ARCENEAUX v. ANDERSON (2025)

In this appeal, we are asked to review a trial court judgment that granted the relocation of a minor child's residence, established custody, and denied contempt.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Paul Arceneaux Jr. and Kayla Crosby Anderson were in a relationship but never married. They are the parents of one child, Sophie, who was born on December 31, 2019.

On March 8, 2021, Kayla filed a petition for protection from abuse against Paul in St. Tammany Parish. Two hours later, Paul filed a petition for ex parte sole custody in Lafayette Parish. Paul's petition also included a request for child support. Five weeks later, the parties stipulated in St. Tammany Parish to reciprocal injunctions. A few days after that, Paul filed a second petition for ex parte custody.

Next, on May 11, 2021, the trial court in Lafayette Parish signed a temporary order of custody and child support. That same day, the trial court ordered each party to submit to drug testing and to an assessment pursuant to the Family Court Intervention “Kids First” Substance Abuse Assessment Program, which was created to assess whether parents have substance abuse issues. Kayla complied with the Kids First order; Paul did not.

In July 2021, the trial court filed a motion for contempt against Paul for his noncompliance. Thirteen months after that, the trial court filed a second contempt motion against him. Then, in 2022, the trial court suspended his visitation periods with Sophie pending a hearing on contempt. At that time, Kayla had temporary sole legal custody of Sophie.

One month later, Paul appeared for a Hearing Officer Conference on the contempt motions. During that conference, Paul agreed to submit to drug testing and an assessment. He also agreed to comply with the assessment recommendations. All this was incorporated into an order signed by the trial court, and Paul's visitation periods with Sophie were reinstated.

Two months later, in March 2023, Kayla filed a petition for protection from abuse against Paul. The petition was subsequently dismissed due to her failure to appear in court. Three months after that, Paul filed two pleadings against Kayla: a motion for contempt and a petition for protection from abuse, which was ultimately dismissed by stipulation.

Next, in November 2023, Paul filed his third petition for ex parte custody. Kayla responded in December 2023 with her own petition for ex parte custody. One month later, Paul filed his fourth petition for ex parte custody. And two weeks after that, Paul filed his second motion for contempt.

Importantly, in April 2024, the trial court issued a judgment confirming Kayla's successful completion of the family court monitoring program: Kayla had been drug tested and assessed; she then complied with all recommendations, including random drug screens for many months. By contrast, Paul still would not submit to a court-ordered assessment for substance abuse.

Two weeks later, all pending actions for custody and contempt were set for trial. Then, on May 29, 2024, Kayla filed a request to relocate Sophie's principal residence to Covington, Louisiana. This action was also fixed for trial with the other matters.

One week later, Paul filed an objection to relocation; he also filed his fifth custody pleading, this time asserting a claim under the Post Separation Family Violence Relief Act; and he filed his third motion for contempt. These actions were fixed for trial with the others.

The trial of all pending matters—relocation, custody, and contempt—was held over three consecutive days, beginning on July 15, 2024. At the close of evidence, the trial court ruled from the bench and provided extensive oral reasons for its ruling. This ruling was reduced to a written final judgment signed by the trial court on September 9, 2024.

Oversimplifying slightly, the trial court's judgment granted Kayla's request for relocation, established joint legal custody, designated Kayla as the domiciliary parent, adopted a joint custody implementation plan (including a schedule of physical custody), and denied the various contempt motions. Paul now appeals this judgment.

On appeal, Paul asserts five assignments of error:

1. The trial court erred in granting Kayla's request to relocate to Covington, Louisiana.

2. The trial court erred in failing to apply the Post Separation Family Violence Relief Act (“PSFVRA”), granting Paul sole custody of Sophie and following the requirements of the PSFVRA.

3. The trial court erred when it failed to properly apply the Civil Code Article 134 factors and to name Paul as the domiciliary parent and award Kayla appropriate custodial periods given her move to Covington, Louisiana.

4. In the alternative, the trial court erred when it alternated holiday periods and allowed Paul only one week per month of custodial time in the summers.

5. The trial court erred when it failed to find Kayla in contempt of court.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

A trial court's ruling on relocation, custody, and contempt is reviewed on appeal for abuse of discretion. Gathen v. Gathen, 10-2312 (La. 5/10/11), 66 So.3d 1; and Burst v. Schmolke, 10-1036 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/6/11), 62 So.3d 829. However, the trial court's underlying factual findings are reviewed for manifest error.

By contrast, de novo review is used when one or more legal errors interdict the trial court's fact-finding process. Evans v. Lungrin, 97-541, 97-577 (La. 2/6/98), 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 now turn to the evidence adduced at trial. Kayla testified first. She stated that her relationship with Paul began in 2018 and that they were consistently together until 2022. Kayla testified that she and Sophie moved to Covington in 2023. Before that, Kayla and Paul resided together in and around the Carencro area. For a while they lived with Paul's mother, Sherri Arceneaux. Kayla then rented a house, which Paul also lived in, though he did not pay any of the expenses.

When asked about her employment situation in Covington, Kayla explained that she was working as a waitress at the Olive Garden restaurant. In addition, she was in her second semester of a surgical tech program, with one year of study remaining.

Kayla described her relationship with Paul as a struggle. She testified that he was jealous; he broke her things when he was angry; and he accused her of being a prostitute. According to Kayla, on April 2, 2021 (the correct date is March 2, 2021), Paul accused her of cheating on him. Paul attempted to take her cellphone while she was holding Sophie. He got behind her and began choking her. She bit his arm to escape. She testified that Paul's mom, Sherri, was outside the house when this happened. But at some point, Sherri came inside and took Sophie out of Kayla's arms. Kayla recalled that when she freed herself from Paul, she ran outside, took Sophie back from Sherri, and then drove to Covington. Six days later, Kayla filed a petition for protection from abuse against Paul in St. Tammany Parish.

Kayla was then asked about threatening text messages that she had received from Paul. For example, in one text message, Paul asked: “WHY HAVEN'T YOU ANSWERED MY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SECRET CONVERSATIONS YOU ARE HAVING WITH MEN?” Kayla responded, “I'm not using anything or speaking to any man[.]” Paul replied, “You realize IM [sic] COMING FOR YOU RIGHT NOW RIGUT [sic]?” Kayla answered, “I'll tell you a thousand ․ times I'm not cheating on you[.]” To which Paul responded, “I have my gun and I'm taking my kid[.] Anyone you have there that wants to stop me ․ [,] [p]lease have them meet me outside[.]”

Next, Kayla was asked about other acts of violence. She responded this way:

A: Yes, sir, on May fourteenth twenty twenty three. Me and Paul got into an argument --

Q: Where were you living at the time?

A: In the house in Carencro.

․

Q: Who was living there with you?

A: Me, Sophie, and Paul Arceneaux had been evicted from his mother's house so she brought him to my house to stay with me.

Q: We will get back to the eviction but can you describe what happened on May fourteenth twenty twenty three?

A: Yes. Me and Paul got into an argument --

Q: Regarding what?

