Case Name: Godfred J. SCHEXNAYDER v. Sheila Granier SCHEXNAYDER
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1978-11-08
Citations: 364 So. 2d 1318
Docket Number: No. 9224
Parties: Godfred J. SCHEXNAYDER v. Sheila Granier SCHEXNAYDER.
Judges: Before SAMUEL, REDMANN, GULOT-TA, STOULIG and BEER, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 364
Pages: 1318–1321

Head Matter:
Godfred J. SCHEXNAYDER v. Sheila Granier SCHEXNAYDER.
No. 9224.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
Nov. 8, 1978.
Writ Granted Dec. 14, 1978.
G. Walton Caire, Edgard, for plaintiff.
Harold J. Sonnier, Tauzin & Sonnier, Thi-bodaux, for defendant.
Before SAMUEL, REDMANN, GULOT-TA, STOULIG and BEER, JJ.

Opinion:
REDMANN, Judge.
On an ex-husband's appeal, we affirm the award of custody of his two young children to his ex-wife, despite her admitted adultery approximately ten times with the same man over a two-month period.
"The determination of the trial judge in child custody matters is entitled to great weight" and "[h]is discretion on the issue will not be disturbed on review in the absence of a clear showing of abuse thereof." Fulco v. Fulco, 1971, 259 La. 1122, 1130, 254 So.2d 603, 605.
Few of us are ideal parents. In respect to her adultery, Mrs. Schexnayder is not a worse offender than Mrs. Fulco was. The trial judge's difficult decision was articulately explained and, within the Fulco principle, ought not be disturbed.
We join in the trial judge's observation that any grant of custody is subject to change in the event the conduct of the parent with custody warrants a change.
Affirmed.
SAMUEL, C. J., and STOULIG, J., dissent and file opinions.
BEER, J., concurs in the judgment and files opinion.
. At issue before the court is the custody of two minor children, five and six years of age respectively.
While in determining custody the welfare of the children is the paramount consideration, the very strong maternal preference rule repeatedly recognized in this state compels an award of very young children to the mother unless she is shown to be unfit.
Here the husband obtained a divorce from the mother on the ground of adultery. The mother freely admitted an affair lasting from the end of September, 1976 to January 1, 1977, during which she met another man approximately once a week and with whom she admitted having intercourse approximately ten times. She denies having any contact with him since January 1, 1977, and there is no proof of any misconduct on her part since that date. No impropriety was shown to have been committed in the presence of the children.
The question is, is this sufficient to deprive the mother of custody? The clear answer under the jurisprudence is no. Numerous cases have repeatedly held that a brief affair or isolated instances of adultery not shown to have been conducted in the presence of the children are insufficient to deny custody to a mother who is otherwise suitable.
However the mother's conduct here was particularly scandalous and offensive to the sensibilities of the local community in that her lover was of another race. The court has for this reason long delayed its decision. Our laws against miscegenation have been ruled unconstitutional and insofar as the law is concerned the question of race is irrelevant. Accordingly the court is reluctantly compelled to the conclusion that the maternal preference rule re quires an award of custody to the mother. However the court will make such custody provisional and subject to the mother's continued good conduct.