BLAIR WALTER SIEGEL v. LYNDI VERRET SIEGEL (2025)

This appeal arises from a judgment modifying custody and denying contempt.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Blair Walter Siegel and Lyndi Verret Siegel were married, are now divorced, and are the parents of two minor children: Liam and Amelia. Liam was born on May 30, 2016, and Ameila was born on July 11, 2020.

In October 2022, custody was established by consent judgment. In essence, the parties agreed to joint legal custody, to Lyndi being named the domiciliary parent, to a schedule of physical custody, and to a joint custody implementation plan. Under the schedule of physical custody, Lyndi was the parent with whom the children primarily resided.¹

Fifteen months later, on January 24, 2024, Blair filed a petition for ex parte sole custody pursuant to La.Code Civ.P. art. 3945. The petition alleged that Lyndi was abusing alcohol during her custodial periods. More specifically, the petition alleged that Liam FaceTimed Blair on two separate occasions, saying he could not wake up his mother. The trial court, in turn, signed an ex parte custody order on January 25, 2024.

At its core, the ex parte order did four things. First, it awarded ex parte sole custody of both children to Blair pending an expedited hearing on temporary custody. Second, it fixed the expedited hearing on temporary custody for February 6, 2024. Third, it fixed a hearing officer conference for February 29, 2024, on Blair's rule to modify custody and on his rule for contempt, which was also pleaded in the petition. And fourth, it fixed the trial of those rules for March 8, 2024.²

Two weeks later, on February 6, 2024, the parties appeared for the expedited hearing on temporary custody. The trial court ruled as follows at the close of evidence:

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED, that [the] temporary custody changes granted in [the] Ex Parte Custody Order dated January 25, 2024 are hereby reversed.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the Consent Judgment dated October 21, 2022 remains in effect, in which the parties share joint custody.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that Lyndi Verret Siegel participate in and comply with any orders of [the Department of Children and Family Services] including but not limited to no consumption of alcohol during her custodial/visitation period, participation in any parenting classes offered through DCFS family services plan and participate in any substance abuse classes/treatment ordered by and offered through DCFS family services plan.

As stated earlier, the hearing officer conference on Blair's custody and contempt rules was scheduled for late February 2024, but there is no indication in the record that the hearing officer conference took place. There is also nothing in the record showing that the trial of Blair's rules went forward in March 2024.

Instead, the record shows that on April 25, 2024, Blair filed a second petition for ex parte sole custody and rule for contempt. Once again, Blair alleged that Lyndi was drinking excessively during her custodial periods. And like before, the trial court awarded him ex parte sole custody of the children pending an expedited hearing on temporary custody, which was scheduled for May 28, 2024.

Yet on the morning of May 28, 2024, Blair and Lyndi stipulated to the following temporary custody order: the parties agreed that Lyndi would participate in the Soberlink monitoring program, that Lyndi would blow into the Soberlink device three hours before the start of her custodial periods, that Lyndi would blow into the Soberlink device three more times each day while in custody of the children, that Lyndi would not consume alcohol during her custodial periods, and that she would refrain from drinking alcohol at least twelve hours before the start of such periods. The parties also agreed to temporary shared (50/50) physical custody on an alternating 3-2-2 basis; they agreed that Lyndi would submit to a substance abuse evaluation administered by Dr. David Landry; and they agreed that Liam would begin therapy with Dr. Latifey Lafleur.

The trial of Blair's rule to modify permanent custody and his rule for contempt was ultimately held on October 28, 2024. At the close of evidence, the trial court ruled from the bench with oral reasons. This ruling was reduced to a written final judgment signed that same day.

Oversimplifying slightly, the trial court maintained joint legal custody but designated Blair as the domiciliary parent. Blair and Lyndi were granted shared (50/50) physical custody on an alternating seven-and-seven schedule. Next, the court allocated the legal authority and responsibility of the parents in a joint custody implementation plan. The court ordered that all communication between the parties shall be through Our Family Wizard. The court then ordered Lyndi to continue with Soberlink monitoring and to submit to a substance abuse evaluation. And finally, it fixed a review hearing in late-January 2025 to address Lyndi's Soberlink compliance and the results of her substance abuse evaluation.

It is from this October 28, 2024 judgment that Blair appeals. And on appeal, he asserts nine assignments of error:

1. The trial court erred in maintaining joint custody rather than granting Blair sole custody.

2. The trial court erred in granting unsupervised visits for Lyndi.

3. The trial court erred in granting an equal time share.

4. The trial court erred in granting a review hearing.

5. The trial court erred in failing to issue an order prohibiting Lyndi's boyfriend, Nicholas Suire, from being in the presence of the minor children.

6. The trial court erred in giving legal advice to Nicholas Suire and Lyndi regarding how to dismiss a protective order in place to protect Lyndi and the children.

7. The trial court erred in ordering a review hearing in a civil custody matter.

8. The trial court erred in failing to hold Lyndi in contempt of court for her numerous violations of the provisions of the governing judgments.

9. The trial court erred in splitting costs equally given Lyndi's behavior which required multiple ex parte proceedings and the custody trial itself.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

In the discussion below, we begin our review by addressing Blair's first, second, third, and fifth assignments of error. Those assignments involve the trial court's modification of custody. Next, we address Blair's fourth and seventh assignments of error. Those assignments challenge the appropriateness of the review hearing. We then turn our attention to Blair's sixth, eighth, and ninth assignments of error. Those assignments are addressed in that order.