A: Him not having any more Adderall and he also not wanting -- I couldn't take Sophie anywhere because he didn't have any medication. It was Mother's Day and I was trying to go to his mother's house and we were going to take Sophie to the park. Me and Paul Arceneaux were fighting. He threw a bottle at my head and I was holding Sophie. It hit the back of the wall. He then started fussing again. I put Sophie down. We were arguing again. He stood up and was in the kitchen and on top of the refrigerator there was an empty, like Kentwood water jug and he picked Sophie up and he starts to yell at me and he grabs the water jug off the top of the refrigerator and hit me in the face with it while he was holding Sophie.

Kayla explained that when the incident ended, she packed up her things and moved to her cousin's home in Covington. When asked about her reasons for leaving, she further explained:

To escape the domestic violence, the repetition. My kid was having outbursts because she was witnessing so much screaming and arguing between us that she was just trying to normalize it. So that's how she started to communicate and I knew that it wouldn't be a good path or journey for her to watch me and him argue. So I moved to Covington, got a job, started all over again. I had no car. I had just got in a car accident about three months before all that happened and I was scared that I wasn't going to be able to provide for Sophie here ․ so I went where my family was.

Kayla testified that Paul continued to threaten her through text messages: “[H]e would threaten me with CPS all the time, he was gonna come get Sophie. He sent the police for wellness checks multiple times. He just insults me all the time. He refuses to coparent with me. He refuses to agree on anything with me.”

Kayla was then asked to describe a typical day with Sophie: “We wake up around seven AM. She brushes her teeth, we get ready, we go to daycare and she gets dropped off. Every Thursday we go to play therapy.” As to play therapy, Kayla explained that Sophie “does an hour every week ․ because she was having screaming outbursts and she has this little shaking thing when she gets excited ․ So I wanted to make sure that she was okay[.]”

Kayla testified that she picks up Sophie from daycare between five and five thirty, except on Tuesdays because she works a double shift that day. Kayla stated that her father, her aunt, her cousin, and her stepsister live in Covington, and they help with Sophie's care. Kayla's mother lives in Austin, Texas.

Kayla was then asked about Paul's employment situation. She explained that Paul is a retired Army veteran and receives a monthly disability check. According to Kayla, Paul suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder. She then explained that Paul is a former heroin addict and takes Suboxone, which is used to help heroin addicts. He also takes Adderall. As to Paul's Adderall usage, Kayla was asked whether “he has ever stuck with just what he was prescribed[.]” She answered no, stating that “he takes a lot of Adderall and then asks people to find it or buy it f[or] him so that he can have more. He stays up for days sometimes and plays video games and that's his life.”

Next, Kayla was asked about her participation in the Kids First drug program:

Q: [D]id you go through that program?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Do you remember what you tested positive for?

A: For marijuana and Adderall.

Q: So when you went into this program what did you learn?

A: I learned that I had an addiction problem that I was counseled through for smoking marijuana.

․

Q: Let's talk about an incident that occurred in twenty twenty one that gave rise to [your entry into the program]?

․

A: Oh, like how it all happened?

Q: Yes.

A: Yeah, so Paul's father ․ fell and had injured his head, ․ it wasn't his [Paul's] scheduled visitation time. He had begged me to let [Sophie] see his father cause his dad was sick and he was dying. So I would never refuse that․ He met me ․ we exchanged her. The next day when I asked for her back he told me to contact my lawyer's office that I would not be getting my child back and somehow she had tested positive marijuana and that's how it started.

․

Q: Do you have any idea how that situation arose?

A: No, sir.

Q: Do you drink alcohol?

A: No, sir.

Q: If you took a drug test[ ] today you'd be absolutely clean?

A: Other than my prescription medications, yes, sir.

Q: Well, let's talk about your prescription medication. What do you use?

A: I take Adderall and I have a prescription for medical marijuana.

Kayla was then asked about Sophie's relationship with Paul's parents. She explained that Sophie loves Paul's mother; Sophie was also close with Paul's late father.

During cross-examination, Kayla was asked about the relocation:

Q: [W]hat kind of notice did you give to Paul that you were moving?

A: The notice was that he got arrested and that was it. I didn't want to live like that no more.

Q: Okay.

A: I was scared.

․

Q: [W]e're here today to determine who the child's going to [live] with primarily --

A: Correct.

Q: -- who gets sole custody, who's going to be domiciliary parent whatever the judge decides. So tell what Paul does that makes him unfit?

A: He has an addiction problem to his Adderall. He stays up for days sometimes. He doesn't always engage with Sophie. She will be sitting there asking Daddy, Daddy, Daddy, and he's playing the video game --

․

Q: How has the visitation been going?

A: Now?

Q: Yeah.

A: It's great.

Q: Sophie has any complaints?

A: No, not that I know of.

Q: Okay. She's happy visiting with Paul?

A: Yeah.

Q: She loves her daddy?

A: She does.

Q: Okay. She asks to go more often?

A: Occasionally.

Q: Do you ever offer Paul any extra time?

A: I have.

Q: Okay. Like what?

A: He asked me last month for a week to go on vacation very last minute and I agreed to him having her for a week so that he could get some more time cause he is following the schedule and his mother agreed to supervise for that week. So I didn't have any issue with it so he had an extra week last month. Today he had an extra day cause I let her stay there an extra day and I'm gonna pick her up when I leave here. So whenever if he wanted to come pick her up and take her to dinner from my house I would not tell him no. I would not refuse him.

․

Q: And you recognize that if you lived here in Lafayette where the child has lived at since birth Paul could have much more substantial visitation?

A: Sure.

Q: And that still doesn't ․ make you want to come back to Lafayette for your daughter to be with her father more?

A: Not for my safety of her having a healthy relationship with both of us. I don't think it would be safe because in other situations he just ends up at my house and I don't want that again. I don't want to start over and fight. I don't want that.

Q: But if y'all had separate residences and y'all weren't going to have a relationship and we actually had a good court order you don't think y'all could coparent here in Lafayette?

A: No.

․

Q: Other than the alleged domestic violence you testified why Covington? What's there for you and Sophie?

A: My family, help. I had nothing so. I had no car. Nothing so I had to start over again and I couldn't do that here cause the moment Paul was arrested his mother took the vehicle she was letting me use away. Kind of gave me no choice but to leave.

At this point, the trial court asked Kayla:

Q: Wait, when Paul was arrested his mother took the vehicle that you had been using?

A: Yes.

․

Q: Did she tell you why?

A: I don't know, I'm guessing because --

Q: Well, it's all right. Don't guess.

Now to Paul's case-in-chief. In addition to his own testimony, Paul called three witnesses: Nicholas Savage, Amanda Arceneaux, and Sherri Arceneaux.

Paul testified first. He explained that he met Kayla while he was in New Orleans starting a business. He gave her a job, and they started sleeping together. When he moved back to Lafayette, she moved with him. At that time, they were living in a house that his parents built for him, which was next to their home. According to Paul, he ended his relationship with Kayla in 2019 when he “found out she was sleeping with strangers on Tender[,]” which is an internet dating site. As he put it, he “ended it then and what happened was she came back and I shouldn't have done this but I slept with her a couple more times and that's when she got pregnant.” After Sophie was born, Paul again tried to end his relationship with Kayla:

A: I got the data off of her phone which was a phone that I bought for her and it showed me all kind of -- she was on, like, fifteen different dating and sex hookup apps ․

․

A: She put online she was looking for threesomes, for couples, girls, guys, and she also had Sugar Baby app․ I got her GPS data that shows she logged onto an app and then drove to a hotel and she was going to these hotels. And it was, like, every week it was like multiple hotels that she would stop at for like 45 minutes․ So when I got that data on April second I called my mother and I said she's been sleeping with strangers the whole time. So I'm kicking her out, I'm bagging up all of her stuff in case something crazy happens. So that's whenever the incident on April second happened.

