GRADY P. GALLAND
HEIDI M. GALLAND
APPEAL FROM THE TWELFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT. PARISH OF AVOYELLES, NO. 2009-4104-A. HONORABLE MARK A. JEANSONNE, DISTRICT JUDGE.
Brian K. Thompson, Alexandria, LA, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT: Heidi M. Galland.
Cory P. Roy, Roy & Scott Law Offices, Marksville, LA, COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE: Grady P. Galland.
Court composed of Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux, Chief Judge, Jimmie C. Peters, Marc T. Amy, Shannon J. Gremillion, and Phyllis M. Keaty, Judges. Thibodeaux, Chief Judge, dissents and assigns reasons. Gremillion, J., dissents for the reasons assigned by Chief Judge Thibodeaux.
[14-343 La.App. 3 Cir. 1]
In this custody dispute, the parents could not agree on either a custody arrangement or which school their children would attend. The mother filed a reconventional demand, seeking allegedly unpaid child support and seeking to make a previous cost award executory. After a hearing, the trial court awarded joint custody, with the father having domiciliary status, and establishing a physical custody schedule. The trial court also directed that the children be enrolled in the school proposed by the father. The mother appeals. For the following reasons, we affirm.
Factual and Procedural Background
The parties to this litigation, Grady P. Galland and Heidi M. Galland, have two minor children together, Colin and Cadence. The procedural history of this matter was set out in a previous appeal, Galland v. Galland, 12-1075, pp. 2-4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/20/13), 117 So.3d 105, 106-107, reh'g granted (for the limited purpose of clarifying previous judgment), which stated:
The parties entered into a stipulated Consent Judgment dated December 23, 2009, awarding them joint custody and co-domiciliary status. The parties shared physical custody on a week-by-week (7/7) basis. At the time of the divorce, both parties lived in Plaucheville, Avoyelles Parish, Louisiana. Heidi subsequently moved to Alexandria, Louisiana [in nearby Rapides Parish]. Shortly after Heidi moved, Grady sought and obtained an order from the trial court that Colin would attend St. Mary's for the 2010-2011 school year. Colin attended St. Mary's for the 2010-2011 school year. The parties continued to share custody on a 7/7 basis despite the increased distance between their homes.
In January 2011, Grady filed a Motion to Compel Psychological Evaluations of both parties and their children to determine the optimal custodial and school arrangements. In June [14-343 La.App. 3 Cir. 2] 2011, Grady filed a Motion for Contempt because Heidi was contemplating enrolling Colin in Nachman despite the previous judgment allowing him to attend St. Mary's until further order of the court. In July 2011, Heidi filed a Rule for Declaration on School Attendance (" Rule to Declare School" ), seeking an order allowing Colin to attend Nachman for the 2011-2012 school year. The trial court deferred these various motions and rules pending the results of the independent psychological evaluation ordered by [the] court. Indeed, the trial court ordered Dr. Daniel Lonowski to evaluate the parents and the children in the fall of 2011.
While the trial court motions were pending, Heidi and Grady reached a verbal agreement whereby Colin would attend Nachman for the 2011-2012 school year. The parties also verbally agreed to modify the shared 7/7 custody plan such that the children remained with Heidi during the school week. The parties sought to minimize travel time and maximize stability for the children. At that time, Colin attended Nachman, and Cadence attended Calvary Daycare in Alexandria. Grady later changed his mind about Colin's schooling, feeling that Colin " ...