KENDALL JOHN KRIELOW v. MICHELLE ANDRE KRIELOW (2026)

Appellant, Michelle Andreé Krielow, appeals a judgment of custody and joint custody plan designating her ex-husband, Kendall John Krielow, domiciliary parent of their children. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Kendall John Krielow and Michelle Andree Milek Krielow ¹ were married on July 8, 2016. The parties established a matrimonial domicile in Thibodaux, Louisiana, and welcomed two children during the marriage, C.G.K. born March 14, 2018, and J.H.H.K. born August 10, 2020.

On November 15, 2023, Mr. Krielow petitioned for a divorce pursuant to La. Civ. Code art. 103(2) or alternatively, La. Civ. Code art. 102, alleging infidelity on the part of Ms. Milek. Pertinent to this appeal, Mr. Krielow prayed that he and Ms. Milek be granted joint custody of the children, with the court designating Mr. Krielow as domiciliary parent, and both parents enjoying shared equal physical custody.

On November 29, 2023, Ms. Milek filed an answer and reconventional demand asserting that she was a stay-at-home mother and wife for the duration of the marriage and the primary caregiver for the minor children since birth. Therefore, Ms. Milek asserted it was in the best interest of the minor children that the parties be awarded joint custody and that she be designated domiciliary parent, subject to Mr. Krielow having reasonable periods of physical custody of the minor children.

On January 11, 2024, an interim custody agreement was reached between the parties pending the trial on custody. This agreement awarded temporary joint custody of the minor children to the parties and named Ms. Milek as the temporary domiciliary parent. In conjunction with this designation, Ms. Milek was also awarded exclusive use of the former matrimonial domicile. The interim custody agreement further provided that Mr. Krielow be awarded physical custody of the minor children every other Wednesday overnight, every other Wednesday through Thursday, and every other weekend. A written judgment reflecting this ruling was signed by the trial court on January 29, 2024, which also provided that no precedent shall be given at the future custody trial to the temporary custody orders set forth in the consent judgment and joint custody plan.

In June 2024, Ms. Milek moved to New Orleans and enrolled the children in school there, although they never attended that school.

A ten-day custody trial was held on various days over the course of seven months, beginning on August 1, 2024. Throughout the trial, the trial court heard testimony from the parties, as well as Ms. Milek's brother, father, and mother, and interviewed C.G.K. in chambers. The court was also presented with various evidence including, mental health evaluations, videos, photographs, and deposition testimony by C.G.K.’s counselor, Dawn Toups.

At trial, Ms. Milek testified that she was born and raised in Thibodaux, and that her parents, the children's grandparents, still live in Thibodaux. However, Ms. Milek stated that remaining in Thibodaux had become untenable, noting the ostracization she felt following Mr. Krielow's filing for an at-fault divorce. Ms. Milek further stated that she is fearful of Mr. Krielow, alleging he stalked her in Thibodaux, put tracking devices in her car, and hired a private investigator to follow her. Ms. Milek also testified that she has seen the private investigator outside of the apartment where she stays in New Orleans.²

Ms. Milek testified that the children were not at risk of abuse by either her or Mr. Krielow and that both she and Mr. Krielow love their children. However, Ms. Milek emphasized, throughout her testimony, that she had been the primary caretaker of the children during the marriage, while Mr. Krielow provided support, and in her opinion, when it came to the capacity to love the children, she was capable of giving the children more affection than Mr. Krielow. Ms. Milek further explained that when the children were bom, Mr. Krielow would spend most of his time at home in a bonus room, and left on different outings on the weekends rather than spending time with his family. Ms. Milek also stated that although she had not spent any time with Mr. Krielow and the children since the separation, she referred to Mr. Krielow's relationship and behavior with the children post-separation as a “show that he's put on” and that Mr. Krielow knew the only way to get to Ms. Milek was through the children. Ms. Milek testified that the children should be with the parent that knows them best and with whom they feel most comfortable expressing any and all emotions, which she alleged is her.