․

A: So Kayla was working at Buffalo Wild Wings. She would be gone all day, all night, every day. She got home at about 2:00 a.m., three AM. So I was with Sophie every day, all day.

․

Q: Okay. You were caring for her?

A: Yes. And my father and mother, we're very close. And my family, we're a very close family. Very affectionate.

․

Q: Okay․ [Y]’all broke up, y'all lived tother [sic] again?

A: That was it so I ended it. And then Kayla had to go get a place. And my mother said, Paul, you're not going to be able to see Sophie, you've got to go stay with Kayla and I knew it was a bad idea but I wanted to be with Sophie, so I would go move in with her ․

․

Q: And where is that?

A: It's in Carencro. It's about t[w]o miles from my house?

Q: Okay. So y'all lived there together?

A: Yeah.

Q: With Sophie?

A: It was strictly coparenting.

Paul was then asked about the ex parte custody pleadings that he had filed, the first being in March 2021. Paul explained that he filed that petition because Kayla would not let him see Sophie and because Kayla was smoking marijuana in Sophie's presence. As to his second ex parte petition, which was filed in April 2021, Paul explained that when he picked up Sophie from Kayla, Sophie slept for about fourteen hours and would not wake up. So he and his mother took Sophie to the hospital, and “they drug tested her and she had weed in her system.” Paul then testified about his two other petitions for emergency custody.

As to Kayla's relocation, Paul explained that he did not get notice from Kayla about her move to Covington and that he never agreed to the move. When asked about his PTSD, Paul stated that he does not have anger outbursts, but he will start crying if he talks about the events that occurred on a particular combat day. Paul testified that he sees a psychiatrist from Veterans Affairs once a month for his PTSD and for management of his two prescription medications: Adderall and Suboxone. Paul explained that he has been on Adderall since he was six or seven years old. Paul confirmed that he is a former heroin addict, though he has been clean and sober for ten years. According to Paul, he gets drug tested by the VA every month.

Paul was then asked about his income. He stated that he receives $3,900.00 each month from the Army. But according to Paul, this is not disability income because he can work and is working on investing in a few businesses. For instance, Paul said that he has invested $50,000.00 “to do online coaching for two separate businesses” and that he was “trying to get clients for both of those right now.” He then admitted not making any money on this investment. But according to Paul, in 2022, he had $241,000.00 in his bank account from a settlement with the Army. When asked whether he had provided any child support to Kayla, he responded: “No. No, I haven't. It's joint custody I didn't think I had to.”

Paul's testimony then shifted gears:

Q: There has been some domestic violence, right?

A: Oh, yeah.

Q: Who's been the perpetrator of that domestic violence?

A: Kayla.

Paul stated that the first incident of domestic violence occurred in March or April of 2021 when “I ended the relationship and I said she had to leave”:

Q: What happened?

A: So I got all the data. I found out she was meeting strangers for sex and I told her she had to leave. I was packing up all of her stuff and putting it at the road. And I wanted my phone back from her because I bought the phone and let her use it and she wouldn't give me the phone so –

․

A: I grabbed the phone and she wouldn't let it go so we were just yanking it back and forth. And I ended up overpowering her and I got the phone from her and my mother was inside the entire time right next to us three feet away.

Paul was then asked about other similar instances:

Q: Is there another incident where Kayla and a family member caused a disturbance at your residence?

A: Oh, yes.

Q: Tell the court about that?

A: [Kayla] and [her cousin] Julia were drunk and they were high and it was midnight and they wanted to take Sophie and go for a car ride, they said.

Q: So you had Sophie?

A: I had Sophie, she was sleeping inside, she was at my house. I said, no, Kayla, she's a baby one years old. Y'all are drunk, high, and I'm not letting you get in the car with her. And anytime that I've told Kayla she couldn't do something with Sophie she flips out, flips out.

․

A: Her and her cousin immediately just started beating the hell out of me. I've never been beat like this by anyone in my life, even men.

Q: Like how?

A: Like gang style jumping me, like kicking me, punching, hitting ․ They just kept hitting me punching me. So I had Sophie and I wouldn't let Sophie go so Kayla ended up pulling out like a little, it was like a key, a key knife thing and she slashed my arm. When she did that I let Sophie go. My sister [Amanda] came in, kicked the door open, they tried to lock her out. I don't no [sic] which one of them punched Amanda but they punched my sister. I was just taking the abuse the whole time.

Q: Now, subsequent did they gain access to Sophie?

A: [Y]eah, they took Sophie and then left.

․

Q: Is this the incident where you documented some of your injuries from that --

A: Yeah, and I called CPS that night, too.

Paul then discussed an incident that occurred in 2022. Paul explained that he was at his mother's house, that he had custody of Sophie, and that Kayla wanted to pick her up a day early:

Q: [W]hat happened?

A: Bathing Sophie in the shower. Kayla comes in busts the door open. I'm taking Sophie and I said just wait, I'm almost done, I'm almost done bathing her. She didn't want to wait. So she just starts pulling shoving, punching, kicking, I'm sorry, I don't think she kicked, shoving me, slapping me. Trying to grab Sophie.

․

A: She yanked her away.

․

A: I mean I could've slipped and broke my neck. Like, I was falling all over the shower how much she was throwing me around. And she always would slap me and hit me, everyday, always, any time we got in an argument.

Q: Okay. And she subsequently she left with the child, what y'all did?

A: My mother came in and flipped out on her. My mom saw what she did.

Q: Okay.

A: And told her to, you know get out. And my mother's never been confrontational with Kayla.

Next, Paul was asked about an incident that occurred in the summer of 2022, when he and Kayla were waiting to get his car, a Porsche, towed:

Q: Okay. Tell us about that.

․

A: It's the same set of circumstances. She was arguing with me about something real mad․ And she was shoving me against the car, hitting me, slapping me, taking my head and shoving it real hard into the car and like I said I just took it because I always took it because I didn't want to get a domestic abuse charge with Sophie so I always -- I just took it.

Paul then addressed an incident that occurred in November 2022:

Q: Okay. What did she d[o]?

A: I was just sitting on the couch, we were arguing about something and she took like a two pound ceramic plate and threw it at my head as hard as she could. It came within I don't know a foot of my head.

Finally, Paul testified about Mother's Day 2023:

Q: You tell the court in your own words what happened?

A: Kayla wanted to go out of state and to an amusement park with Sophie and I said no unless I go․ Kayla hatched a little plan to, I guess, put me in jail.

Q: How? What does that mean?

A: She had a water melon jug --

Q: Okay?