Blair's First, Second, Third, and Fifth Assignments of Error

The paramount consideration in any determination of custody, including an action to modify custody, is the best interest of the child. La.Civ.Code art. 131; Evans v. Lungrin, 97-541, 97-577 (La. 2/6/98), 708 So.2d. 731. In Evans, the supreme court clarified that “where the original custody decree is a stipulated judgment, the party seeking modification must prove (1) that there has been a material change in circumstances since the original custody decree was entered, and (2) that the proposed modification is in the best interest of the child.” Id. at 738. A stipulated custody judgment, as explained in Evans, is one where the parties consent to a custodial arrangement and no evidence of parental fitness is presented to the court. Here, it is undisputed that the original custody decree is a stipulated judgment, as opposed to a considered decree.

On appeal, custody determinations are reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. Marksbury v. Marksbury, 16-526 (La. 3/24/16), 204 So.3d 180. Hence, a trial court's determination can only be set aside if it arises from an abuse of discretion, such as when the factual finding is not supported by any fair interpretation of the record. Gibson v. Bossier City Gen. Hosp., 594 So.2d 1332 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1991). By contrast, de novo review is used when one or more legal errors interdict the trial court's fact-finding process. Evans, 708 So.2d 731. A legal error occurs when a trial court applies incorrect principles of law and such errors are prejudicial. Id. Legal errors are prejudicial when they materially affect the outcome and deprive a party of substantial rights. Id.

With this in mind, we turn to the evidence adduced at the October 2024 custody trial. In addition to his own testimony, Blair called four witnesses during his case-in-chief: Brooke Doucet, Kristy Parker, Monique Viator, and Nicholas Suire. Lyndi's defense-in-chief, on the other hand, consisted of her testimony and the testimony of Dr. David Landry.

Dr. David Landry testified first. The court allowed him to testify out of order. Dr. Landry was qualified as an expert in the field of general psychology. Although Dr. Landry was supposed to have administered a substance abuse evaluation of Lyndi, he inadvertently performed a psychological evaluation. Much of Dr. Landry's initial testimony was spent explaining this confusion. But even still, he was confident that the test he did perform would have detected any substance abuse or addiction issues.

According to Dr. Landry, Lyndi reported that she was only a social drinker. Although Dr. Landry was unsure whether he had previously received Lyndi's Soberlink report, he noted that he had a chance to briefly review it with Lyndi that morning. When asked to summarize his findings, he stated that Lyndi had a history of depression and some custody-related anxiety which were being managed through treatment. Dr. Landry expressed no other concern and saw no need for further substance abuse testing.

Yet on cross-examination, Dr. Landry changed his position. After a series of hypothetical questions, he admitted that more testing was needed to determine if Lyndi has an addiction problem. However, Dr. Landry was not willing to perform those tests: he now considered himself biased even though Lyndi's lawyer correctly pointed out that a hypothetical question is not substantive evidence.

Brooke Doucet testified next. She is Lyndi's first cousin. According to Brooke, she and Lyndi had been very close, but they grew apart after Lyndi and Blair separated. Nevertheless, Brooke agreed to supervise Lyndi's visit with Liam and Amelia on May 18, 2024.³ That day, Lyndi and her children spent the afternoon at Brooke's house swimming and socializing with about twelve other people. At some point, Liam called his father to report that Lyndi was drinking what he believed to be alcohol from a Yeti cup. Blair, in turn, relayed this message to Brooke via text message.

In response, Brooke explained that she had not seen Lyndi drinking alcohol nor did she notice any change in her behavior. But Brooke decided to investigate further. So she went outside to look for a Yeti cup, found one near the pool, and inspected its contents. Although the cup appeared to contain blue Gatorade, she could also smell alcohol. She then took a sip, and it tasted of alcohol. Brooke confronted Lyndi about this, but Lyndi denied drinking any alcohol. Brooke then called Blair to pick up the children.

The next witness was Kristy Parker. Kristy and Lyndi are both registered nurses. Kristy was Lyndi's supervisor when she worked at Advanced Wound Center. Kristy hired Lyndi as a nurse manager, and Lyndi worked with her from April 2022 through August 2023. Kristy testified that she would occasionally smell alcohol on Lyndi, notice a change in her gait after lunch, or see her acting erratically. When asked how she responded to all this, Kristy was vague, stating that she followed protocol by alerting her direct supervisor and participating in a three-way call with the human resources department. She offered no explanations for failing to formally report Lyndi.

Kristy also testified about an incident at her house during a trick-or-treat party for adults and children in 2022. According to Kristy, Lyndi became so intoxicated that she fell. After that, Kristy's husband drove Lyndi and her children home.

On cross-examination, Kristy confirmed that she did not know if any formal complaint had been filed against Lyndi for drinking during work hours. Kristy was then asked whether she had been fired by Advanced Wound Center for preparing fraudulent documents. She denied this, explaining that her position had simply been eliminated.

Monique Viator testified next. She is Lyndi's neighbor on Candleglow Road in New Iberia. Monique testified about an encounter she and her seventeen-year-old son, Nathan, had with Lyndi on April 11, 2024. Monique recalled seeing Lyndi pass down the street twice. Lyndi ultimately stopped her vehicle in front of Monique's home while Nathan was outside. According to Monique, it was clear that there was a problem. She recalled gesturing for both her son and Lyndi to turn into her driveway to discuss the issue. Lyndi then began yelling and cursing at Monique and Nathan. Lyndi's behavior was erratic. Monique felt that Lyndi must have been drunk. Ultimately, Monique called the police.