As to communication, Ms. Milek testified that she does not believe that Mr. Krielow's parents are very encouraging of her relationship with the children, and that she has had a hard time communicating with them in the past, although she denied having the same issues with Mr. Krielow himself. She also testified, that to the best of her knowledge, one of Mr. Krielow's parents is usually present while he is exercising his physical custody of the minor children. Ms. Milek also made a number of condemnatory allegations regarding Mr. Krielow's substance abuse and mental state.³

As for relocating and enrolling the children in school in New Orleans, Ms. Milek testified that with the children being as young as they are, this was the appropriate time to relocate, as J.H.H.K. was moving from daycare to pre-k, and there was no interruption in the continuity of school. Similarly, C.G.K. was moving from pre-k to kindergarten. Ms. Milek testified about discussing changing schools for the children from Catholic school in Thibodaux to private school in New Orleans with Mr. Krielow, and his refusal to tour the New Orleans school or say why he believes school in Thibodaux would be better for the children than school in New Orleans. When asked whether either of the children have any special needs, Ms. Milek testified that C.G.K. is a picky eater, and the school in New Orleans provides a “unique dining experience” where the children sit down family style and are offered a hot meal. There is also a salad bar and fruits, which would be beneficial to C.G.K. to have options. Further elaborating, Ms. Milek was impressed with the way meals are served, with each grade level having a different job, likening it to teaching the children that everyone has a role in society. Moreover, she explained that the children, even as young as C.G.K., are given responsibility and ability to use free will to make good decisions, rather than the structure of a traditional school. Regarding J.H.H.K., Ms. Milek testified that he was having trouble speaking, and although she believed he was growing out of it, Ms. Milek stated that the New Orleans school provided specialists to work with children who have those kinds of issues should the services be necessary.

Ms. Milek testified that she and Mr. Krielow were also contacted by C.G.K.’s school in Thibodaux, notifying them that C.G.K. had been crying in school every morning and appearing angry and very upset. The school let the parties know that this had been an ongoing situation and made it clear that C.G.K. was very aware of the divorce, and the “schooling issue” (which school she would ultimately attend) was affecting C.G.K. Finally, Ms. Milek stated the school implored that for the sake of C.G.K., the parties get along and suggested that C.G.K. participate in counseling during this time.

Mr. Krielow testified that he is from west Louisiana, but moved to Thibodaux following law school because that was where Ms. Milek was from and wanted to live. Mr. Krielow testified that he and Ms. Milek chose the lot where they built the family home because of its size, allowing for the children to be able to play outside, and he built a play set and has a sand box in the backyard for the children. He would like for his children to grow up in that home and is desirous for them to get back to living in the family home as soon as they can.

Mr. Krielow agreed that there was no concern that either parent may abuse the children. He also agreed that during the marriage the parties took on traditional roles, with Ms. Milek acting as the children's primary caretaker and he as the provider. However, he disagreed with Ms. Milek's characterization of his lack of involvement in his children's lives; namely, that he did not interact with the children when he was off of work. Mr. Krielow clarified that he slept upstairs when the children were born because Ms. Milek insisted on the children sleeping in the bed with them, which he disagreed with. He further stated that when it comes to parenting the children, he is stricter with setting boundaries, especially for whining. He testified that he knows Ms. Milek speaks negatively about him in front of the children, which he disagrees with.⁴

As to enrolling the children in the New Orleans school, Mr. Krielow testified that he did not believe it was in C.G.K.’s best interest to change schools. He stated that C.G.K. has found her “comfort zone” in the current school, and her grades reflect that. He further averred that he believes moving C.G.K. would “drive her into her shell again.” He stated that he does not see how the New Orleans school will be better for the children than the school they currently attend or will attend in Thibodaux, as both children are doing well. Mr. Krielow further testified that he did not see any benefit for the children moving to New Orleans, rather the move would only benefit Ms. Milek's own personal interests.

Mr. Krielow freely admitted to putting three separate tracking devices in Ms. Milek's automobile and hiring three separate private investigators to surveil Ms. Milek on various dates during the course of these proceedings. He testified to knowing that Ms. Milek had been away overnight from the children on twenty-three (23) separate occasions during her physical custodial time, without ever offering him the right of first refusal in violation of the parties’ interim joint custody plan.

Mr. Krielow denied having a substance abuse problem and testified that during the pendency of this family proceeding, two bar complaints were filed against him, one of which contained the same substance abuse allegations as were being asserted at this trial.⁵ Mr. Krielow stated that both complaints were dismissed as forgeries or false complaints, as the alleged authors of both complaints were contacted by the Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board, and both authors denied ever authoring any such complaint.

Ms. Milek's brother, father, and mother also testified during the proceedings, corroborating Ms. Milek's testimony about her being the primary caretaker of the children during the marriage, and Mr. Krielow being more of a provider and hands-off parent.

At the conclusion of trial on February 11, 2025, the court took a brief recess and returned to the bench that same day with its oral ruling, awarding the parties joint and shared custody of the children, designating Mr. Krielow as the domiciliary parent, and adopting the modified joint custody plan submitted by Mr. Krielow. This plan provides that Ms. Milek will have physical custody of the children every Monday and Tuesday, that Mr. Krielow will have physical custody of the children every Wednesday and Thursday, and that the parties will alternate physical custody Friday through Sunday. The plan further provides for the parties to enjoy rotating weekly physical custody of the minor children during the summer.