A: -- and she took the watermelon jug, she didn't throw it at me she hit me in the head with it. And my hair got all messed up ․

․

A: After she did that, you [k]now, I was mad, obviously, so I got up ․ I pick Sophie up and I start walking away. She's following me, she's pushing me hitting me in my head then she starts videoing. She starts the video off by saying are you going to attack me on Mother's Day, Paul? ․ I took the jug and you see me I'm walking away from her the whole time in the video ․ So I say, stop, go away. And I took the jug and I swung it and I hit the phone and her hand and I hit it out of the way.

Q: You hit the phone?

A: Yeah ․

Q: Okay. And that's when the police were call to this incident?

A: Correct, yeah.

․

Q: What you told the police?

A: [S]he hit me in the head with watermelon jug full of juice then they went to arrest her and she started crying saying I have video. I have a video. When you watch the video and if you look at it the way she acts in it, I guess, they thought that I hit her in the face so they arrested me and --

Q: Did you subsequently tell the cops nothing happened?

A: I did.

Q: Why?

A: I've been so scared this whole time with her calling the cops on me every day and she finally got lucky that day and they believed her and I heard that if both parents get arrested that CPS is contacted. So the whole time, every time she would call the cops I would just be like she's lying, nothing happened. So I told them nobody hit anybody is what I told them.

Q: You didn't want anyone to go to jail?

A: Right, yeah.

Paul confirmed that Kayla moved to Covington after this incident. He testified that Kayla and Sophie had been living with Jasmine, Kayla's cousin, and Jasmine's boyfriend, Brandon. Paul described Jasmine and Brandon as “real, real trashy ․ I know that they smoke weed every single day. I just don't want my daughter around that.”

Later in his testimony, Paul was asked about his reference to a gun in one of his text messages to Kayla:

Q: Can you explain this conversation?

A: Okay. This is whenever she left after I kicked her out. She went to her Mom's hotel that her mom managed and she was hiding her there. So I kept trying to get her every day and they were telling me no. So it was every single day all day long us communicating [w]ith her and her mother saying I'm coming again today. And her mother said if you come I have security and they're going to physically stop you. I said, I have my gun, I'm coming and nobody is going to stop me from getting my child. So that's what was right here with this and it was kind of twisted around yesterday about what this meant.

Q: Okay?

A: I didn't say I was going to go shoot Kayla. I didn't say I was going to kill anybody. I just said I have a gun and I will protect myself if someone tries to attack me. That's what this was.

Paul was then asked how Sophie should be disciplined:

Q: [S]o how do you discipline Sophie?

A: Oh, so I discussed this with Kayla many, many times because my dad was, kind of, he was rough so I told Kayla knows this too, she knows me very well. I said, when Sophie's born we are not physically disciplining Sophie and we are not verbally abusing Sophie so I don't want you ever to yell and I don't want you to spank her, hit her, none of that. Kayla agree[d] with me. She said, Okay, Paul, that's how we're gonna do it. But behind my back she's been doing otherwise. I got her on video -- she was at my mom's Sophie walked out saying where's daddy, where's daddy, and Kayla she hit her hard. It was -- she was two so that's when I found out Kayla was spanking her behind my back and that was a huge fight. When I say fight I mean argument.

During cross-examination, Paul was asked whether he ever exceeded his Adderall prescription:

Q: [Y]ou don't buy Adderall do you?

A: The VA sends it to me.

Q: You buy it from your friends?

A: No.

․

Q: Right. Do you remember having an exchange with Jake Boudin via text?

A: I don't.

Q: Do you remember making this stat[e]ment to him, “Jake hey it's Paul. Hit me back. I want to buy your whole script. You get it on the tenth, right? I can drive to wherever you need me. I broke up with Kayla and evicted her from my house. She snatched my tw[o] year old and haven't [sic] keeping her from me. I haven't seen my child in ten days and just spent eight thousand dollars on a lawyer. That bitch cheated me, cheated on me again and stole my kid. Can you believe that shit?”

․

A: I don't think that I wrote that so --

Q: You don't?

A: No, I don't think I wrote that.

․

A: Kayla could have made that up and wrote that so --

At this point, the trial court asked Paul the following question:

Q: So you're denying that that was your text message to anyone?

A: Correct. I don't talk to Kayla's friends.

The trial court then ordered Paul to bring his cellphone with him to court the following day.

Kayla's attorney then continued with his cross-examination:

Q: You haven't deleted any of your texts, correct?

A: No, I keep all my texts. I have all my texts from her over the last six years[.]

․

Q: Now, you were ordered to appear for Clear Start [for an assessment] and you never finished that program, right?

A: No, I was never inducted -- I was not inducted in the Clear Start Program. I didn't fail any of my drug tests. So they wanted me to go take a drug test, I did. I didn't fail my drug test and I wasn't put into the program.

Q: They didn't give you anymore responsibilities to do after the drug screen, right?

A: Clear Start stuff I still don't really understand what went on with that. I do know that I was not in their program, cause I did not qualify, cause I did not fail any drug tests[.]

․

Q: Remember when we appeared for the restraining order in St. Tammany Parish?

A: Uh-huh. Yes.

Q: There was a mutual stay away order that was ordered?

A: Yes.

․

Q: You violated that order?

A: Kayla claimed I violated that order cause she didn't -- she didn't tell Covington that we had a custody agreement in Lafayette.

Q: Basically?

A: Yeah.

Q: So what you're saying is you did not call her a skank or a prostitute by text and that the judge was wrong to[ ] hold you in contempt or for you to pay thirteen hundred in attorney's fees and court cost, right?

A: Yeah, that might have been said.

․

Q: Well, I want to take you back and because you have all this money this two hundred and forty thousand dollars and take you back to Sunday May fourteen, twenty twenty three, you were kicked out of your mother's home, correct?

A: I was.

Q: And you had to live with Kayla?

A: I didn't have to but my mother suggested to be able to see Sophie you should go over there.

Q: Okay. You didn't help her with any kind of rent or anything like that?

A: Oh, I bought Hello Fresh which is what I cooked every day. I bought everything that was needed there. If Kayla needed money for gas I helped out very much. What Kayla said was just not true.

․

Q: Now, this latest time in twenty twenty three you said that she left and your mother told her she can't use the vehicle, right?

A: Right. When my mother found out she lied to police and tried to put me in jail to gain custody my mother took the vehicle away from her, of course she did.

Q: Right. So but she learned that from you. She was not there at the time, correct? You told her that -- that Kayla lied to the police?

A: Well, my mother witnessed Kayla call the police on me daily for the last --

Q: So the answer was no, she was not there?

A: No.

Q: So you just told her she lied I didn't do anything?

A: Well, of course, my mother any just know that [sic]--

Q: That's what you told her, yes?

A: I did.

Q: Okay. Now, she had no money, no vehicle, no anything, correct? You don't know?

A: Me and her were just co-parenting we weren't involved like that I don't know what her financial situation was like but she's always been pretty much struggling the whole time I've known her.

At this point, the trial court asked Paul the following questions:

Q: Did you also have a two million dollar settlement?

A: I do have a two point three million dollar settlement.

Q: Is that what it's worth now?

A: That's what I'm getting from the settlement.

Q: Is that in an account?

A: It will be paid in September.

Q: Is it one lump sum or is it an annuity?

A: It's the lawyers taking their fees from it so it will be like one point seven, one point eight I think all at one time.