The next witness was Nicholas Suire. Nicholas is Lyndi's on-again, off-again boyfriend. He testified that he and Lyndi started dating in December 2023. But in April 2024, he admitted being arrested for domestic-abuse battery of Lyndi. Shortly thereafter, a protective order was issued against him, prohibiting any contact with Lyndi or her children. Although Nicholas ultimately pled guilty to simple battery, the protective order remains in full force and effect.

Notwithstanding all that, Nicholas testified that he and Lyndi have now reconciled. Nicholas then admitted contacting Blair after his arrest. He admitted telling Blair that Lyndi was an alcoholic, that she was crazy, and that she was not capable of raising the children. He also admitted meeting Blair and signing an affidavit. According to Nicholas, the affidavit was prepared by Blair, and Nicholas signed it without reading it. Beyond that, Nicholas said he reached out to Blair because he was angry with Lyndi for having him arrested; he wanted to get even with her. He then explained that what he told Blair about Lyndi's parental fitness was not true.

When asked about the protective order, Nicholas testified that it had “already been taken care of” by his attorney: he believed that the protective order had been rescinded in conjunction with his plea of simply battery.

Blair testified next. He testified that he moved into his current residence in Youngsville in October 2023. He testified that his home is 1,800 square feet, that it backs up to forty acres, and that there are nearby fishing ponds. He testified that his girlfriend, Aundra, and her five-year-old son, Blue, also live with him. He testified that Liam and Amelia attend Green T. Linden Elementary School and that they are doing well. Blair then testified that the temporary schedule of physical custody—the alternating 3-2-2 shared custody schedule—is not in the children's best interest because there are too many custody exchanges. Blair mentioned that he changed jobs in January 2024; he is no longer a traveling insurance adjuster. Yet he did not provide any information about his current employment situation. When asked whether he was able to provide food, clothing, and medical care for his children, Blair explained that “it's been a lot more difficult over the last few months[.]”

Other than that, Blair's testimony focused entirely on Lyndi's purported shortcomings as a parent, beginning with her use of alcohol. Blair was asked about his petitions for ex parte custody. He filed two of them: the first on January 24, 2024; the second on April 25, 2024.

Blair was then asked about why he filed the first petition. According to Blair, Liam called him via FaceTime on September 20, 2023, saying he could not wake his mother. Blair then called 911, and the police were dispatched to Lyndi's home. Blair also reported the incident to DCFS, but DCFS took no action. Then, on December 22, 2023, Liam again FaceTimed Blair and reported being unable to wake his mother. Like before, the police were dispatched to Lyndi's home. And like before, Blair reported the incident to DCFS. But unlike before, DCFS determined that additional services were needed.⁴

One month later, Blair filed his first ex parte petition. The trial court signed the accompanying ex parte custody order on January 25, 2024. Two weeks later, on February 6, 2024, the parties appeared for an expedited hearing on temporary custody. At that hearing, the allegations in the petition were fully adjudicated. Because of this—and in the interest of judicial economy—the transcript from the February 2024 expedited hearing was admitted into evidence at the October 2024 custody trial, and our summary of that transcript is set forth later in this opinion.

Blair's second ex parte petition was filed in April 2024. When asked why he filed it, Blair pointed to Nicholas Suire. As noted previously, Nicholas told Blair that Lyndi's excessive drinking made her an unfit parent. Blair had Nicholas sign an affidavit to that effect. But in addition, Nicholas also told Blair about the altercation between Lyndi and Monique, which prompted Blair to personally follow up with Monique.

Next, Blair testified about Lyndi's May 2024 supervised visitation at Brooke's house. He then confirmed that he and Lyndi stipulated to temporary custody in May 2024, that the temporary order required Lyndi to submit to Soberlink monitoring, and that he received real-time notifications from Lyndi's Soberlink account. For example, on June 14, 2024, Blair received notice from Soberlink of a positive alcohol screening by Lyndi. Facial recognition was not able to detect Lyndi in two subsequent re-tests.⁵ When Blair saw the positive test result, he immediately retrieved the children.

As to communication and the exchange of information with Lyndi, Blair testified that “[i]t's completely impossible” to co-parent with her. As he put it: “She is a pathological liar.” He went on to explain that Lyndi often prevents him from communicating with Liam and Amelia during her custodial periods.

But on cross-examination, a different picture of things was presented. For instance, the text messages exchanged between the parties on January 28, 2023, were introduced into evidence. Those messages run like this: at 11:45 a.m., Lyndi asks, “What are the kids doing?” About one hour later, Blair responds, “Riding in the truck.” Several hours after that, at 4:30 p.m., Lyndi asks, “Can I FaceTime with them?” Next, at 5:34 p.m., Lyndi sends Blair information about soccer registration for Liam. A few minutes later, she sends Blair a second text about soccer. Then, at 6:50 p.m., Lyndi asks, “Why are you not allowing me to FaceTime the kids?” Two minutes later, Blair responds, “FaceTime isn't working.” Blair follows up one minute later: “I haven't missed any calls or requests.” Two minutes after that, Lyndi responds, “I tried at 6:58 and you canceled it. Let me screen record when I try this time.” She tries again four minutes later. Eight minutes after that, Blair responds, “It isn't working for me like I said. I never missed a call from you. Call and see if it goes through.” Lyndi responds seconds later: “Try FaceTiming me.” She follows up seconds later: “I've tried twice.” Thirty minutes after that, Blair responds this way: “Show me in the paperwork where it says we have to specifically FaceTime. Don't worry. I can wait.” A laughing emoji is pasted at the end of that message.

