles, cousins, grandparents and great-grandparents all reside in Louisiana.

The presence of this familial network in Louisiana means that the majority of the

evidence regarding the “present or future care, protection, training, and personal

relationships” of the children is located here. Lindmeier, 867 So.2d at 171. By

examining this evidence, the Louisiana court would be able to protect the best

interests of the minor children, which is of paramount importance in any custody

dispute. Accordingly, the significant amount of time spent by the children in

Louisiana and the presence of nearly all of their family makes significant connection

jurisdiction proper.

While, given our ruling, it is not necessary to invoke the doctrine, continuing

jurisdiction also applies to the instant matter. Continuing jurisdiction is available to

a “state that render[s] the original custody order, as long as it has not relinquished

jurisdiction and jurisdiction requirements of the UCCJA are met at the time

modification is sought.” In re D.R.P., 38,200 (La.App. 2 Cir. 12/10/03), 862 So.2d

1073, 1076, citing Holdsworth v. Holdsworth, 621 So.2d 71 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1993);

Gay v. Morrison, 511 So.2d 1173 (La.App. 4 Cir.), writ denied, 515 So.2d 1108

(La.1987). We have already determined that the requirements of the UCCJA are

satisfied; therefore, the only question would be whether the district court has

relinquished jurisdiction. It has not. In fact, after rendering the original decree, the

-5-

trial court rendered additional judgments, each at the behest of Mrs. Adams, in this

matter in 2001, 2002, and 2003. Accordingly, we believe continuing jurisdiction also

makes jurisdiction proper in the instant matter.

Furthermore, emergency jurisdiction applies in this case. Mr. Morris has

alleged sufficient facts for the exercise of that jurisdiction. He claims that Mrs.

Adams is an alcoholic that has caused significant injury to the children as a result of

an accident in which she was driving without a license while under the influence of

alcohol. He also claims that the children are neglected in that they have had head lice

on several occasions, as well as rotten teeth and worms in their stool. Mr. Morris

further claims that the children are victims of domestic abuse and have suffered

psychological trauma which will require counseling. He also asserts that the children

have told him that they regularly go hungry and are only given water to drink. These

allegations are more than sufficient to warrant the exercise of emergency jurisdiction

so that their veracity may be evaluated as a basis for modifying the current custody

arrangement.

CONCLUSION

According to the various grounds for jurisdiction referenced above, the trial

court properly found jurisdiction over this dispute. The trial court’s denial of Mrs.

Adams’ exception of lack of jurisdiction is affirmed. Furthermore, given our ruling

here, the stay previously entered by this court is unnecessary. That order is vacated

and the matter may proceed without further delay. Costs of this proceeding are

assessed to Mrs. Adams.

WRITS DENIED.

-6-

NUMBER CW04-1154

COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

STATE OF LOUISIANA

MILISSA LAPRAIRIE MORRIS

VERSUS

JIMMY MORRIS

AMY, J., concurring.

I concur in the result reached by the majority. As I find this matter resolved by

reference to La.R.S. 13:1702(A)(2), I do not reach the issue of whether jurisdiction

exists pursuant to La.R.S. 13:1702(A)(3), that portion of the statute establishing

jurisdiction in emergency situations.