The trial court then recessed court for the day. When court resumed the next morning, Paul produced his cellphone. Although counsel could not find the text message in question, Kayla's attorney did find another text by Paul asking to buy Adderall. The trial court then questioned Paul as follows:

Q: So, [Paul], I believe there was testimony where you said you were never ordered to do an assessment with Clear Start; Isn't that Correct?

A: No, Your Honor, I stated I never joined the program to my knowledge.

Q: All right. I'm going to call your attention to a document that was filed January 13, of 2023 where it orders you to test and be assessed. Do you recall seeing this document?

A: Yes, Your Honor.

Q: Okay. And you never finished that assessment did you?

A: I did finish the assessment, Your Honor.

Q: Okay. When did you finish the assessment because I don't see a report, in fact, what I see in the record are notices saying that you did not six [sic] finish the assessment?

A: So I went and met with it was an older gentleman and talked for about an hour.

․

A: Chuck Broussard and I did the whole assessment with Chuck Broussard and Clear Start randomly drug tested me I think maybe three times and they were all clear.

Q: While we're looking for that, because I recall seeing a notice of non-noncompliance, why didn't you follow the recommendations of Clear Start?

A: So to my knowledge the assessment involved talking to someone at Clear [S]tart[ ] and taking drug tests and I passed all of my drug tests. I didn't fail any. So that was my argument. I did not fail any of the drug tests so I did not understand why I would have to join a program even --

Q: Even if it was court ordered you didn't feel like you had to do it?

A: No that's not true, Your Honor --

Q: Then why didn't you do it?

A: Because I passed all of my drug tests, Your Honor, I didn't fail any of the drug tests.

Q: For instance I'm looking at a collection date and let's just take them one by one of December thirtieth of 2021, I'm looking at a urine test where you tested [265,240] nanograms per milliliter when the confirmation cut off is five hundred. Can you explain to the court why your test results were so high?

A: I don't believe they were high, Your Honor. So my doctor he's an expert --

Q: You don't believe ․ nanograms 265,240 is excessive ․ when the cut off is five hundred?

A: My doctor didn't believe it was either. He said that was within my dosage amount. I don't know how he really broke it down but he's an expert at doing that and I showed it go [sic] him and he also defended me and said if I didn't eat that day or depending on how much I ate it could go all the way up to X amount. And I don't have the exact amount but Clear Start stated they weren't experts at that so that wasn't true.

Q: All right. So on October the 12th of 21 your hair showed 3283 - - that's a huge swing and a huge difference can you explain that?

A: Right. Like, I said what my doctor stated was if I didn't eat that day, it could range all the way from X amount all the way to X amount and I don't know the amount but he said you were within that range, Paul, so they stated you were high but you weren't high. So that was my doctor's explanation.

Q: So your explanation is that maybe you ate something and that's why there's such a variance even though you testified yesterday that in fact, you[r] prescription has stayed the same?

A: Correct.

Q: So it's your contention you never bought amphetamine off the street you only took your prescription?

A: Correct.

Q: Okay. [D]id you see the text message that [Kayla's attorney] referenced where you were asking someone to purchase an amphetamine, can you explain that?

A: It doesn't say, hi, this is Paul and Kayla used my phone a lot. And Kayla -- Kayla's bought medicine off the street a lot using my phone.

Q: I have never heard you take responsibility for anything in this courtroom. So is your excuse that it's always some else's fault?

A: Well, no Your Honor. I'm getting drilled left and right about Adderall and I'm prescribed it so I'm just confused about what's going on the Adderall. I'm prescribed it, I take it, my doctors back me up about. He said I was not high if I was. He would have kicked me out of the program at the VA so and he's the expert. I'm not.

Q: In the hearing officer conference report filed March the fifth of 2024 you told the hearing officer that you were evicted from your mother's house because of a D.C.F.S. investigation; is that correct?

A: Yes, yes, Your Honor.

Q: Okay. You said that there as [sic] an investigation because you said your nephews told D.C.F.S. you were hitting them?

A: Correct. One of them said I hitting [sic] them, correct.

Q: And you say that's a lie?

․

A: I did not hit them, yes, Your Honor, and the police investigated that incident they came, they found that Gage was lying and they asked me if I wanted to press charges on him because I had marks on my neck and I was bleeding and he had no marks on him. And I did not press charges against Gage. But D.C.F.S. believe Gage even though that was not true.

Q: All right. You also told the hearing officer that you were not terminated from the Kids First Program and that you had completed the program. Why did you tell her that?

A: I told her that I completed the assessment is what -- see, I'm still confused on Clear Start because like I said I went and met with Chuck Broussard. I passed all my drug tests so that's why I refused to join the program. I didn't fail my tests and that's what I was telling the hearing officer.

․

Q: On May twenty twenty two, in fact, there were some recommendations filed into the record and you were asked to enter the Family Court Monitoring Program for six months. Why did you refuse to do that?

A: Well, I refused with Clear Start because like I previously stated, Your Honor, I passed all my drug tests--

Q: You he didn't thank [sic] you needed it?

A: I didn't fail the drug test, Your Honor. I'm still confused on that why I would need to join a substance abuse program when I've been sober for ten years and I have proof that I've been sober ten years.

Q: Well, apparently. Clear Start had some concerns, which was why you were asked to be under monitoring --

A: What were their concerns?

Q: -- and you were asked to do a number of things and if you refuse to do any of that I still have questions about why you refuse to enroll in the program?

A: Well, why would I need to enroll in the program that's what I'm still trying to get the court to answer and they couldn't.

Q: Because the court has this program and we're concerned about parents.

․

Q: You claim you are not purchasing yet your levels v[a]ry widely and I still have concerns about the level of amphetamine use?

A: I believe my doctor wrote a letter about the ranges --

․

Q: How tall are you?

A: I'm six foot two, Your Honor.

Q: And how much do you weigh.

A: One seventy.

Thereafter, the trial court took judicial notice of all prior proceedings. The trial court also took notice of all records from the Kids First drug program. Kayla's attorney then continued his cross-examination:

Q: Your testimony just a moment ago you suggested that the text message that we showed you sent yesterday regarding purchasing Adderall that your name is not in that text messages; is that correct?

A: That's what I believe. Correct.

․

Q: I'd like you to read the first sentence of that document.

A: JK it's Paul.

․

Q: On March 18, 2022 at 12:18 A.M. there was a text message that came to this phone and what did it say?

A: “Did you make it home safely?”

Q: Okay. And then on April 29th of 2022 at 8:00 P.M. the response was what?

A: “Craig, you know anyone that has Adderall to buy?[”]

Q: “I can buy?”

A: “I can buy[.]”

Q: So, [Paul], what you're alleging is the text message that I showed with your name in it was planted by Kayla?

A: I believe so, correct.

․

Q: And your high rates of Adderall on your drug tests are within normal limits?

A: They're not high, within acceptable range. The expert stated that.

․

A: [H]e wrote a letter and stated I was within range.

Q: That is incorrect.

The trial court then asked to see the evidence. Thereafter, the court stated as follows:

The Court: So there was a letter that was introduced dated March 14th, all it says is that Mr. Paul Arceneaux has been a patient in good standing with the Department of Veterans Affairs Substance Use Disorder Treatment Program since 2015.