And there is more. Blair accused Lyndi of withholding information about Willow Wood, which is a holiday and summer-day camp in New Iberia. Yet this testimony was also contradicted during his cross-examination. For example, on April 9, 2023, Blair sent Lyndi the following text message: “Send me the information about [camp] willow wood so I know the times and what is needed.” Two minutes later, Blair threatened Lyndi with contempt. Less than one minute later, Lyndi explained that Liam “is going to spring break camp at Willowwood[.]” She then notes that the remaining information is available online. When Blair was asked about this, he pointed to the judgment and testified that she is supposed to provide me with “the paperwork and documents ․ I need to rely on the actual physical copy, the paperwork, the information that the camp has[.]”

To be fair, there are many examples of an almost constant, non-productive back and forth between both parties on every contested parenting issue in this case: the exchange of Liam's medication, Liam's homework, travel with the children, doctor appointments, medical care for the children, custody exchanges, and basic information sharing.

Nonetheless, Blair also accused Lyndi of failing to provide for Amelia's medical care. For instance, he testified that Lyndi failed to get medical treatment for Amelia's ear infection. According to Blair, by the time he was able to bring Amelia to Urgent Care, it was too late: her eardrum had ruptured. Yet on cross, it was brought to Blair's attention that the medical records from Urgent Care make no mention of a ruptured eardrum. Instead, the diagnosis was a middle ear infection, acute and uncomplicated. Blair's response: “I'm not a medical professional.”

Next, Blair testified about two disruptive encounters with Lyndi at Liam's sporting events. In one instance, Blair said that Lyndi “body checked” him by shoving him with her shoulder. In another, he said that Lyndi called the police when he refused to sit by her, resulting in a delay of the game. According to Blair, it is impossible to attend sporting events with Lyndi present because she constantly harasses him. In fact, this is why he no longer allows the children to play sports or participate in extracurricular activities.

Blair was then asked about how Liam was doing in school. His response: “Fantastic.” The same question was asked about Amelia. His response: “Great.” Blair confirmed that Liam had been diagnosed with ADHD. Blair was then asked whether Liam had any issues that needed to be addressed by a mental health professional. Blair noted that “Liam has a really strong emotional response to getting [his tablet or electronic devices] taken away.” He acknowledged that Liam lies quite a bit: “It's just, you know, it's the lying part that would definitely help[.]”

But later in his testimony, he also acknowledged that Liam tells him what happens during Lyndi's custodial periods and that he believes him. By contrast, Blair described communication with Lyndi this way: “It's one lie after another, after another, after another. So, there is no basis of truth that she's shown, ever. So, yes, believing my son is -- it's the impossible thing I have to do[.]” In addition and significantly, Blair admitted that when the children are with him, there is no communication with Lyndi: not by him, and not by the children.

Turning now to Lyndi's defense-in-chief. Lyndi testified that she lives on Candleglow Drive in New Iberia. She explained that she has lived at that address since 2015. This was the marital residence. This is the home that the children have always lived in. Lyndi also noted that she and the children have a standard poodle and a fourteen-year-old cat.

Lyndi was then asked about Liam's educational history. She explained that he went to Bell Place Elementary for pre-K. Then, beginning the following year, he started in a French immersion program at North Lewis Elementary School. He remained there through the second grade. Although Liam is a straight-A student, he was asked not to return to North Lewis because of behavioral issues. So Blair, in August 2014, filed a motion to enroll Liam in Green T. Linden Elementary School in Youngsville. The trial court granted the motion after a contradictory hearing. Thus, Liam is now attending that school.

Lyndi was then asked about her educational and employment history. She testified that she has a bachelor-of-science degree in nursing. And since 2013, she has been certified as a registered nurse. She testified that she has always worked. However, at the time of COVID-19, she was employed as a school nurse. So when her school closed for the pandemic, she stayed home with Amelia and Liam. And although the parties were married at that time, Blair was often away traveling for work.

After the pandemic, Lyndi switched jobs and began working at Iberia Medical Center, which is located directly across the street from North Lewis Elementary, which was Liam's school at that time. Lyndi is currently employed as the program director for WoundCentrics, which is a wound care and hyperbarics company. Although her work schedule is Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., she has tremendous flexibility with her job.

Lyndi was then asked about which custody schedule she thought would be in the best interest of the children. Lyndi pointed to the custodial schedule in the original custody judgment. Under that schedule, the children resided primarily with her; Blair had physical custody on alternating weekends. In her opinion, the children adjusted well to that schedule. She pointed out that the children were allowed to participate in extracurricular activities at that time. Amelia, for example, has not been able to start dancing because of Blair's refusal to bring her. Lyndi also pointed out that Blair does not bring the children to church, noting that Liam was only recently baptized.

Lyndi then explained that there is a tremendous bond between her and her children and that they want to be with her all the time. Amelia, for example, stays attached to Lyndi's leg. Lyndi noted that Liam and Amelia also have a close relationship with her parents. Lyndi also noted that Liam's behavior is much better since starting counseling with Dr. Lafleur.

Turning now to the proverbial “elephant in the room”: Lyndi's drinking. At the outset, Lyndi expressed that Blair had no first-hand knowledge of any of this. He has “tried to take one small thing and make it this monstrous thing that is, literally, based off things that he knows nothing about․ He has not been around our house. He doesn't know what happens at our house.”

