TASHA H. BRAUD
JUSTIN L. BRAUD
FROM 25TH JDC, PARISH OF PLAQUEMINES NO. 64-280, DIVISION
"B" HONORABLE MICHAEL D. CLEMENT, JUDGE.
William A. Roe ATTORNEY AT LAW 2011 Milan Street New Orleans,
LA 70115 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT
M. Hufft PIVACH PIVACH HUFFT THRIFFILEY & NOLAN, L.L.C.
8311 Highway 23, Suite 104 Belle Chase, LA 70037 COUNSEL FOR
composed of Chief Judge James F. McKay, III, Judge Daniel L.
Dysart, Judge Regina Bartholomew-Woods)
L. Dysart Judge.
Hess Braud appeals a judgment whereby she and her ex-husband,
Justin Luke Braud, were granted the shared custody of their
minor son, D.B. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the
ruling of the trial court.
was born August 9, 2005. Tasha Hess Braud ("Ms.
Braud") and Justin Luke Braud ("Mr. Braud) were
subsequently married in 2013. On February 12, 2018, Ms. Braud
filed a petition for divorce; Mr. Braud filed an answer and
reconventional demand on March 18, 2018; and, a judgment of
divorce was granted on May 1, 2018. On June 5, 2018, the
trial court conducted a hearing on the issues of child
custody and support, with a Judgment with Custody
Implementation Plan being rendered on June 13, 2018.
Amended Judgment with Custody Implementation Plan was
rendered on June 27, 2018, which orders the shared physical
custody of D.B., with Ms. Braud as the domiciliary parent.
Ms. Braud was awarded physical custody of D.B. Every Monday
and Tuesday and Mr. Braud was awarded physical custody every
Wednesday and Thursday. The parties were ordered to alternate
weekends. Holidays were to be shared fairly and equitably,
with specific provisions for Mother's Day, Father's
Day, and D.B.'s birthday, in accordance with "the
traditions which the parents and/or their families have
maintained in the past, together with each parent's work
schedules (if any), and the reasonable desires of their
sole issue on appeal is the trial court's award of shared
equal custody. Ms. Braud argues that the trial court erred in
automatically applying Louisiana Civil Code art. 131, without
considering D.B.'s best interests or his preferences.
custody decisions are reviewed utilizing an abuse of
discretion standard. Hiatt v. Duhe, 17-0574, p. 5
(La.App. 4 Cir. 1/31/18), 238 So.3d 484, 488, citing
Leard v. Schenker, 06-1116, p. 3 (La. 6/16/06), 931
So.2d 355, 357. Thus, rulings by a trial court in child
custody matters are entitled to great weight and the rulings
will not be disturbed absent a showing of a clear abuse of
discretion. Id., citing AEB v. JBE, 99-2668, p. 7
(La. 11/30/99), 752 So.2d 756, 761. Every child custody case
must be reviewed in light of the particular facts of that
case and the relationships of the parties involved, with a
goal of determining the best interest of the child.
Id. 17-0574, pp. 5-6, 238 So.3d at 488 (citations
omitted). A reviewing court must not substitute its own
findings for that of the trial court. Id., 17-0574,
p. 6, 238 So.3d at 488-89 (citation omitted).
Civil Code art. 131 provides that custody awards are made
with the best interest of the child in mind. A trial court
shall apply all relevant factors to decide what is in the
child's best interest. La. Civ. Code art. 134.
Such factors may include the fourteen non-exclusive factors
set forth at La. Civ. Code art. 134.A trial court is not strictly
bound to apply each factor, but should consider each case