CEDOTAL v. SMITH (2026)

In this child custody case, the mother, Christian Paige Smith, appeals a trial court judgment awarding the parties joint custody of their minor child and denying her request to relocate the minor child to Mississippi. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and render.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Ms. Smith and Brandon Joseph Cedotal are the parents of a minor child, O.C., born on November 19,2018.² Ms. Smith has an older child from a prior relationship. Shortly after O.C. was born, Ms. Smith and her children moved from her home in Mississippi into Mr. Cedotal's parents’ home in Ascension Parish. Ms. Smith and Mr. Cedotal never married, but they resided together in Ascension Parish until 2023. On May 22, 2023, Mr. Cedotal filed a petition for ex parte custody and to establish custody, alleging therein that Ms. Smith had threatened to abscond to Mississippi with O.C. Mr. Cedotal sought joint custody of O.C., with Mr. Cedotal being designated as the domiciliary parent. On June 5, 2023, Ms. Smith filed a petition for emergency ex parte custody, post-separation family violence relief, to establish child support, and to relocate the minor child. Ms. Smith alleged that since Mr. Cedotal relocated her and O.C. to Louisiana from her home state of Mississippi in 2019, he had taken extensive efforts to isolate and exclude her from any option except total reliance on him as they lived together with Mr. Cedotal's parents. Ms. Smith further alleged that Mr. Cedotal repeatedly battered, threatened, entrapped, and abused her, and that Mr. Cedotal abused alcohol and other illicit substances. Ms. Smith sought sole custody of O.C. in accordance with the Post-Separation Family Violence Relief Act (PSFVRA) and the permanent relocation of O.C. to Mississippi.

On October 3, 2023, the trial court signed an interim stipulated judgment granting the parties joint legal custody of O.C., designating Ms. Smith as the domiciliary parent, and awarding Mr. Cedotal physical custody of O.C. three weekends per month.

The custody matter was ultimately heard on January 29, 2025, February 12, 2025, March 18, 2025, and March 26, 2025. Relevant hereto, Ms. Smith testified that Mr. Cedotal abused her from 2019 through June of 2023. According to Ms. Smith, there were instances where Mr. Cedotal pushed her around “like a ragdoll.” She described one incident in November of 2020 when he forcefully shoved her, requiring her to seek treatment at the emergency room for her injuries. The sheriff s office was notified and domestic violence charges were filed. Ms. Smith testified that she dropped the charges because Mr. Cedotal threatened to put her out of the home. Ms. Smith also described an incident when Mr. Cedotal picked her up by her neck and shoved her against some wooden shelves while O.C. was present and watching. She testified as to another instance where Mr. Cedotal slammed her against the wall, which both children witnessed.

Mr. Cedotal acknowledged that he was arrested for domestic abuse battery against Ms. Smith, testifying that Ms. Smith threw his phone at his face, causing an argument. He testified he went to leave but Ms. Smith was between him and the door, and when she would not move, he shoved her out of the way, causing her to fall to the ground, slide across the floor, and hit an end table. According to Mr. Cedotal, he was arrested, but the charges were nolle prossed, which he understood to mean the charges were dismissed on the condition that he complete anger management. Mr. Cedotal testified he completed anger management classes on May 8, 2021. Mr. Cedotal acknowledged that after completing the anger management classes, he continued to threaten Ms. Smith, at times in front of the children. Mr. Cedotal further testified that he was court-ordered to see a therapist, and also completed a twenty-six week domestic violence offender treatment program.

At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court took the matter under advisement, and requested post-trial briefs from the parties. Thereafter, on May 1, 2025, the trial court rendered judgment finding the PSFVRA applicable to the matter due to a history of family violence committed by Mr. Cedotal against Ms. Smith and further finding Mr. Cedotal overcame the presumption contained in the PSFVRA that no parent with a history of perpetrating family violence may be awarded sole or joint custody. The trial court awarded joint custody of O.C. to Ms. Smith and Mr. Cedotal in accordance with a Joint Custody Implementation Plan, and denied Ms. Smith's request to relocate the minor child to Mississippi based upon the relocation statutes. Ms. Smith appeals the judgment, assigning as error the trial court's finding that Mr. Cedotal overcame the perpetrator of domestic violence presumption of the PSFVRA, thereby denying Ms. Smith relief under the Act, and the denial of her motion to relocate with the minor child of the parties to Mississippi, near her family.

LAW AND DISCUSSION

Post-Separation Family Violence Relief Act

We first address whether the trial court erred in finding that Mr. Cedotal met his burden by a preponderance of the evidence that he overcame the presumption contained in the PSFVRA that no parent with a history of perpetrating family violence may be awarded sole or joint custody.