Lyndi testified that Blair attempted to decrease his child support obligation in May 2023, but his request was denied. Shortly thereafter, he began expressing concerns about her drinking. Throughout her testimony, Lyndi admitted that she regularly consumed alcohol, sometimes drinking to excess.⁶ But she denied drinking during her custodial periods. She emphasized that she had not had a drink since before Amelia's birthday on July 11, 2014, and she confirmed that all DCFS cases initiated by Blair had been closed.

As to Soberlink, Lyndi testified that she agreed to the Soberlink monitoring in the May 2024 temporary custody order. But that order, as Lyndi pointed out, did not require her to blow into the device when the children were with Blair. Thus, to the extent that the system registered more than one hundred misses, those misses were during Blair's custodial periods.

Turning now to her relationship with Nicholas Suire. Although Lyndi acknowledged that they reconciled, she explained that Nicholas has had no contact with the children since the protective order was issued against him. She also explained that the children were with Blair when Nicholas physically abused her.

Lyndi was then asked about the incident at Brooke's house. Lyndi denied drinking any alcohol that day. She explained that there were many people at Brooke's house that afternoon. Brooke could have grabbed someone else's drink.

As to Kristy's testimony, Lyndi denied ever drinking on the job. According to Lyndi, Kristy blamed her for losing her job. Lyndi explained that she was the one who caught Kristy preparing fraudulent documents. And she was the one who reported this to upper management. Lyndi also denied being drunk at the 2022 Halloween party, although she did admit to drinking that night. She explained that it was a neighborhood party, that some of the homeowners were passing out Jell-O shots, and that all the adults were drinking. According to Lyndi, she tripped over the wagon that she had been towing for the children. She immediately picked herself back up, and everyone laughed it off.

Next, Lyndi addressed Monique's testimony. According to Lyndi, she and her children were returning home from a football activity. After she turned into her neighborhood, Liam asked if he could play a song and stick his head out of the sunroof: he wanted to pretend like he was in a parade. Lyndi agreed. She noted that this was something she and Blair did with the kids when they were married. But this time, as she drove slowly around the cul-de-sac and started heading home, Monique's son, Nathan, sped by her, honking his horn. Then, as Lyndi approached Monique's home, Monique flagged her down. Lyndi stopped her car, and an argument ensued. Lyndi denied being drunk. She was simply tired and angry—she felt attacked. She also could not understand why Nathan was honking his horn at her. She later learned that Nathan was honking in a friendly way.

We now turn our attention to the transcript from the February 2024 expedited hearing on temporary custody. At that hearing, Blair called four witnesses: Ann Breaux; Lyndi's parents, Betty and Kim Verret; and Lyndi.

Blair's first witness, Ann Breaux, is a psychology coordinator at North Lewis Elementary School. She did not offer any negative testimony about Lyndi's parenting ability. Instead, she simply confirmed that Liam was a very active child, that he had a history of behavioral issues, and that he takes ADHD medication.

Betty Verret testified next. Mrs. Verret testified about the incident on September 20, 2023. This is when Blair called the police for a welfare check and notified DCFS after Liam had called him and reported that he could not wake his mother. But Liam had also called his grandmother, Mrs. Verret. Mrs. Verret testified that she and her husband immediately drove to Lyndi's home. They were the first to arrive. Mrs. Verret denied that Lyndi was drunk and denied that she had to shake her daughter to wake her up. Mrs. Verret expressed no concerns about Lyndi's behavior. According to Mrs. Verret, the police arrived and then left.

Mrs. Verret also testified about a similar incident on December 22, 2023. She testified that she received a call from Liam, who said he could not wake his mother. Like before, Blair called the police and DCFS. And like before, Mrs. Verret and her husband were the first to arrive at Lyndi's home. When asked about her initial observations of Lyndi, Mrs. Verret explained that Lyndi was not drunk; she was “sleepy.” And once again, Mrs. Verret denied having any concerns about Lyndi's drinking or the children's safety.

Blair's next witness at the February hearing was Lyndi's father, Kim Verret. Mr. Verret's testimony provided no additional information about the September and December 2023 incidents. However, Mr. Verret did note that his daughter attended AA meetings when she was a teenager because she started having issues with pain medication after being injured in a car wreck. Mr. Verret was then asked about a telephone conversation that he had with Blair. Unbeknownst to Mr. Verret, Blair recorded the conversation. But Mr. Verret did not dispute the substance of that conversation. According to Mr. Verret, he was simply trying to convey to Blair that Lyndi is an adult and that he could not control her behavior (or anyone else's behavior). So if Blair thought there was a problem with Lyndi, he should file something.

Lyndi was the final witness at the February 2024 hearing. She denied the September and December 2023 allegations. Lyndi explained that on the day of the December event, she was experiencing a difficult breakup and had been hiding her face under a blanket while crying on the living-room sofa; she denied being drunk. She also denied being drunk for the September 2023 incident. She then explained that Liam generally uses his iPad in his room to speak with his father. But on these two occasions, Lyndi was unaware of her son's presence, unaware that she was being filmed, and unaware that Liam was broadcasting all of this to Blair.

Lyndi further explained that, although Liam is a straight-A student, he suffers from ADHD, is an attention seeker, is impulsive, and is not always truthful. According to Lyndi, many of Liam's conduct issues at school stem from his inability to tell the truth. Lyndi then added, Liam does not understand the consequences of his actions; he does not understand the harm and trauma that lies can cause. In Lyndi's opinion, Blair is coaching or encouraging Liam to monitor her.

