CEFALU v. CEFALU (2026)

In this child custody matter, the father appeals the trial court judgment finding the Louisiana Post-Separation Family Violence Relief Act, La. R.S. 9:362 et. seq., (“PSFVRA”) applied and awarding sole custody of the parties’ three minor children to the mother. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This prolonged and acrimonious divorce proceeding began with the filing of a petition for divorce and incidental matters by Adam Cefalu against Monique Cefalu in July 2022. After several interim settings of custody, hearing officer conferences, ex parte requests for emergency custody, requests for protective orders, and rules for contempt, this matter finally came before the court for an initial setting of custody on December 3 and 10, 2024. After the hearing, the trial court issued extensive written reasons, and signed a judgment in conformity with the written reasons, which applied the PSFVRA and granted, among other relief, sole custody of Adam and Monique's three minor children to Monique, with Adam awarded supervised visitation. It is from this judgment that Adam appeals. On appeal, Adam represents himself, and he filed a one-page “Appellant's Brief,” which set forth the following:

APPELLANT'S BRIEFCase No. 2025 CU 1265Jurisdiction StatementThis Court has jurisdiction pursuant to a timely filed appeal from a final judgment.Assignments of ErrorThe trial court erred in denying Appellant due process by excluding material evidence.The trial court erred by making credibility determinations unsupported by the record.The trial court erred by demonstrating bias and disregarding uncontroverted evidence.The trial court abused its discretion in awarding custody contrary to the children's best interests.The trial court erred by failing to consider constitutionally protected religious rights.Statement of Facts[To be supplemented.]ArgumentI. Denial of Due Process and Exclusion of Material EvidenceII. Credibility Findings Unsupported by the RecordIII. Judicial Bias and Abuse of DiscretionConclusionAppellant respectfully requests that the judgment be reversed and remanded.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

Uniform Rules, Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-12.4(A) sets forth the requirements for an appellant brief.¹ Rule 2-12.4(B)(4) states: “All assignments of error and issues for review shall be briefed. The court may deem as abandoned any assignment of error or issue for review which has not been briefed.” Restating an assigned error in brief without argument or citation of authority does not constitute briefing. Deubler v. Bogalusa City Schools, 2018-0312 (La. App. 1st Cir. 9/21/18), 262 So.3d 393, 401. Additionally, Rule 2-12.13 sets forth the sanctions for non-conforming briefs and provides: “Briefs not in compliance with these Rules may be stricken in whole or in part by the court, and the delinquent party or counsel of record may be ordered to file a new or amended brief.” The sanction to be imposed for a non-conforming brief is left to the discretion of the court. Price v. GEICO General Ins. Co., 2013-2216 (La. App. 1st Cir. 9/19/14), 155 So.3d 1, 3.

While Adam's brief does not comply with our rules,² he is pro se and the matter concerns the custody of children, therefore, in the interest of justice we reviewed his “Appellant's Brief” as indulgently as possible to attempt to address his assignments of error.³ Although we could not clearly discern what Adam's contentions were in most of his assignments of error, he did argue that “[t]he trial court abused its discretion in awarding custody contrary to the children's best interest.” Accordingly, we examined the record to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in finding that it was in the best interest of the children to award sole custody to Monique.

Child custody decisions are reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. Leard v. Schenker, 2006-1116 (La. 6/16/06), 931 So.2d 355, 357. Great deference is accorded to the decision of the trial court, because it has a better opportunity to evaluate the credibility of witnesses. Martello v. Martello, 2006-0594 (La. App. 1st Cir. 3/23/07), 960 So.2d 186, 191. During the trial, Monique testified about incidents of physical violence, verbal abuse, sexual abuse, and financial abuse. She also introduced corroborating evidence including text messages sent by Adam to her that used cruel as well as threatening language, and pictures of bruises that the trial court noted would “not be possible that they were self-inflicted.” In its written reasons, the trial court repeatedly questioned Adam's credibility based on the conflicting statements he made during trial, and the court stated that it found Monique credible. The trial court thoroughly considered the factors found in La. Civ. Code art 134 and examined the record to determine if La. Civ. Code art. 134 (B) applied.⁴ The trial court found “evidence of both physical and non-physical domestic abuse as defined under Title 46” and “as a result of this factual finding ․ based not only upon the exhibits introduced into evidence, but [also] the credibility of the testimony presented to [the] Court the provisions of La. R.S. 9:361, et. seq. applie[d].” Our review of the record reveals that the trial court's decision was based heavily on credibility determinations and the court was well within its vast discretion in applying the PSFVRA and awarding sole custody of the children to Monique. Therefore, we find no merit to Adam's contention that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding sole custody of the children to Monique.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the motion to dismiss the appeal is denied, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. All costs of the appeal are assessed to appellant, Adam Cefalu.

MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL DENIED; JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Uniform Rules, Courts of Appeal Rule 2-12.4(A) provides:The brief of the appellant shall contain, under appropriate headings and in the order indicated:(1) a table of contents with page references;(2) a table of authorities ․(3) a jurisdictional statement setting forth the constitutional and statutory basis for the court to exercise appellate jurisdiction, with citations to applicable provisions.The jurisdictional statement shall also include the dates of the judgment appealed and of the motion and order for appeal to establish the timeliness of the appeal and the following, as applicable:(a) an assertion that the appeal is from a final appealable judgment and, if the appealability is dependent upon a designation by the trial court, a reference to the specific page numbers of the record where the designation and reasons for the designation are to be found; or(b) an assertion that the appeal is from an interlocutory judgment or order which is appealable as expressly provided by law; or(c) an assertion of information establishing the Court of Appeal's jurisdiction on some other basis;(4) a concise statement of the case, indicating the nature of the case, the action of the trial court, and the disposition;(5) the assignments of alleged errors;(6) a listing of issues presented for review;(7) a statement of facts relevant to the assignments of error and issues for review, with references to the specific page numbers of the record;(8) a short summary of the argument, i.e., a succinct, clear, and accurate statement of the arguments made in the body of the brief;(9) the argument, which shall contain:(a) appellant's contentions, with reference to the specific page numbers of the record and citations to the authorities on which the appellant relies;(b) for each assignment of error and issue for review, a concise statement of the applicable standard of review, which may appear in the discussion or under a separate heading placed before the discussion; and(c) for each assignment of error and issue for review which required an objection or proffer to preserve, a statement that the objection or proffer was made, with reference to the specific page numbers of the record; and(10) a short conclusion stating the precise relief sought.

2.   Adam's brief lacks a table of contents, a table of authorities, a concise statement of the case, a listing of issues presented for review, a statement of facts, a short summary of the argument, and any argument apart from a restatement of three of the assignments of error. Although his brief sets forth five assignments of error, those assignments of error were not briefed; instead, three of those assignments of error were re-stated as apparent headings in the Argument section of the brief without further explanation of his contentions.

3.   Monique filed a motion to dismiss Adam's appeal in this court, which the panel voted to handle in connection with the appeal on January 28, 2026. Because Louisiana Uniform Rules - Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-12.13, does not set forth the dismissal of an appeal as a penalty for a non-conforming brief, we deny Monique's motion to dismiss. An appeal is not to be dismissed for a mere technicality. Williams v. Fischer, 439 So.2d 1111, 1112 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1983).

4.   Louisiana Civil Code article 134 provides:A. Except as provided in Paragraph B of this Article, the court shall consider all relevant factors in determining the best interest of the child, including:(1) The potential for the child to be abused, as defined by Children's Code Article 603, which shall be the primary consideration.(2) The love, affection, and other emotional ties between each party and the child.(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.(4) The capacity and disposition of each party to provide the child with food, clothing, medical care, and other material needs.(5) The length of time the child has lived in a stable, adequate environment, and the desirability of maintaining continuity of that environment.(6) The permanence, as a family unit, of the existing or proposed custodial home or homes.(7) The moral fitness of each party, insofar as it affects the welfare of the child.(8) The history of substance abuse, violence, or criminal activity of any party.(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.(10) The home, school, and community history of the child.(11) The reasonable preference of the child, if the court deems the child to be of sufficient age to express a preference.(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.(13) The distance between the respective residences of the parties.(14) The responsibility for the care and rearing of the child previously exercised by each party.B. In cases involving a history of committing family violence, as defined in R.S. 9:362, or domestic abuse, as defined in R.S. 46:2132, including sexual abuse, as defined in R.S. 14:403, whether or not a party has sought relief under any applicable law, the court shall determine an award of custody or visitation in accordance with R.S. 9:341 and 364. The court may only find a history of committing family violence if the court finds that one incident of family violence has resulted in serious bodily injury or the court finds more than one incident of family violence.

HESTER, J.