Danielle Glenn Gautreaux v. Evan Gautreaux ( 2020 )

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST CIRCUIT
J
2019 CU 1486
J
DANIELLE GLENN GAUTREAUX
VERSUS
EVAN GAUTREAUX
JUDGMENT RENDERED: JUL 2 3 2020
Appealed from the
The Family Court
In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge- State of Louisiana
Suit Number F205957 • Division C
The Honorable Charlene Day, Judge Presiding
Melanie Newkome Jones ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT
Brian J. Prendergast DEFENDANT— Evan Gautreaux
Thomas H. Hessburg
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Natalie C. Neale ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE,
Vincent A. Saffiotti PLAINTIFF— Danielle Glenn
Laurie N. Marien Gautreaux
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
BEFORE: GUIDRY, WELCH, AND HOLDRIDGE, J.T.
16 a tuwvs
kw#
QD10.h& h 46V c A vc no
n., *,; av r 1
WELCH, J.
The defendant, Evan Gautreaux, appeals a trial court judgment in favor of
the plaintiff, Danielle Glenn Gautreaux ( now " Corbin"), authorizing her to relocate
the principal residence of their children to Washington, D. C. Finding no abuse of
the trial court' s vast discretion with regard to such matters, we affirm the judgment
of the trial court and issue this memorandum opinion in compliance with Uniform
Rules, Courts of Appeal, Rule 2- 16. 1( B).
The parties were married on January 6, 2007, and of the marriage three
children were born: C. G., born September 20, 2011 ( now deceased); P. G., born
October 24, 2012; and P. G., born July 15, 2015. Around June 2, 2016, the parties
physically separated, and thereafter, on August 23, 2016, Mrs. Corbin filed a
petition for divorce. On October 5, 2016, the parties entered into a stipulated
judgment, which granted the parties joint custody of the two minor children and
granted Mr. Gautreaux periods of physical custody in accordance with his work
schedule. However, the judgment did not outline a specific physical custodial
schedule or designate a domiciliary parent. The judgment also ordered Mr.
Gautreaux to pay $ 750. 00 per month in child support and provided that the parties
would split certain costs of the children according to their percentage share of their
combined income.
On January 27, 2017, Ms. Corbin filed a rule requesting that a physical
custodial schedule and joint custody implementation plan be set and that child
support be modified. In response, on March 21, 2017, Mr. Gautreaux filed a rule
seeking a modification of physical custody, designation as the domiciliary parent,
determination of a joint custody implementation plan, and modification of child
support. Thereafter, on September 11, 2017, the parties entered into another
stipulated judgment.
2
The September 11, 2017 judgment maintained joint custody between the
parties, but designated Mrs. Corbin as the domiciliary parent, and set forth a
specific shared custodial arrangement between the parties on a " 2- 2- 5- 5" basis, as
well as a specific holiday schedule. The parties agreed that neither party would
owe child support to the other and that they would equally share expenses of the
children.
The stipulated judgment also appointed Renee McCarthy as a parenting
coordinator and enacted other provisions for the implementation ofjoint custody.
On February 27, 2019, Mrs. Corbin filed a rule requesting court
authorization to relocate the minor children' s residence to Washington, D. C. In the
rule, she alleged that her husband, Lieutenant Commander Neal Corbin, was an
active duty service member with the United States Coast Guard and that he had
received orders stationing him at the Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling in Washington,
D. C. Therefore, Mrs. Corbin requested that the Court allow her to relocate with
the minor children to Washington, D. C. Mrs. Corbin further alleged that she had
received a job offer in Washington, D. C. as an audiologist. On March 13, 2019,
Mr. Gautreaux filed an objection to the proposed relocation and requested a
modification of custody wherein the children would primarily reside with him, and
he would be designated as the domiciliary parent. A trial on the matter was held
and, at the conclusion of evidence, the trial court granted Ms. Corbin' s request to
relocate the children' s residence to Washington, D.C. A judgment in accordance
with the trial court' s ruling was signed on July 23, 2019 and it is from this
judgment that Mr. Gautreaux has appealed.
Under certain circumstances, the relocation of a child' s principal residence
to a location out of state or in state is governed by Louisiana' s relocation statutes,
La. R. S. 9: 355. 1- 9: 355. 19. La. R. S. 9: 355. 2. When the relocation of the children' s
principal residence is contested, La. R.S. 9: 355. 10 requires that the relocating
parent prove that the proposed relocation is: ( 1) made in good faith; and ( 2) in the
3
best interest of the child. Thus, Louisiana' s relocation statutes retain the " best
interest of the child" standard as the fundamental principle governing decisions
made pursuant to its provisions. Curole v. Curole, 2002- 1891 ( La. 10/ 15/ 02), 828
So. 2d 1094, 1096.
Louisiana Revised Statutes 9: 355. 14( A) provides that:
In reaching its decision regarding a proposed relocation, the court
shall consider all relevant factors in determining whether relocation is
in the best interest of the child, including the following:
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
M
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.
A trial court' s determination in a relocation matter is entitled to great weight and
will not be overturned on appeal absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion.
Curole, 828 So. 2d at 1096. However, as to any underlying factual findings made
by the trial court, such as whether the proposed relocation was made in good faith
and whether the proposed relocation was in the best interest of the child, the
manifest error standard of review is applicable. See Curole, 828 So. 2d at 1097-
1098 and 1100- 1101.
In this case, the trial court found that Mrs. Corbin' s request to relocate the
residence of the minor children was made in good faith and that it was in the best
interest of the children. As to whether Mrs. Corbin' s request to relocate was made
in good faith, the record reflects that Mrs. Corbin' s request was based on the fact
that her husband, an active member of the United States Coast Guard, had received
orders stationing him in Washington, D.C. and that he would be receiving
additional pay as a result of the transfer order. The record also reflects that the trial
court considered the factors set forth in La. R.S. 9: 355. 14, and found that the
majority of the factors weighed in favor of Mrs. Corbin and the relocation being in
the best interest of the children. In this regard, the trial court was particularly
concerned about Mr. Gautreaux' s current employment and economic
circumstances. The trial court found that Mr. Gautreaux and his new wife were not
in a stable financial position to support two children, whereas Mrs. Corbin and her
husband were in a much better financial position to provide the children financial
security and opportunity. The trial court also found that the move to Washington,
D.C. would positively impact the children' s physical, educational, and emotional
development; therefore, Mrs. Corbin was better suited to facilitate the physical,
5
educational, and emotional development of the children. The trial court further
noted that Mrs. Corbin had historically been the more stable and morally fit parent,
as well as the children' s primary caregiver, and that she has been and is willing to
facilitate a loving relationship between the children and their father. The trial court
also noted concerns about the stability of Mr. Gautreaux' s home, current marital
relationship, and moral fitness of him and his new wife.
Based on our review of the record, we find the trial court' s factual findings
that the proposed relocation was made in good faith and was in the best interest of
the children were reasonably supported by the record and were not manifestly
erroneous. As such, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in
granting Mrs. Corbin' s request to relocate the children' s residence to Washington,
D.C.
Accordingly, the July 23, 2019 judgment of the trial court is affirmed. All
costs of this appeal are assessed to the defendant/ appellant, Evan Gautreaux.
AFFIRMED.
2