Based on the evidence adduced at trial, including the transcript from the expedited custody hearing, the trial court found that there had been a change of circumstances material to Liam and Amelia's well-being since the most recent custody judgment of October 2022. The trial court then turned its attention to La.Civ.Code art. 134, which enumerates fourteen factors for the court to consider in determining the best interest of the child. “The list of factors provided in Article 134 is nonexclusive, and the determination as to the weight to be given each factor is left to the discretion of the trial court.” Hodges v. Hodges, 15-585, p. 4 (La. 11/23/15), 181 So.3d 700, 703. Importantly, “the trial court is not bound to make a mechanical evaluation of all of the statutory factors listed in La.Civ.Code art. 134 but should decide each case on its own facts in light of those factors.” Coody v. Coody, 20-71, p. 6 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/12/20), 307 So.3d 1093, 1099.

The trial court here addressed its application of the Article 134 factors in its oral reasons for judgment. The trial court's findings are addressed as follows:

(1) The potential for the child to be abused, as defined by Children's Code Article 603, which shall be the primary consideration.

The trial court did not address this factor. Based on our review of the record, this factor is not applicable.

(2) The love, affection, and other emotional ties between each party and the child.

The trial court found that both parties equally satisfied this second factor. This is a somewhat generous finding for Blair because he adduced no evidence as to his love, affection, and emotional ties for either child, or vice versa.

(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.

The court also found neutrality as to the third factor, explaining that “[b]oth parents are completely capable and have shown ․ the ability to provide for both children financially, spiritually.” Yet here too, Blair adduced no evidence as to his ability and willingness to give the children love, affection, and spiritual guidance. On the other hand, the record does show that both parents are on equal footing as to continuing the education and rearing of the children.

(4) The capacity and disposition of each party to provide the child with food, clothing, medical care, and other material needs.

This factor does not favor either party.

(5) The length of time the child has lived in a stable, adequate environment, and the desirability of maintaining continuity of that environment.

Although the trial court did not directly address this factor, the record shows that Lyndi lives on Candleglow Drive in New Iberia. She has lived at that address since 2015. This was the former marital residence. This is the home that the children have always lived in. In addition to the children, a standard poodle and a fourteen-year-old cat also reside in the home. Lyndi's parents also live close by.

As to Blair, the record shows that he moved into his current residence in Youngsville in October 2023. He testified that his girlfriend, Aundra, and her five-year-old son, Blue, also live with him. His parents reside in Spokane, Washington.

And finally, the record shows that the children primarily resided with Lyndi until May 28, 2024, which is when the parties stipulated to temporary shared (50/50) physical custody on an alternating 3-2-2 basis.

(6) The permanence, as a family unit, of the existing or proposed custodial home or homes.

Our discussion of factor 5 applies here, too.

(7) The moral fitness of each party, insofar as it affects the welfare of the child.

This factor favored Blair. As the trial court put it: “I have some concerns about activities that were taking place with Mr. [Nicholas] Suire, and during his relationship with Ms. Lyndi, that may or may not have exposed the children to an environment that they didn't need to be around.”

Lyndi's decision to reconcile with Nicholas is troubling: he is the perpetrator of domestic abuse; she is the victim of that abuse. Yet the physical abuse here happened when the children were not in Lyndi's custody, and she testified that there has been no contact between Nicholas and the children since that time.

Also, the critical issue in evaluating moral fitness is whether the parent's conduct adversely affects the children. In other words, “any purported moral misconduct should be considered by the trial court only if it has a detrimental effect on the child, and not to regulate the moral fitness of the parents.” Givens v. Givens, 10-680, p. 12 (La.App. 1 Cir. 12/22/10), 53 So.3d 720, 729.

(8) The history of substance abuse, violence, or criminal activity of any party.

This factor weighed heavily in favor of Blair. In its oral reasons, the trial court explained: “I still do have concerns about -- I'm not necessarily going to call it abuse, but, Ms. Lyndi's substance use that she has been addressing, more recently.”

In our view, factors 7 and 8 contributed greatly to the trial court's decision to change the domiciliary parent from Lyndi to Blair and to increase Blair's time periods from alternating weekends to shared physical custody.

Also, Lyndi was prohibited from drinking alcohol while in custody of the children beginning on February 6, 2024. She testified that she fully complied with this order. She also testified that she has not had any alcohol since early-July 2024. Whether Lyndi testified truthfully is a credibility issue for the trial court to decide.

(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.

The trial court did not give any weight to this factor.

(10) The home, school, and community history of the child.

This factor is neutral. Liam attended the French immersion program at North Lewis Elementary in New Iberia through the second grade. Amelia was too young to begin school at that time. But since August 2024, both children have attended Green T. Lindon in Youngsville.

(11) The reasonable preference of the child, if the court deems the child to be of sufficient age to express a preference.

This factor is not applicable: neither child testified.

(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.

This factor was not addressed by the trial court. But in our view, each parent has shown an unwillingness and inability to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing relationship between their children and the other parent.

(13) The distance between the respective residences of the parties.

Blair testified that the distance between their respective residences is approximately twenty miles. The trial court did not weigh this factor in favor of either party.

(14) The responsibility for the care and rearing of the child previously exercised by each party.

In its oral reasons, the trial court explained: “Now[ ] that Mr. Siegel has changed his employment, he has even shown that he is able to assist better with the everyday care of the children; a burden that Ms. Lyndi has been carrying for an extensive period of time.” This factor favored Lyndi. Indeed, the evidence shows that until May 28, 2024, she was primarily responsible for the care and rearing of both children.