The PSFVRA, La. R.S. 9:361 et. seq., was designed to protect a child's interest by restricting the right of visitation of the abusing parent in families with a history of family violence. See Michelli v. Michelli, 93-2128 (La. App. 1 Cir. 5/5/95), 655 So. 2d 1342, 1346. Louisiana Revised Statutes 9:364(A) creates a presumption that “no parent who has a history of perpetrating family violence” shall be awarded sole or joint custody of the children. Moreover, if the court finds that a parent has a history of perpetrating family violence, the court shall allow only supervised child visitation with that parent pursuant to R.S. 9:341.³ La. R.S. 9:364(E).

The presumption that no parent with a history of perpetrating family violence shall be awarded sole or joint custody may be overcome, as provided in La. R.S. 9:364(B):

(8) The presumption shall be overcome only if the court finds all of the following by a preponderance of the evidence:

(1) The perpetrating parent has successfully completed a court-monitored domestic abuse intervention program as defined in R.S. 9:362, or a treatment program designed for sexual abusers, after the last instance of abuse.

(2) The perpetrating parent is not abusing alcohol or using illegal substances scheduled in R.S. 40:964.

(3) The best interest of the child or children, considering the factors listed in Civil Code Article 134, requires the perpetrating parent's participation as a custodial parent because of the other parent's absence, mental illness, substance abuse, or other circumstance negatively affecting the child or children.

Once the PSFVRA has been triggered by a finding of a history of family violence, an additional burden of proof is imposed upon the parent who has been found to have a history of perpetrating family violence. Nettles v. Nettles, 2013-1164 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/27/13), 2013 WL 6858325, *2 (unpublished). That parent must overcome the presumption that he cannot be awarded sole or joint custody of the child by proving that he has completed a court-monitored domestic abuse intervention program as defined by the PSFVRA, that he is not abusing alcohol or using illegal drugs, and that the best interest of the child requires him to be the custodial parent because of the other parent's absence, mental illness, or substance abuse, or such other circumstances negatively affecting the child. La. R.S. 9:364(B); See Nettles, 2013 WL 6858325 at *2.

A trial court's determination of custody is entitled to great weight and will not be reversed on appeal unless an abuse of discretion is clearly shown. Davis v. Davis, 2025-0183 (La. App. 1 Cir. 8/1/25), 418 So. 3d 1025, 1030-31. However, in child custody and visitation matters as in other areas of the law, the application of statutes is a question of law. Barak v. Saacks, 2021-0756 (La. App. 4 Cir. 10/12/22), 367 So. 3d 656, 662, writ denied, 2022-01734 (La. 1/11/23), 352 So. 3d 987. Failure to apply the provisions of the PSFVRA is reversible legal error, and an appellate court should conduct a de novo review of the record and render judgment on the merits. Durand v. Rose, 2022-0300 (La. App. 4 Cir. 9/15/22), 366 So. 3d 484, 491, writ denied, 2022-01727 (La. 1/18/23), 353 So. 3d 127.

On appeal, Ms. Smith contends the trial court properly ruled that the PSFVRA is applicable, but erred in finding that Mr. Cedotal had overcome the presumption that he cannot be awarded sole or joint custody of O.C. by proving through testimony and evidence presented at trial that the requirements of La. R.S. 9:364(B) had been met. Specifically, she argues Mr. Cedotal failed to prove he completed a court-monitored domestic abuse intervention program as defined by the PSFVRA, that he was not abusing alcohol or using illegal substances, and that the best interest of the child required his participation as a custodial parent because of Ms. Smith's absence, mental illness, substance abuse, or other circumstances negatively affecting O.C.

Mr. Cedotal concedes that the record supports the trial court's finding that the PSFVRA is applicable to this case. He contends that he completed a twenty-six week domestic violence offender program, which fulfills the “court-monitored domestic abuse intervention program” as defined by La. R.S. 9:362(3). In support of this contention he cites two cases, D.O.H. v. T.L.H., 2001-174 (La. App. 3 Cir. 10/31/01), 799 So. 2d 714, 718, writ not considered, 2001-3237 (La. 1/4/02), 805 So. 2d 1190 (finding that six anger management training sessions conducted by a clinical psychologist was a proper treatment program under the statute); and Coleman v. Manley, 15-778 (La. App. 5 Cir. 3/16/16), 188 So. 3d 395, 401, writ denied, 2016-0688 (La. 5/13/16), 191 So. 3d 1057 (finding completion of anger management therapy fulfilled requirement of statutory treatment program). However, at the time these cases were filed, La. R.S. 9:364 provided that a parent could overcome the presumption that he cannot be awarded sole or joint custody by proving, among other things, that he had completed “a treatment program,” which was defined in La. R.S. 9:362 as “a course of evaluation and psychotherapy designed specifically for perpetrators of family violence, and conducted by licensed mental health professionals.”

In 2014, the Louisiana legislature amended La. R.S. 9:364 to require that a parent complete a “[c]ourt-monitored domestic abuse intervention program” to overcome the presumption that he cannot be awarded sole or joint custody, and amended La. R.S. 9:362 to define “court-monitored domestic abuse intervention program” as “a program, comprised of a minimum of twenty-six in-person sessions, that follows a model designed specifically for perpetrators of domestic abuse. The offender's progress in the program shall be monitored by the court.” See Acts 2014, No. 194, § 1. The legislature further mandated that the provider of the program have all of the following:

(a) Experience in working directly with perpetrators and victims of domestic abuse.