The trial court's ruling was reduced to writing in the considered decree of child custody executed by the trial court on February 21, 2025. Ms. Milek now appeals assigning as error the trial court's designation of Mr. Krielow as domiciliary parent and the court's adoption of Mr. Krielow's joint custody plan, which failed to designate Mother's Day and Father's Day as holidays and requires Ms. Milek to transport the children.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

Each child custody case must be viewed in light of its own particular set of facts and circumstances, with the paramount consideration being the best interest of the child. La. Civ. Code art. 131; Underwood v. Underwood, 2021-0277 (La. App. 1st Cir. 10/21/21), 332 So.3d 128, 139. It is the child's emotional, physical, material, and social well-being and health that are the court's very purpose in child custody cases, and the court must protect the child from the real possibility that the parents are engaged in a bitter, vengeful, and highly emotional conflict. C.M.J. v. L.M.C., 2014-1119 (La. 10/15/14), 156 So.3d 16, 28, citing Turner v. Turner, 455 So.2d 1374, 1379 (La. 1984). The trial court is in the best position to ascertain the best interest of the child given the unique circumstances of the particular case. Gutierrez v. Bruno, 2019-1537 (La. App. 1st Cir. 8/5/20), 310 So.3d 560, 565.

In child custody cases where two parents are fervently competing for custody and domiciliary status of the children, frequently the trial court must determine the best interest of the children solely from the testimony of the parents and their respective relatives or friends. This naturally passionate and self-interested testimony is rarely objective, leaving it to the trial court, who is in the best position to view firsthand the demeanor and tone of the witnesses, to assess the credibility of the witnesses, and decide how much weight to give the testimony in light of the factors in La. [Civ. Code] art. 134.

Fuller v. Fuller, 54,098 (La. App. 2d Cir. 7/21/21), 324 So.3d 1103, 1114, writ denied, 2021-01223 (La. 9/27/21), 324 So.3d 621.

Moreover, in most child custody cases, the trial court's determination is based heavily on factual findings. Yepez v. Yepez, 2021-0477 (La. App. 1st Cir. 12/22/21), 340 So.3d 36, 41. It is well settled that an appellate court cannot set aside a trial court's findings in the absence of manifest error or unless the findings are clearly wrong. Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840, 844 (La. 1989). If the findings are reasonable in light of the record reviewed in its entirety, an appellate court may not reverse those findings even though convinced it would have weighed the evidence differently. Id.

As stated above, the paramount consideration in any determination of child custody is the best interest of the child. See La. Civ. Code art. 131. Louisiana Revised Statutes 9:335(A)(2)(b) provides that to the extent it is feasible and in the best interest of the child, physical custody of the children should be shared equally. Furthermore, La. Civ. Code art. 134 directs the trial court to 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.

The weight to be given each factor is left to the discretion of the trial court. Hodges v. Hodges, 2015-0585 (La. 11/23/15), 181 So.3d 700, 703. In making its determination, the trial court is not bound to make a mechanical evaluation of all of the statutory factors listed in Article 134, but should decide each case on its own facts and circumstances in light of Article 134 and other relevant factors. Underwood, 332 So.3d at 140.

Designation of Domiciliary Parent

In her first assignment of error, Ms. Milek asserts the trial court manifestly erred by designating Mr. Krielow as the domiciliary parent of their two minor children. Ms. Milek avers that the trial court based this decision solely on the basis of who would keep the children in school in Thibodaux, rather than what is in the best interest of the children. In doing so, Ms. Milek contends the trial court punished her for moving to New Orleans, despite there being evidence that Ms. Milek's move caused no negative impacts on the children. Specifically, Ms. Milek cites to her testimony of being fearful of Mr. Krielow because of tracking devices he put in her vehicle and the private investigator that surveilled her, following Mr. Krielow's filing for an at-fault divorce. Ms. Milek also references her testimony of being ostracized in Thibodaux following Mr. Krielow's adultery allegations, prompting her move to New Orleans. Moreover, Ms. Milek emphasizes that New Orleans is within the seventy-five (75) miles allowed by law for relocation, which she understands to mean “that there is not an alienation” between parents and children within that distance. Finally, Ms. Milek asserts that the trial court's error in designating Mr. Krielow as domiciliary parent is evident when reviewing the mental health evaluations that were completed on the parties.

