Harrington v. Harrington
| Decision Date | 02 February 2022 |
| Docket Number | 21-571 |
| Citation | 334 So.3d 9 |
| Parties | Tyler Paul HARRINGTON v. Gabrielle Bonvillain HARRINGTON |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
334 So.3d 9
Tyler Paul HARRINGTON
v.
Gabrielle Bonvillain HARRINGTON
21-571
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.
2-2-2022
R. Chadwick Edwards, Jr., Edwards & Edwards, 114 East Lafayette St, Abbeville, LA 70511, (337) 893-2884, COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT: Tyler Paul Harrington
Dyan Schnaars, Schnaars, Law Firm, LLC, 1011 Camellia Boulevard, Suite 1, Lafayette, LA 70508, (337) 534-4326, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE: Gabrielle Bonvillain Harrington
Court composed of Shannon J. Gremillion, Candyce G. Perret, and J. Larry Vidrine, Judges.
GREMILLION, Judge.
The father, Tyler Paul Harrington, appeals the trial court's judgment allowing the relocation of his minor child to Houma, Louisiana, with the mother, Gabrielle Bonvillain Harrington. For the following reasons, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Tyler and Gabrielle were married in November 2017; however, their son, Aiden, was born in November 2014. Tyler filed for divorce in April 2020. The parties had a custody arrangement whereby Aiden spent seven days with each parent on a rotating schedule. In July 2020, Gabrielle filed a formal notification pursuant to La.R.S. 9:355.5 that she intended to move to her hometown of Houma. The hearing officer recommended to the trial court that relocation was not in the child's best interest. Gabrielle objected. Gabrielle filed a petition for permission to relocate the minor child to Houma, Louisiana in February 2021. Following an April 2021 trial, the trial court named Gabrielle domiciliary parent and after analyzing all of the La.R.S. 9:355.14 relocation factors, allowed Gabrielle to relocate to Houma from Abbeville with the minor child.
Tyler now appeals the trial court's May 2021 judgment and assigns as error:
1. The factors for the determination of custody under Civil Code, article 134, and relocation under Revised States 9:355.1 et seq ., were improperly applied and trial court abused its discretion in authorizing relocation:
a. Appellee testified that she did not have a job in Houma;
b. Appellee was unable to show any financial benefit;
c. Appellee's educational opportunities were better in Abbeville;
d. the proposed home was unsuitable;
e. the child's emotional and physical well being [sic] in Houma would be far inferior to his current life and potentially detrimental.
2. The trial court should have applied an adverse presumption to the Appellee's failure to call witnesses she identified and/or had been sworn and placed under the rule of sequestration.
DISCUSSION
An appellate court will not overturn a trial court's determination regarding
the relocation of one parent in the absence of an abuse of discretion. Ganaway v. Ganaway , 17-875 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/28/18), 238 So.3d 540. Louisiana Revised Statutes 9:355.10 mandates that the parent who proposes relocation does so in good faith and in the best interest of their child. The best interest of the child is the paramount concern of all cases involving child custody in Louisiana. La.Civ.Code art. 134. Some factors that must be considered in determining the best interest of a child are:
(1) The potential for the child to be abused, as defined by Children's Code Article 603, which shall be the primary consideration.
(2) The love, affection, and other emotional ties between each party and the child.
(3) 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.
(4) The capacity and disposition of each party to provide the child with food, clothing, medical care, and other material needs.
(5) The length of time the child has lived in a stable, adequate environment, and the desirability of maintaining continuity of that environment.
(6) The permanence, as a family unit, of the existing or proposed custodial home or homes.
(7) The moral fitness of each party, insofar as it affects the welfare of the child.
(8) The history of substance abuse, violence, or criminal activity of any party.
(9) The mental and physical health of each party. Evidence that an abused parent suffers from the effects of past abuse by the other parent shall not be grounds for denying that parent custody.
(10) The home, school, and community history of the child.
(11) The reasonable preference of the child, if the court deems the child to be of sufficient age to express a preference.
(12) The willingness and ability of each party to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing relationship between the child and the other party, except when objectively substantial evidence of specific abusive, reckless, or illegal conduct has caused one party to have reasonable concerns for the child's safety or well-being while in the care of the other party.
(13) The distance between the respective residences of the parties.
(14) The responsibility for the care and rearing of the child previously exercised by each party.
La.Civ.Code art. 134.
The La.R.S. 9:355.14 factors considered by the trial court in contested relocation cases include:
(1) The nature, quality, extent of involvement, and duration of the relationship of the child with the person proposing relocation and with the non-relocating person, siblings, and other significant persons in the child's life.
(2) The age, developmental stage, needs of the child, and the likely impact the relocation will have on the child's physical, educational, and emotional development.
(3) The feasibility of preserving a good relationship between the non-relocating person and the child through suitable physical custody or visitation arrangements, considering the logistics and financial circumstances of the parties.
(4) The child's views about the proposed relocation, taking into consideration the age and maturity of the child.
(5) Whether there is an established pattern of conduct by either the person seeking or the person opposing the relocation, either to promote or thwart the relationship of the child and the other party....
(6) How the relocation of the child will affect the general quality of life for the child, including but not limited to financial or emotional benefit and educational opportunity.
(7) The reasons of each person for seeking or opposing the relocation.
(8) The current employment and economic circumstances of each person and how the proposed relocation may affect the circumstances of the child.
(9) The extent to which the objecting person has fulfilled his financial obligations to the person seeking relocation, including child support, spousal support, and community property, and alimentary obligations.
(10) The feasibility of a relocation by the objecting person.
(11) Any history of substance abuse, harassment, or violence by either the person seeking or the person opposing relocation, including a consideration of the severity of the conduct and the failure or success of any attempts at rehabilitation.
(12) Any other factors affecting the best interest of the child.
B. The court may not consider
To continue reading
Request your trial