․

The Court: He has been prescribed Adderall monthly during this time. He has one active Adderall prescription each month with the previous month's prescription status being changed to either discontinued or expired within our VA system. If there any additional concerns regarding whether [Paul] was being prescribed an amphetamine or any controlled substance a review of the prescription data monitoring program can address those concerns.

Paul's next witness was Nicholas Savage. Nicholas is a tow-truck driver, and the company that he works for is owned by Paul's mother. When Nicholas was asked about the incident between Paul and Kayla in the summer of 2022, his version of events mirrored Paul's testimony.

Amanda Arceneaux testified next. Amanda is Paul's sister. She was asked whether she had first-hand knowledge of Kayla abusing Paul, to which she responded:

A: Yes, Julia and Kayla were staying at my house ․ and I was walking to my house and through my front door you can see through it and I saw Kayla and her cousin Julia punching my brother so I immediately tried to get inside my house and they were both pushing up against the door punching my brother so --

․

A: [T]hey were punching my brother so I tried to get in the house and they were pushing against the door so I pushed myself through to try to protect my brother because he wasn't doing anything. So I finally got in and they were hitting me.

Paul's final witness was his mother, Sherri. Sherri testified that Kayla is “very fair with me about giving [Sophie] to us as a family.” When asked about the incident of March 2021, Sherri testified that “[m]y son had found out that she had been cheating and he was going to ask her to leave. And he didn't want any problems. So upon her getting there and him asking her to please collect her things and go he said I need my phone back, Kayla, and they were ․ back and forth with the phone.” Sherri explained that, although she picked up Sophie and left, she did see most of the incident.

When asked if she saw Paul choke Kayla, Sherri testified: “No, Paul doesn't choke Kayla ever.” Later, she testified that she has never seen Paul become physical with Kayla—nor has Paul been violent with any woman. Sherri described her son as “overly kissy, hug[g]y” and “very much cuddly, lovey, kissy. No arguing. Definitely no putting -- Paul's not a fighter. He's not -- he might like to argue but he don't put his hands on people.”

The trial court then questioned Sherri about the choking incident:

Q: Did Paul ever admit to you choking Kayla?

A: No.

․

Q: Okay. If he told a police detective and as the police detective wrote he admitted he choked Kayla while trying to get [ ] the phone from Kayla would that surprise you?

A: That would surprise me.

Q: He told the detective he put her in a bear hug and had his arm around her neck would that surprise you?

A: Yes.

Next, the trial court asked Sherri about taking the car away from Kayla. Sherri explained that Kayla was driving a vehicle that Kayla's mother had given her. But Kayla wrecked that vehicle. So Sherri, in turn, loaned Kayla a truck that was owned by Sherri's sister. As Sherri put it:

At one point when she came to my house saying that she had put my son in jail, she had tried many, many, many times with no proof to me at all and I have seen how many times she has [h]it my son in front of me. I knew that couldn't be accurate. I said it's time for everybody to just part. The truck is going back to my sister and we're done with this situation.

RELOCATION

Paul's first assignment of error—which seeks review of the trial court's ruling on relocation—is addressed in this part of the opinion.

In Louisiana, the party requesting the relocation of a child's principal residence has “the burden of proof that the proposed relocation is made in good faith and is in the best interest of the child.” La.R.S. 9:355.10. To determine the best interest of the child, La.R.S. 9:355.14 provides twelve nonexclusive factors for the trial court to consider. However, as explained in Duerson v. Duerson, 23-311, pp. 15–16 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/20/23), 379 So. 3d 742, 753:

[T]he court's failure to expressly analyze each factor in its written or oral reasons will not constitute an error of law such that de novo review is appropriate. Gray v. Gray, 11-548 (La. 7/1/11), 65 So.3d 1247, 1255; Gathen v. Gathen, 10-2312 (La. 5/10/11), 66 So.3d 1, 9-10; Cueva [v. Gaddis, 10-981 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/24/11)], 66 So.3d [1134,] at 1140. The trial court is not required to give preferential consideration to any certain factor. Curole v. Curole, 02-1891 (La. 10/15/02), 828 So.2d 1094. If the legislature had intended the trial court to expressly analyze each and every factor in either oral or written reasons, it could have provided so. Gathen, 66 So.3d at 9. While a trial court is not required to specifically list each of the enumerated factors, the record must support that it considered the factors in light of the particular evidence presented. Leger v. Leger, 03-419 (La. App. 3 Cir. 7/2/03), 854 So.2d 955.

Here, the trial court addressed its application of the relocation factors in its oral reasons for judgment. The trial court's findings are addressed as follows:

(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.

The trial court did not address this factor in its oral reasons.

(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.

Although this factor was not addressed by the trial court, the record shows that Sophie was five years old at the time of trial.

(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.

Here, the trial court found that “[b]oth [Paul] and his mother have the financial circumstances to be able to travel to St. Tammany Parish to pick up his daughter for a visitation, whereas, [Kayla] simply does not.”

(4) The child's views about the proposed relocation, taking into consideration the age and maturity of the child.

This factor is not applicable: Sophie was too young to testify.

(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.

The trial court weighed this factor in favor of Kayla, explaining:

Again, that's where I found it very significant that during his testimony on direct and even on cross Paul couldn't say a single nice thing about Kayla even after I asked him. He said, “Well, yeah, she loves her.” And his attorney asked. He simply couldn't say a single nice thing about the mother of his child. That's an indication to the court that he'll do nothing to promote the relationship between Kayla and Sophie.

(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.

The trial court did not address this factor.

(7) The reasons of each person for seeking or opposing the relocation.

The trial court weighed this factor heavily in favor of Kayla:

The mother seeks relocation because her family and friends are in St Tammany Parish. She has assistance there. She's obtaining an education to try to get out of the service industry, get out of waitressing, and she's trying to make a better life for she and Sophie. She is studying to become a surgical tech and in St. Tammany and there's no such school here Lafayette. Paul wants her to stay in the Lafayette area, yet, he and his mother left her without a car and he wanted his cell phone back. He did nothing to make it easier for her to stay here and only wanted her to do what he wanted her to do. I don't believe that -- I believe it was a control issue for Mr. Anderson -- Arceneaux, sorry.

(8) The current employment and economic circumstances of each person and how the proposed relocation may affect the circumstances of the child.

This factor also weighs in Kayla's favor. The trial court summed up its findings this way:

Paul doesn't work but he gets a V.A. check of about four thousand dollars a month while the mother is attending school and working. And she believes she'll be able to finish that surgical tech program in a year and a half. This training will help her get out of the service industry so that she can take care of herself and her child. You know, I'm astounded and disappointed that [Paul] has done nothing to help support the child. I just reviewed again the file and apparently on May fifth of 2021, the hearing officer did make a recommendation of child support of two hundred thirty-six dollars and ninety-six cents but both parties testified that no support has ever been paid. Now that order at some point became a temporary order and then expired. But the fact remains for at least a hundred and eighty days there should have been some support paid.

(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.

Here too, this factor favors Kayla: Paul has paid nothing in child support.

(10) The feasibility of a relocation by the objecting person.

