BRANDON JOSEPH CEDOTAL v. CHRISTIAN PAIGE SMITH (2026)

Writ application granted. See per curiam.

JMG

JLW

JBM

PDG

CRC

WHB

Supreme Court of Louisiana June 25, 2026

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

No. 2026-CJ-00482

BRANDON JOSEPH CEDOTAL

VERSUS

CHRISTIAN PAIGE SMITH

On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of Ascension

PER CURIAM

Granted. Based on the limited information contained in the record, we are unable to determine whether the domestic abuse intervention program completed by relator complied with the requirements of La. R.S. 9:362(3). Because a specific finding on this issue is critical to the question of whether relator successfully rebutted the presumption under La. R.S. 9:364(B)(1), we find further development of the record is necessary.

Accordingly, the custody judgment of the court of appeal is vacated. The case is remanded to the district court to hold an expedited evidentiary hearing on the question of whether the program relator completed complied with the requirements of La. R.S. 9:362(3). Once the hearing is complete, the district court shall make a factual finding on this issue and file the supplemental record in the court of appeal. Upon the filing of the supplemental record, the court of appeal is directed to reconsider the appeal and render a new judgment.¹

Respectfully, I dissent and would reinstate the judgment of the trial court, who has the responsibility of finding the best interest of the child. Testimony and evidence was introduced without objection showing that Mr. Cedotal complied with the law to the satisfaction of the trial court.

On appeal the mother argues, for the first time, that although the trial court found the father complied with applicable law, he “didn't comply enough,” and under this pretext the court of appeal finds “legal error” in order to conduct de novo review of the level of compliance rather than defer to the trial court's finding of compliance under a manifest error standard. This is wrong because when an issue is raised for the first time on appeal the other side has no opportunity to make a record and the trial judge has no notice or opportunity to avoid possible legal error.

That is why issues raised for the first time on appeal should not be considered. Instead, this court remands, supposedly so that the father can testify that he participated in the program at issue “in person” rather than perhaps online. The “Domestic Violence Offender Treatment Program” at issue, which follows the “Duluth Model,” used nation-wide, was clearly designed for perpetrators of domestic violence, and Mr. Cedotal testified in court and introduced his “Certificate of Completion” into evidence and it was accepted by the trial court. He was thus clearly “monitored” by the court – is the court required to attend each session, or receive a written report after each session? I would trust the trial court's judgment for all the reasons we defer to the trial court in such situations. For the rest of the social welfare jargon required, one supposes Mr. Brankline, who has a master's degree, will be able to comply.

Nobody likes domestic violence. Those guilty of physical violence should be prosecuted. But it has become the scarlet letter of the day. Balance and common sense must be restored, especially when children are concerned. “Supervised visitation” may well be required when physical violence has been perpetrated upon a child, but when used as a tactic in custody litigation it infringes upon the constitutional right of a parent and child to have a relationship.

FOOTNOTES

1.   In light of this action, we deny relator's request for stay as moot. We also grant relator's motion to strike any reference to subsequent contempt proceedings from respondent's opposition.

Hughes, J., dissents and assigns reasons.