Tusson v. Price
Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., July 1, 1974 299 So. 2d 446
Tusson v. Price, 403 So. 2d 1265 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981).
Cited by
- Johnson v. Johnson 683 So. 2d 831 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
- Seymour v. Seymour 423 So. 2d 770 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
- Ohman v. Ohman 422 So. 2d 264 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Cleeton v. Cleeton 383 So. 2d 1231
- Bordelon v. Bordelon 390 So. 2d 1325
- Arceneaux v. Domingue 365 So. 2d 1330
Opinion text
REDMANN, Judge. “The better standard of review in custody matters gives trial court decisions great weight, to be overturned only when there is a clear abuse of discretion,” Cleeton v. Cleeton, La. 1980, 383 So.2d 1231, 1235 , and the sole criterion for determining custody (and, we add, visitation) is the best interest of the child, Bordelon v. Bordelon, La.1980, 390 So.2d 1325 . Our review of this record satisfies us that the trial judge acted exclusively for the best interest of the children and that it was within his discretion to conclude the children would be better off if not brought to the father’s house. That home is large (7,000 sq. ft.) and on 50 acres of ground. Its problem is that the father, a highly educated and well motivated person, in his desire to help his fellow man has converted the home into a “Center for Creativity” at which he welcomes as guests for indefinite stays any persons he deems suitable. There were about seven men living there as of the trial of the rule, but the guests change in identity and number. We cannot say that the trial judge’s conclusion is “clearly wrong,” Arceneaux v. Domingue, La. 1978, 365 So.2d 1330, 1333 , and we must therefore affirm his judgment. Affirmed.