Although there was extensive testimony by the parties about alleged adultery, substance abuse, and surveillance, none of this testimony had any correlation with what is in the best interest of the children, rather the parties’ testimony only demonstrated the contentious nature of this proceeding. In its reasons for judgment, the trial court made a credibility finding that Ms. Milek had not been truthful about certain issues including travel, the reason for her move to New Orleans, and her manipulation of the children. The court noted that when it came to the “best interest factors”, the parents were essentially equal. The court found that both parents loved their children, and the children loved them, and both had the capacity to care for the children. Because of its credibility determination, the court discounted the allegations of substance abuse made by Ms. Milek against Mr. Krielow, and found that both parties were mentally fit. The court found that although Ms. Milek had been the primary caretaker of the children during the marriage, there was no evidence that the same held true following the separation. The trial court found that Mr. Krielow “stepped up” while Ms. Milek “stepped back” from their parenting arrangement since separating. The trial court found that although short, the children had spent the majority of their lives in Thibodaux, where extended family still remained, and they had the opportunity to continue living in the former matrimonial domicile. Moreover, the trial court had concern about the alienation that might occur between the children and Mr. Krielow if the children were to be domiciled in New Orleans. All things being equal, the court emphasized the children's history in their community, the continuity of place, and an attempt at maintaining equal contact between both parents as the paramount considerations when designating a domiciliary parent.

As noted, each custody case must be viewed based on the particular facts and circumstances of the case, with the overriding consideration being the best interest of the child. See La. Civ. Code art. 131. The trial court was required to make credibility determinations in this case and confect a custody arrangement in the best interest of the minor children. It is evident from the record that in crafting this judgment, the trial court sought to encourage and maintain a close relationship between the children and both parents given the history and distance between them. Ms. Milek has not demonstrated that these findings are manifestly erroneous. Thus, we find no abuse of discretion by the trial court in designating Mr. Krielow domiciliary parent. This assignment of error is without merit.

Joint Custody Plan

In her second assignment of error, Ms. Milek avers that the trial court's joint custody plan is not supported by the evidence and is not in the best interest of the children. Specifically, Ms. Milek argues that there was no evidence presented that the interim joint custody plan was detrimental to the children in any way such that it needed to be changed, or that it was in the best interest of the children to have week-long visitation with each parent during the summer break. Ms. Milek asserts that the elimination of Mother's Day and Father's Day from the holiday schedule is error, and finally, that requiring Ms. Milek to be responsible for 100% of the children's travel from New Orleans to Thibodaux is erroneous. Ms. Milek instead asserts that the trial court should have maintained the interim joint custody plan.

Although this court is concerned with the amount of travel these young children will endure under the joint custody plan implemented by the trial court, we note that the interim custody plan would only alleviate a fraction of that travel. We are also mindful of the precepts of La. R.S. 9:335(A)(2)(b) encouraging, when feasible, equal physical custody and the trial court seeking to encourage and maintain a close relationship between the children and both parents. Further, the parties stipulated that the interim custody plan would bear no weight in the future custody determinations. Therefore, in light of the record reviewed in its entirety, we do not find the trial court's joint custody plan unreasonable or erroneous.

Moreover, we find the week-to-week summer schedule and elimination of certain holidays will cut back on some of the travel for these small children, which is in their best interest. Lastly, Ms. Milek has pointed to no jurisprudence or other support that requiring her to transport the children to and from school in Thibodaux, or to and from Thibodaux during the summer break, is manifestly erroneous. This assignment of error is without merit.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated, we affirm the trial court's February 21, 2025 considered decree of child custody and joint custody plan. Costs of this appeal are assessed to the appellant, Michelle Andreé Krielow.

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Michelle Andreé Milek Krielow was granted use of her maiden name, Michelle Andreé Milek, by judgment of divorce dated November 20, 2024, and will be referred to as Ms. Milek throughout this opinion.

2.   While testifying regarding her current living situation, Ms. Milek stated that she lived in an apartment in New Orleans, but did not know how much rent cost, or to whom it was paid. It was eventually revealed that the man with whom Ms. Milek was accused of having an affair lives in the same building.

3.   The parties jointly entered both of their mental health evaluations into evidence. Both evaluations contained the same conclusion:Overall, [Mr. Krielow/Ms. Miiek's] parenting behavior does not present as broadly problematic and [he/she] exhibited no psychological or mental health symptoms that would significantly adversely impact parenting ability.

4.   This testimony was corroborated by the deposition testimony of Dawn Toups, C.G.K.’s counselor.

5.   Mr. Krielow also holds a pilot's license and testified that a complaint was made about him to the FAA as well. He stated that complaint was dismissed.

FIELDS, J.