COOPER v. BARNES (2026)

In this child custody action, Defendant/Appellant, Angela Hill Poole, appeals the judgment of the Twenty-Second Judicial District Court, which awarded sole custody of the child to Plaintiff/Appellee, Latosha Adams Cooper; granted Angela Hill Poole supervised visitation of the child; and prohibited Defendant/Appellee, Mary Barnes, from visitation with the child except as agreed to by Latosha Adams Cooper. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Angela Hill Poole (“the mother”) and Geoffrey E. Adams (“the father”) are the parents of the minor child born on August 12, 2012. On December 20, 2021, the father was awarded custody of the child, and the child's maternal grandmother, Mary Barnes (“Barnes”), was granted visitation with the child on some holidays and during the summer months. Additionally, the mother was granted supervised visitation with the child, which was to take place during Barnes's visitation. After being awarded custody of the child in 2021, the father and the child began living with the child's paternal grandmother, Latosha Adams Cooper (“Cooper”). However, on July 4, 2024, the father was arrested and has remained in jail. After the father went to jail, the child continued living with Cooper.

On September 20, 2024, Barnes contacted Cooper and asked to visit the child. Cooper allowed Barnes to take the child to visit, and Barnes agreed to return the child on Sunday, September 22, 2024. However, when Sunday arrived, Barnes refused to return the child. On Monday, September 23, 2024, Cooper filed a “Rule to Establish Custody with Request for Emergency Custody by Non-Parent,” naming the father, the mother, and Barnes as defendants.¹ Cooper alleged that Barnes refused to return the child to her. Cooper further alleged that Barnes was not capable of caring for the child because she did not have the ability to help the child with her school work; she was unemployed and could not provide for the child financially; she was unable to provide a stable home for the child; and she likely had a drug problem. Cooper also contended that the child was doing well in school while in her care.

On September 23, 2024, the trial court granted Cooper's request for emergency ex parte custody of the child and ordered that the mother and Barnes were to have supervised visitation. Further, the trial court ordered: (1) Barnes and the mother to show cause on October 17, 2024 why they should not be awarded custody or visitation of the child; (2) Barnes and the mother to show cause on December 18, 2024 before a hearing officer why the relief sought in the rule should not be granted as prayed for; and (3) Barnes and the mother to show cause on January 22, 2025 before the trial court why the relief sought in the rule should not be granted as prayed for.² Cooper requested that the rule and order be served on the mother and Barnes at an Orilla Road address in McIntosh, Alabama.

Cooper's rule for custody was heard by a commissioner on October 17, 2024. Cooper, Barnes, and the mother were present. However, the mother contended that she did not receive notice of the hearing because she did not reside at the Orilla Road address that was listed in the service instructions. After the hearing, the commissioner recommended that the trial court award Cooper interim sole custody of the child and grant Barnes and the mother visitation with the child in accordance with the December 20, 2021 judgment. Cooper, Barnes, and the mother all signed a form acknowledging receipt of a copy of the commissioner's findings of facts and recommendations, and the mother provided her current address, which was on Charlie Lee Road in McIntosh, Alabama. Additionally, in her appellant brief filed with this court, the mother states that she verbally accepted notice of the December 18, 2024 and January 22, 2025 hearing dates. On October 25, 2024, the trial court signed a judgment ordering that the recommendations set forth by the commissioner were made a judgment of the trial court. Notice of the October 25, 2024 judgment was sent to Cooper, Barnes (at the Orilla Road address), and the mother (at the Charlie Lee Road address).

The hearing officer held a conference via Zoom on December 18, 2024. Cooper was present at the conference, but the mother and Barnes failed to appear. The hearing officer recommended that the trial court grant Cooper custody of the child and grant the mother supervised visitation. Thereafter, the trial court ordered that “the recommendations set forth in the Hearing Officer Conference Report which was issued ․ on December 18, 2024 are recommendations pending the hearing on January 22, 2025, or until such other date to which the hearing may be continued as [Barnes and the mother] did not appear for the Hearing Officer Conference.”

The hearing before the trial court, which was originally set for January 22, 2025, was continued due to a winter storm. The matter was reset for March 24, 2025. After a hearing on that date, the trial court signed a judgment on March 25, 2025, awarding Cooper sole custody of the child; granting the mother supervised visitation of the child; and prohibiting Barnes from visiting the child except by agreement of Cooper. Neither the mother nor Barnes appeared at the hearing.

On May 12, 2025, the mother filed a “Rule to Nullify Judgment and/or for Appeal,” requesting that the trial court declare the March 25, 2025 judgment null and void because she was not served with notice of the hearing date. In the alternative, the mother sought an appeal of the March 25, 2025 judgment. On May 23, 2025, the trial court signed a judgment denying the mother's request to declare the March 25, 2025 judgment null and void and granting an appeal of the March 25, 2025 judgment. On appeal, the mother contends that the trial court erred in proceeding with the March 24, 2025 hearing because she was not properly served and in denying her motion to nullify the judgment without a contradictory hearing.

DISCUSSION

In her first assignment of error, the mother contends that the trial court erred in proceeding with the hearing and rendering judgment without proper service, thereby depriving her of the opportunity to appear, be heard, and protect her parental rights.

Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 1201(A) provides that citation and service thereof are essential in all civil actions except summary and executory proceedings, divorce actions under Civil Code article 102, and proceedings under the Children's Code. Summary proceedings are those which are conducted with rapidity, within the delays allowed by the court, and without citation and the observance of all the formalities required in ordinary proceedings. La. C.C.P. art. 2591. Summary proceedings may be used for trial or disposition of an issue which may be raised properly by a rule to show cause. La. C.C.P. art. 2592(3). Summary proceedings may also be used for trial or disposition of the original granting of, subsequent change in, or termination of custody, visitation, and support for a child. La. C.C.P. art. 2592(8). Citation and service thereof are not necessary in a summary proceeding.³ La. C.C.P. art. 2594. A copy of the contradictory motion, rule to show cause, or other pleading filed by the plaintiff in the proceeding, and of any order of court assigning the date and hour of the trial thereof, shall be served upon the defendant. Id.

In this case, Cooper and the father are Louisiana residents, while the mother and Barnes are Alabama residents, so the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (“UCCJEA”) applies.⁴ Louisiana Revised Statutes 13:1808(A) of the UCCJEA provides for notice to persons residing outside of the state:

Notice required for the exercise of jurisdiction when a person is outside this state may be given in a manner prescribed by the law of this state for service of process or by the law of the state in which the service is made. Notice shall be given in a manner reasonably calculated to give actual notice but may be by publication if other means are not effective.

The mother contends that she did not receive notice of the March 24, 2025 hearing date and was therefore deprived of an opportunity to appear, be heard, and protect her parental rights.⁵ However, the record contains evidence to the contrary. Specifically, there is a certified mail return receipt that was signed by “Angela Hill” on March 11, 2025, which indicates that the mother received notice of the hearing on that date.⁶ Additionally, at the start of the hearing, the trial court inquired as to whether the mother received notice of the hearing date. The clerk stated that the clerk's office issued notice of the hearing date via certified mail and the mother received the notice on March 11, 2025. Therefore, we find that the mother received actual notice of the March 24, 2025 hearing via certified mail on March 11, 2025. This assignment of error is without merit.

In her second assignment of error, the mother contends that the trial court erred in summarily denying her motion to nullify the judgment, which deprived her of the right to a contradictory hearing. A trial court's sua sponte dismissal of a nullity action is without authority in our law. See Zavala v. Dover Construction USA, LLC, 2017-0001 (La. App. 1st Cir. 4/11/18), 249 So. 3d 24, 29. A final judgment shall be annulled if it is rendered against a defendant who has not been served with process as required by law and who has not waived objection to jurisdiction, or against whom a valid judgment by default has not been taken. La. C.C.P. art. 2002(A)(2). Actions to declare absolute nullities may be brought anytime and before any court. See La. C.C.P. art. 2002(B).

Here, the mother presented the trial court with an alternative order, requesting a rule to show cause to nullify the judgment “OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE,” an appeal. The trial court granted the appeal and declined to set the rule. We find therefore that the trial court neither set the rule to nullify the judgment for a hearing nor ruled upon the motion. In other words, the trial court is yet to consider the merits of the motion. Accordingly, the matter is not properly before this court for review.

CONCLUSION

For the above and foregoing reasons, the March 25, 2025 judgment which awarded sole custody of the child to Latosha Adams Cooper; granted Angela Hill Poole supervised visitation of the child; and prohibited Mary Barnes from visitation with the child except as agreed to by Latosha Adams Cooper is affirmed. Costs of the appeal are assessed to Angela Hill Poole.

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Cooper and the father are Louisiana residents, while the mother and Barnes are Alabama residents.

2.   The Twenty-Second Judicial District Court has both commissioners and hearing officers. The commissioners have the same authority as the hearing officers, including presiding over cases of child custody. See La. R.S. 13:721(F). Louisiana Revised Statutes 46:236.5(C) provides that an expedited process may be implemented for the establishment of paternity and the establishment and enforcement of support and other related family and domestic matters in district courts using hearing officers. Under La. R.S. 46:236.5(C)(3)(a), the hearing officer shall act as a finder of fact and shall make written recommendations to the court. See Yepez v. Yepez, 2021-0477 (La. App. 1st Cir. 12/22/21), 340 So. 3d 36,39-40: see also Louisiana District Court Rules – Appendix 32.0B: Court-Specific Rules on Hearing Officers and Domestic Commissioners – Twenty-Second Judicial District Court (St. Tammany and Washington Parishes) – Rule I. Hearing Officers--General.

3.   Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 1202 provides:The citation must be signed by the clerk of the court issuing it with an expression of his official capacity and under the seal of his office; must be accompanied by a certified copy of the petition, exclusive of exhibits, even if made a part thereof; and must contain the following:(1) The date of issuance;(2) The title of the cause;(3) The name of the person to whom it is addressed;(4) The title and location of the court issuing it; and(5) A statement that the person cited must either comply with the demand contained in the petition or make an appearance, either by filing a pleading or otherwise, in the court issuing the citation within the delay provided in Article 1001 under penalty of default.

4.   The UCCJEA, adopted by both Louisiana and Alabama, governs jurisdiction in interstate child custody disputes. See La. R.S. 13:1801 et seq.

5.   The mother also argues that the Louisiana Long-Arm Statute applies. However, the Louisiana Supreme Court has found that La. R.S. 13:1808 mandates only that notice be given in a manner “reasonably calculated to give actual notice” and does not mandate compliance with the Louisiana Long-Arm Statute. Cochran v. Forman, 2020-01400 (La. 3/9/21), 312 So. 3d 263, 265 (per curiam).

6.   The certified mail return receipt lists the mother's address as an Orilla Circle address. While the mother contends that is not her correct address, she did sign the certified mail return receipt, indicating that she received actual notice of the March 24, 2025 hearing date.

MILLER, J.