Now back to Blair's assignments of error. In his first assignment, Blair asserts that the trial court erred in maintaining joint legal custody, rather than granting him sole custody. In relevant part, La.Civ.Code art. 132 provides that “the court shall award custody to the parents jointly; however, if custody in one parent is shown by clear and convincing evidence to serve the best interest of the child, the court shall award custody to that parent.”

By way of example, Griffith v. Latiolais, 10-754 (La. 10/19/10), 48 So.3d 1058, shows how difficult it is to obtain sole custody. In that case, the father was described as follows:

[D]evious, manipulative, and retaliatory, and that these base characteristics particularly come to the surface in his dealings with women; that he had little or no involvement in [the child's] life prior to filing this suit; that not only was the initial suit without merit, but [the father's] motivation for filing suit was not [the child's] best interest, but jealously; and that [the father] was engaged in a continuing campaign to discredit [the mother] and influence the trial court decision without regard to the dishonesty of his tactics or the falsity of his assertions. On the other hand, the trial court found that [the mother] bore the singular responsibility for raising [the child] from his birth until after this litigation began; that during that time, she allowed and encouraged [the father's] involvement in [the child's] life; that she began an attempt to better educate herself to become more independent of her manipulative former lover and to better care for her son; and that her retaliatory actions between the filing of suit and judgment were directly in response to [the father's] antics.

Id. at 1066–67 (quoting Griffith v. Latiolais, 09-824, at pp. 19–20 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/3/10), 32 So.3d 380, 393–94).

The trial court in Griffith found that joint custody was in the best interest of the minor child. A different panel of this court reversed and awarded sole custody. The supreme court reinstated the joint custody award. Although the mother did not ask for sole custody in her pleadings, the supreme court noted that she did not meet her burden of proof to obtain it. Id.

In our case, the trial court correctly applied the Article 134 factors and found that joint custody was in the best interest of the minor children. And based on our review of the conflicting testimony and record evidence, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in making that factual determination regarding the children's best interest.

Blair's second assignment of error seeks review of the trial court's award of shared (50/50) physical custody on an alternating seven-day basis. This assignment implicates La.R.S. 9:335. In other words, once the trial court reached the decision that joint custody was in Liam and Amelia's best interest, it was required to render a joint custody implementation order. La.R.S. 9:335(A)(1). The “implementation order shall allocate the time periods during which each parent shall have physical custody of the child so that the child is assured of frequent and continuing contact with both parents.” La.R.S. 9:335(2)(a). And “[t]o the extent it is feasible and in the best interest of the child, physical custody of the children should be shared equally.” La.R.S. 9:335(2)(b).

This is exactly what the trial court here did: the court rendered a joint custody implementation order which, among other things, awarded shared physical custody on an alternating seven-and-seven basis. Under the October 2022 custody judgment, Blair had alternating weekend custodial periods. Then, in May 2024, the parties stipulated to temporary custody, including temporary shared physical custody on an alternating 3-2-2 basis. Blair then testified at trial that both children were doing great, though he felt the 3-3-2 schedule was too choppy: the custody exchanges were too frequent. The trial court addressed his concerns by changing the schedule to alternating seven-day periods.

Again, the trial court here had the benefit of seeing the parties and witnesses and hearing their testimony. After hearing the evidence and weighing the Article 134 factors, the trial court determined that a change in domiciliary status was warranted. The trial court also determined that Blair's time with the children should be increased from alternating weekends to shared (50/50) physical custody. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in making these best interest findings of fact.

Blair's third assignment of error challenges the trial court's decision to allow Lyndi's custodial periods to be unsupervised. Before going further, it is worth noting that Blair's lawyer requested the following custody arrangement during closing arguments:

And, I would pray, Your Honor, that, based on the [Article 134] factors, that my client be appointed domiciliary parent, that there be a more traditional time share that provides more stability for the children, that she continue to have to use Soberlink for her visitations with the children, and that if she is unable to do Soberlink, that her visitations be supervised.

The trial court apparently agreed with Blair's lawyer: the court designated Blair as the domiciliary parent, increased his time periods from alternating weekends to alternating weeks, and maintained Lyndi's use of Soberlink in lieu of imposing the restriction of supervised custodial periods. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that supervision was unnecessary.

Blair's fifth assignment of error asserts that “[t]he trial court erred in failing to issue an order prohibiting Lyndi's boyfriend, Nicholas Suire, from being in the presence of the children.” There is no merit to this assignment: Nicholas is not a party to this proceeding.

Blair's Fourth and Seventh Assignments of Error

In his fourth and seventh assignments of error, Blair asserts that the trial court legally erred in ordering a review hearing.

In support, Blair cites Brown v. Brown, 05-1346 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/1/06), 925 So.2d 662; and Schneider v. Schneider, 12-1241 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/20/13), 115 So.3d 1279. In Brown, after a one-day trial, the trial court issued a temporary custody order with a review hearing set for the following year. Similarly, in Schneider, after a six-week trial, the trial court rendered a temporary custody order with two scheduled status reviews. Both trial courts attempted to use review hearings to revisit prior rulings on legal and physical custody, and both trial courts were correctly reversed on appeal.

By contrast, the trial court here is not seeking to review its ruling on legal custody or physical custody; the review hearing was fixed by the trial court for two specified purposes. First, to review whether continued Soberlink monitoring of Lyndi is needed. And second, to review the results of Lyndi's substance abuse evaluation.

In sum, the trial court rendered a final judgment on Blair's rule to modify custody. The trial court did not legally err in setting a review hearing to address Lyndi's Soberlink compliance and the results of her substance abuse evaluation.