Although this factor was not addressed by the trial court, Paul testified that he would be receiving a settlement of $2,300,000.00 in September 2024. Paul does not work, he is not married, and he has no other children. Hence, he could readily move to Covington.

(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.

The trial court weighed this factor heavily in favor of Kayla:

According to Kayla's testimony, which I found persuasive and I found credible, Paul became abusive in April of 2021. In one particular incident I do believe Kayla's version of events she had Sophi[e] in her arms, he tried to take a phone from Kayla, was choking her. He denied on the witness stand every [sic] having done that ․ [W]hile I don't find that there was sufficient evidence under the Post Separation Family Violence Relief Act for either [Paul's] claims or [Kayla's] claims, you know, I do find that if you look at the Duluth Power and Control Wheel that [Paul's] behavior fell under, you know, domestic abuse. You know, using coercion and threats, you [k]now, threatening to do something to her. Threatening to report her to welfare. I believe that he coerced her. He attempted to threaten her using intimidation, making her afraid by using looks, actions, gestures, and destroying her things. There was some testimony about a decorative plate or a ceramic decoration and her testimony where she said, “If they got into an argument he wanted to destroy her things”. Using emotional abuse. Putting her down. Calling her names. Making her think she's crazy. Making accusations. Shifting responsibility for abusive behavior saying it was her fault or she caused it. Threatening to take the child[ ] away. I find that he falls under many of those categories. In this category also I'm extremely concerned about the levels of amphetamine in his system. [Paul] is a recovering heroin addict. He's been on Suboxone for ten years, which also concerns me. Suboxone in itself is addictive and is a very powerful, potent drug. And in the levels of amphetamines in his system varied so wildly that it could only be that he had to have been taking more than the prescribed about [sic]of Adderall. June 24th of ‘21, he had four thousand one hundred sixty-eight per nanogram amphetamine in his hair. In October three thousand two hundred eighty three. In December of ‘21, two hundred and sixty five thousand two hundred and forty. And in March of ‘21. There were other tests after that date but I wanted to at least try to get some sampling over a years period of time of what the different test results were and I find that that is very alarming. I find disturbing also his refusal to participate in the Kids First Program. He thinks he doesn't need it, however, I believe that he does.

(12) Any other factors affecting the best interest of the child.

The trial court did not address any other factors in determining relocation.

Now to Paul's first assignment of error: Paul asserts that the trial court erred in granting Kayla's request for relocation. He advances two arguments in support of this assignment. First, he argues that Kayla's request should have been denied because she did not provide the notice required by La.R.S. 9:355.5. We disagree.

In relevant part, La.R.S. 9:355.6 states: “The court may consider a failure to provide notice of a proposed relocation of a child as ․ [a] factor in making its determination regarding the relocation of a child.” And here, the trial court addressed Kayla's failure to provide such notice in its oral reasons:

I believe that she had no choice in the matter. No car, no phone, no nothing. Now, I would have like to have seen her to have filed it and to have sent notice but neither of them had attorneys at the time. They haven't had an attorney for a year if not longer. And so I don't think it was until they went in front of ․ the hearing officer where she said that a relocation had not been filed that Kayla went and got a lawyer. And once she went and got a lawyer and he enrolled he immediately filed for the relocation.

The second argument advanced by Paul is that the evidence was overwhelmingly against relocation. Again, we disagree.

To sum up, the trial court believed Kayla's testimony; the trial court did not believe Paul's testimony. The trial court found that Paul choked Kayla while Sophie was in her arms, that Kayla had limited means, that she had no vehicle, and that she had no family in the Lafayette area. Kayla fled to Covington because she had family there. She fled to escape Paul's control and abuse. This is what the trial court found. And there is more. Paul was arrested in 2023 for hitting Kayla with an empty water jug. Sophie was also present when this happened.

The evidence shows that Paul is obsessively jealous. He accused Kayla of being a prostitute.

The evidence also shows that Paul paid nothing in child support, even though he drove a Porsche and had $241,000.00 in his bank account in 2022.

Paul is an admitted heroin addict, though he testified that he has been clean for the past ten years, during which time he has taken Suboxone. This alone warrants an assessment for substance abuse. Yet there is evidence—including drug screen results and text messages—that Paul was taking excessive amounts of Adderall.

Significantly, Kayla successfully completed the Kids First drug program; Paul did not.

One more thing: Sherri acknowledged that Kayla is “very fair with me about giving [Sophie] to us as a family.” By contrast, there is no evidence that Paul has done anything to facilitate Kayla's relationship with Sophie.

In the end, the trial court correctly applied the relocation factors to the record evidence. The evidence shows that Kayla's decision to relocate was made in good faith. The evidence also shows that the relocation was in Sophie's best interest. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion granting Kalya's request for relocation.

CUSTODY

Paul's second, third, and fourth assignments of error seek review of the trial court's ruling on custody. Those assignments are addressed in this part of the opinion.

After ruling on relocation, the trial court 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 some of the Article 134 factors in its reasons for judgment. The trial court's findings are 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.

This factor weighs in Kayla's favor. As stated earlier, the trial court found that Paul choked Kayla while Sophie was in her arms. Additionally, Paul was arrested in 2023 for hitting Kayla with an empty water jug, and Sophie was present when this happened. Paul also admitted that his nephew had accused him of physical abuse. Paul denied the accusation.

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

The trial court did not weigh this factor in favor of either party.

(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.

As to this factor, the trial court stated:

I believe that both of you love your child --

․

-- sincerely and strongly and I don't believe that either of you would willingly or knowingly harm her. However, I'm concerned about what Sophie has been exposed to. You know, you told me that she is in counseling, and it's play therapy, but I think that that's very important for kids that they can try to act out and try to express, you know, what's going on.

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

Here, the trial court explained:

While Paul and his mother have more money I believe that you're [Kayla] able to adequately take care of your child's needs. You've also requested child support, however, until we determine custody we normally do not deal with child support so that will be at a later date but you are going to be entitled to some financial assistance for your child.

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

The trial court did not address this factor in its oral reasons.

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

Likewise, this factor was not addressed.

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

The critical issue in evaluating moral fitness is whether the parent's conduct adversely affects the child. 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.

Again, the trial court found that Paul choked Kayla while Sophie was in her arms. Paul also admitted hitting Kayla with an empty water jug while he was holding Sophie.

In addition, Kayla testified that Paul “has an addiction problem to his Adderall. He stays up for days sometimes. He doesn't always engage with Sophie. She will be sitting there asking Daddy, Daddy, Daddy, and he's playing the video game[.]”

Thus, this factor favors Kayla.

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

Here, the trial court explained: “One of the other things that the court has to consider is the history of substance abuse and violence and I think I covered that adequately when I went through the relocation factors.” We agree. And for the reasons given earlier, this factor weighs heavily in Kayla's favor.

(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.

Based on our discussion of relocation, this factor also favors Kayla.

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

This factor is neutral. Sophie did not attend school when she lived in and around Carencro. Sophie has lived several places, some with both parents, some with grandparents, some with other family members.

(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: Sophie was five years old at the time of trial and did not testify.

(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.

Again, Sherri acknowledged that Kayla is “very fair with me about giving [Sophie] to us as a family.” The evidence also shows that Kayla has given Paul additional time periods with Sophie when he has asked. By contrast, there is no evidence that Paul has done anything to facilitate Kayla's relationship with Sophie.