(b) Experience in facilitating batterer intervention groups.

(c) Training in the causes and dynamics of domestic violence, characteristics of batterers, victim safety, and sensitivity to victims.

La. R.S. 9:362(3).

The trial court's finding that the PSFVRA applies in this case triggered application of the PSFVRA to this matter. Because the application of statutes is a question of law, we conduct a de novo review to determine if the trial court correctly applied the PSFVRA. See Barak, 367 So. 3d at 663.

Mr. Cedotal testified that on March 12, 2024, he completed a twenty-six week domestic violence offender treatment program. He further testified he was not court ordered to take the course, but took it upon himself to do so. In connection with his testimony, a “Certificate of Completion” was entered into evidence. The certificate indicates that Mr. Cedotal completed twenty-six weeks of “Domestic Violence Offender Treatment Program” on March 12, 2024. The certificate further indicates the program was offered by Heal Your Life Counseling, LLC. However, there is no evidence in the record that the sessions were in person, that the program followed a model designed specifically for perpetrators of domestic abuse, or that Mr. Cedotal's progress in the program was monitored by the court, as required by La. R.S. 9:362(3). Nor was there evidence that the provider of the program had experience in working directly with perpetrators and victims of domestic abuse; experience in facilitating batterer intervention groups; or training in the causes and dynamics of domestic violence, characteristics of batterers, victim safety, and sensitivity to victims. See La. R.S. 9:362(3). Accordingly, based upon our de novo review of the record, we find that Mr. Cedotal failed to prove that he successfully completed a court-monitored domestic abuse intervention program, as defined in La. R.S. 9:362(3), after the last instance of abuse to allow joint custody or unsupervised visitation with O.C.⁴ See Durand, 366 So. 3d at 492. Therefore, the trial court erred in awarding Mr. Cedotal joint custody of O.C. as well as unsupervised visitation.

Accordingly, we reverse the award of joint custody and unsupervised visitation by Mr. Cedotal and render judgment awarding sole custody of O.C. to Ms. Smith with all visitation by Mr. Cedotal to be supervised. See Durand, 366 So. 3d at 492.

Relocation

In its May 1, 2025 judgment, the trial court indicated that it performed an analysis of the factors contained within La. R.S. 9:355.14, and determined that relocation was not in the best interest of O.C. at this time.

Under certain circumstances, the relocation of a child's principal residence to a location in or out of state is governed by Louisiana's relocation statutes, La. R.S. 9:355.1-9:355.19. However, according to La. R.S. 9:355.2(D), the relocation statutes do not apply when there is in effect an order issued pursuant to the PSFVRA. As noted above, the May 1, 2025 judgment orders that the PSFVRA is applicable to this matter.

The application of statutes is a question of law. Barak, 367 So. 3d at 662. A legal error occurs when a trial court applies incorrect principles of law and such errors are prejudicial. Legal errors are prejudicial when they materially affect the outcome and deprive a party of substantial rights. Chauvin v. Chauvin, 2010-1055 (La. App. 1 Cir. 10/29/10), 49 So. 3d 565, 569.

In this case, the trial court incorrectly applied the relocation statutes to Ms. Smith's request to relocate, thereby depriving her of the protections granted by the PSFVRA. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's denial of Ms. Smith's request to relocate based upon the application of the relocation statutes.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the May 1, 2025 judgment to the extent that it orders the Post-Separation Family Violence Relief Act applicable to this matter. In all other respects, the judgment is reversed. We render judgment awarding sole custody of the minor child to the mother, Christian Paige Smith, with all visitation by Brandon Joseph Cedotal to be supervised until such time that he has satisfied all requirements of the Post-Separation Family Violence Relief Act. All costs of this appeal are assessed to Brandon Joseph Cedotal.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND JUDGMENT RENDERED.

FOOTNOTES

2.   To protect the minor's identity, this opinion will use the initials of the minor child. See Uniform Rules, Louisiana Courts of Appeal, Rules 5-1 and 5-2.

3.   Louisiana Revised Statutes 9:341(A) restricts the visitation of a parent with a history of family violence to supervised visitation “until such parent proves by a preponderance of the evidence at a contradictory hearing that the abusive parent has successfully completed a court-monitored domestic abuse intervention program, as defined in R.S. 9:362, since the last incident of domestic violence or family abuse.”

4.   Based upon this finding, we pretermit discussion of Ms. Smith's contentions that Mr. Cedotal failed to prove he was not abusing alcohol or using illegal substances and that the best interests of the child required his participation as a custodial parent because of Ms. Smith's absence, mental illness, substance abuse, or other circumstances negatively affecting O.C.

HAGGERTY, J.