Blair's Sixth Assignment of Error

In his sixth assignment, Blair asserts that “[t]he trial court erred in giving legal advice to Nicholas Suire and Lyndi regarding how to dismiss a protective order in place to protect Lyndi and the children.”

This assignment is deficient in two ways. First, the issue was not preserved for appeal because Blair did not object to any of this at trial. Murphy v. 1st Lake Properties, Inc., 12-649 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/23/13), 116 So.3d 964. And second, the assignment is neither briefed nor supported by any citations to the record, which makes a competent review impossible. Uniform Rules—Courts of Appeal, Rule 2–12.4.

Thus, Blair's sixth assignment is not properly before this court.

Blair's Eighth Assignment of Error

In his eighth assignment of error, Blair argues that the trial court erred in failing to hold Lyndi in contempt of court. Yet the judgment before us is silent on the issue of contempt. “A judgment's silence as to an issue constitutes a rejection of that issue.” Malone v. Roberts, 23-226, p. 7 (La.App. 3 Cir. 9/20/23), 389 So.3d 18, 25, writ denied, 23-1692 (La. 1/24/24), 378 So.3d 69.

In Burst v. Schmolke, 10-1036, pp. 5–6 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/6/11), 62 So.3d 829, 833, the fourth circuit provided the following statement of law:

Contempt of court is defined in La.Code Civ. Pro. art. 221 as “any act or omission tending to obstruct or interfere with the orderly administration of justice, or to impair the dignity of the court or respect for its authority.” There are two types of contempt. A direct contempt is defined in La.Code Civ. Pro. art. 222 as “one committed in the immediate view and presence of the court and of which it has personal knowledge, or a contumacious failure to comply with a subpoena or summons, proof of service of which appears of record.” A constructive contempt of court is defined in La.Code Civ. Pro. art. 224 as “any contempt other than a direct one.” Although a district court has discretion to determine whether to find a person guilty of constructive contempt of court, a finding that a person willfully disobeyed a court order in violation of La. C.C.Pro. art. 224(2) must be based on a finding that the accused violated an order of the court “intentionally, knowingly, and purposefully, without justifiable excuse.” Lang v. Asten, Inc., 2005-1119, p. 1 (La.1/13/06), 918 So.2d 453, 454. Moreover, an appellate court should reverse the trial court's decision only when it finds an abuse of discretion. Baker v. Baker, 42,182, p. 6 (La.App. 2 Cir.6/20/07), 960 So.2d 1264, 1268; Rogers v. Dickens, 2006-0898 (La App. 1 Cir. 2/9/07), 959 So.2d 940.

Blair contends that the trial court erred in denying his contempt motion because he presented sufficient evidence proving that Lyndi consumed alcohol during her custodial periods; that she failed to provide Blair with information concerning the health, education, and welfare of the children; that she restricted the children's telephone access to Blair; that she regularly failed to provide Blair with Liam's ADHD medication; and that she attempted to impair Blair's relationship with the children.

Importantly, to constitute a constructive contempt of court, the mover must prove the defendant's “willful disobedience” of a lawful judgment. La.Code Civ.P. art. 224(2). Moreover, as a predicate to finding a party guilty of contempt for willfully disobeying a court order, the trial court must find that the defendant violated the order intentionally, purposefully, and without justifiable excuse.

In the end, the trial court here was presented with conflicting versions of events. Because the trial court was in a better position to evaluate the demeanor and credibility of the parties and the witnesses, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to grant Blair's contempt motion.

Blair's Ninth Assignment of Error

In his ninth and final assignment of error, Blair asserts that the trial court erred in its allocation of court costs: the trial court assessed one-half of the court costs to each party.

The assessment of costs is addressed by La.Code Civ.P. art. 1920: “Unless the judgment provides otherwise, costs shall be paid by the party cast, and may be taxed by a rule to show cause. Except as otherwise provided by law, the court may render judgment for costs, or any part thereof, against any party, as it may consider equitable.”

On appeal, the trial court's assessment of costs between the parties is reviewed for abuse of discretion. McDaniel v. Carencro Lions Club, 05-1013 (La.App. 3 Cir. 7/12/06), 934 So.2d 945, writ denied, 06-1998 (La. 11/3/06), 940 So.2d 671. Under this review standard, there is no merit to this assignment.

DISPOSITION

For the above reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. The costs of this appeal are assessed to Blair Walter Siegel.

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Interestingly, the consent judgment further provided that, beginning “July 1, 2025, the parties shall share [physical] custody on a[n] alternating 4-3-3-4 basis and neither parent shall be designated domiciliary parent.”

2.   Very technically, all custody matters are adjudicated by contradictory hearing. The term “trial” is being used here to distinguish between the expedited hearing on temporary custody and the ultimate trial of Blair's rule to modify permanent custody.

3.   Blair obtained an ex parte custody order on April 26, 2024. Under that order, Lyndi had minimal supervised-visitation rights. Lyndi's custodial rights were restored on May 28, 2024.

4.   At trial, Blair acknowledged that all DCFS cases initiated by him had been closed.

5.   Blair testified that the re-tests taken shortly after the initial positive screening were performed by Liam. Soberlink sends only screening results, not pictures of the tester. But Blair retrieved the video from Soberlink at a later date.

6.   For instance, Lyndi posted exceptionally high alcohol numbers with DCFS, but she explained that the tests were performed after weekends she spent with adults, not with her children. She was not prohibited from drinking during those times.

CHARLES G. FITZGERALD JUDGE