As the trial court put it: “Paul couldn't say a single nice thing about Kayla even after I asked․ That's an indication to the court that he'll do nothing to promote the relationship between Kayla and Sophie.”

This factor weighs in Kayla's favor.

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

The trial court did not directly address this factor. However, the distance from Carencro to Covington is roughly 125 miles.

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

The trial court did not directly address this factor. Yet Paul testified that he was responsible for Sophie's care because Kayla was always working. On the other hand, although Kayla acknowledged Paul's help in caring for Sophie, she made it clear that most of the child-rearing duties fell on her.

Now to Paul's second assignment of error: Paul asserts that the trial court erred in failing to grant him sole custody under the PSFVRA. La.R.S. 9:361–369. But the application of the PSFVRA requires a predicate finding of “a history of perpetrating family violence[.]” La.R.S. 9:364.

In short, Paul contends that Kayla is the parent with a history of perpetrating family violence and that he is the victim. The trial court expressly rejected this contention, and this finding is supported by the record. Hence, there is no abuse of discretion.

In his third assignment, Paul argues that the trial court misapplied the Article 134 factors in naming Kayla as the domiciliary parent. We disagree.

Put simply, the trial court correctly applied the Article 134 factors and found that joint custody with Kayla as the domiciliary parent was in Sophie's best interest. Based on our review of the record evidence, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in making that finding.

Paul's fourth assignment of error asserts that “the trial court erred when it alternated holiday periods and allowed Paul only one week per month of custodial time in the summers.”

This assignment implicates La.R.S. 9:335. In other words, once the trial court reached the decision that joint custody was in Sophie's best interest, it was required to render a joint custody implementation order. La.R.S. 9:335(A)(1). Among other things, 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(A)(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(A)(2)(b).

As stated earlier, the trial court awarded the parties joint custody with Kayla as the domiciliary parent. But the trial court also granted Paul physical custody of Sophia on alternating weekends when school is in session. The trial court then formulated the following holiday schedule:

(a) In the absence of an agreement, the parties shall share the following alternating and rotating holidays, from 6:00 p.m. on the day before the holiday, until 6:00 p.m. on the day of the holiday: Mardi Gras, Easter, Thanksgiving, Christmas Eve, and Christmas Day

(i) The Mother shall be entitled to enjoy the next holiday in said list, which is the Thanksgiving Day 2024 holiday, and the Father shall be entitled to enjoy the holiday which follows in said list, which is the Christmas Eve and Christmas Day 2024 holiday.

(ii) The parties shall alternate and rotate the remainder of the holidays in the list until further orders of Court or mutual agreement of the parties.

(b) These holiday provisions take precedence when in conflict with the recurring custodial periods set forth in Section Al, hereinabove.

Paul argues that this holiday schedule does not provide Sophie with frequent and continuing contact with both parties. For instance, the trial court limited each holiday period to twenty-four hours. Paul argues that these holiday periods should begin the day school lets out and end the day before school resumes. We agree. In our view, the trial court misapplied La.R.S. 9:335(A)(2)(a)–(b). We will therefore amend the holiday schedule to give the parties equal time in our disposition.

Paul next takes aim at the summer vacation schedule. Here is what the trial court ordered:

VACATION PERIOD:

(d) Beginning in 2024, the Father During [sic] shall have at least one (1) uninterrupted week of visitation with the child each month of summer vacation.

(e) The father exercising the vacation period(s) provided in this paragraph shall give the other parent not less than fourteen (14) day(s) advance notice of the period(s) which he intends to exercise.

(f) Neither parent may exercise any vacation time with the child[ ] which requires that the child[ ] miss any amount of school or which interferes with the exercise of specified holiday and special occasion custody/visitation periods of the other parent, without the agreement of the other parent.

(g) Except for the vacation custody/visitation periods as provided immediately hereinabove, the “recurring” custodial periods provided in Section Al through A3, above, shall resume as though same had never been interrupted.

Like before, Paul argues that the summer vacation schedule does not provide Sophie with frequent and continuing contact with both parents. And again, we agree with him. Thus, we will amend the summer schedule to give the parties equal time in our disposition.

CONTEMPT

In his fifth and final assignment, Paul argues that the trial court erred in failing to hold Kayla in contempt of court. We disagree.

In Burst, 62 So.3d at 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.

Here, the trial court was presented with conflicting testimony. 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 Paul's contempt motions.

DISPOSITION

The trial court judgment of September 9, 2024, sets forth a holiday custodial schedule. That part of the judgment—titled “HOLIDAYS”—is amended and rewritten as follows:

Holiday Custodial Periods: The parties shall alternate the physical custody and control of the minor child for the following holiday periods:

Mardi Gras: The Mardi Gras holiday shall commence at 6:00 p.m. on the day school lets out for the holiday and continue until 4:00 p.m. on the day before school begins following the holiday. During odd-numbered years, the Father shall have physical custody of the child for the Mardi Gras holiday. During even-numbered years, the Mother shall have physical custody of the child for the Mardi Gras holiday.

Easter: The Easter holiday shall commence at 6:00 p.m. on the day school lets out for the holiday and continue until 4:00 p.m. on the day before school resumes following the holiday. During odd-numbered years, the Mother shall have physical custody of the child for the Easter holiday. During even-numbered years, the Father shall have physical custody of the child for the Easter holiday.

Thanksgiving: The Thanksgiving holiday shall commence at 6:00 p.m. on the day school lets out for the holiday and continue until 4:00 p.m. on the day before school begins following the holiday. During odd-numbered years, the Father shall have physical custody of the child for the Thanksgiving holiday. During even-numbered years, the Mother shall have physical custody of the child for the Thanksgiving holiday.

First Half Christmas: The first one-half of the total school holidays for Christmas and New Years, including weekends, as designated by the school district attended by the minor child, commencing at 6:00 p.m. on the day school ends and lasting until 6:00 p.m. on the day which is the mid-point of the total holidays. During odd-numbered years, the Mother shall have physical custody of the child for the First Half Christmas. During even-numbered years, the Father shall have physical custody of the child for the First Half Christmas.

Second Half Christmas: The second one-half of the total holidays for Christmas and New Years, including weekends, as designated by the school attended by the minor child, commencing at 6:00 p.m. on the day which is the mid-point of the total holidays and lasting until 4:00 p.m. on the day before school begins. During odd-numbered years, the Father shall have physical custody of the child for the Second Half Christmas. During even-numbered years, the Mother shall have physical custody of the child for the Second Half Christmas.

The trial court judgment of September 9, 2024, also sets forth a summer vacation period. That part of the judgment—titled “VACATION PERIOD”—is amended and rewritten as follows:

During Sophie's summer breaks from school, the parties shall alternate seven-day periods, beginning at 4:00 p.m. on the first Sunday following the last official day of school with the Father exercising the first of said periods. The alternating seven-day periods will terminate after each parent has exercised five (5) of such periods.

The trial court judgment is affirmed as amended. All costs of this appeal are assessed to Paul Arceneaux Jr.

AFFIRMED AS AMENDED.

CHARLES G. FITZGERALD JUDGE