Court Opinion

ID: 9378757
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-13 15:04:35.066105+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:56.078129
License: Public Domain

STATE OF LOUISIANA

                                 COURT OF APPEAL

                                      FIRST CIRCUIT

                                      NO. 2022 CU 1113

                                      AMBER LEGER

                                          VERSUS

                           KYLE BRANDON LEGER

                                            Judgment Rendered.     MAR 13 2023

                                      Appealed from the
                           21
                            s Judicial District Court
                        In and for the Parish of Livingston
                                      State of Louisiana
                           Case No. 122271, Division J

               The Honorable Jeffrey C. Cashe, Judge Presiding

C. Glenn Westmoreland                              Counsel for Defendant/Appellant
Meghan Harwell Bitoun                              Kyle Brandon Leger

Albany, Louisiana

Sherman Q. Mack
Albany, Louisiana

Emily Guidry Jones
Ponchatoula, Louisiana

Mark D. Plaisance                                  Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee
Marcus J. Plaisance                                Amber Leger
Prairieville, Louisiana

DeVonna Ponthieu
Livingston, Louisiana

             BEFORE: THERIOT, CHUTZ, AND HESTER, JJ.

   Q            S iGn} S   c+ v " t     1, 50) S

                                        t—
THERIOT, J.

          In this custody proceeding, the father appeals a judgment ruling on his

motion to modify custody. For the reasons set forth herein, we affirm.

                             FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         Kyle Leger and Amber Leger' were married on May 28, 2005. They had

one child, L.L.,2 who was born in 2007. The parties separated in 2007 before L.L.

was born and were divorced on September 28, 2009.                                       Kyle and Amber were

granted joint custody of L.L. by a stipulated judgment dated March 30, 2010, with

an equal sharing of physical custody on an alternating weekly basis.

         On November 15, 2010, Amber filed a motion to modify shared custody to

domiciliary custody, alleging that Kyle was not exercising physical custody of L.L.

as set forth in the stipulated judgment. Another stipulated judgment was issued on

January 25, 2011, in which the parties agreed to joint custody of L.L., with                                  Amber

designated as the domiciliary parent and Kyle having physical custody of L.L.

every other weekend once he had " a                    place with a bathroom and a separate bed for

the minor child.`

         On May 18,            2021,     Kyle filed a pro se Rule to Establish Custody with

Request for Emergency Custody by Parent, in which he sought sole custody of

L.L., subject to visitation with Amber " every                       other weekend at [ L.L.' s] decision."

Kyle' s supporting affidavit filed pursuant to La. C. C. P. art. 3945( B) 4 stated that:

         Immediate and irreparable injury will result to [ L.L.] . . .                               before
          Amber or her attorney] can be heard in opposition because                                   of the
         following SPECIFIC FACTS:

 Amber has remarried and now goes by Amber Butcher.

z The initials of the minor child will be used in this opinion in order to protect her privacy -

3 The judgment further provided that Kyle would have physical custody " every other weekend from Saturday at 4
am until 6 pm and Sunday from 9 am until 6 pm" until he satisfied the housing requirement.

4 Louisiana Code of Civil procedure article 3945( B) provides, in part, that an ex parte order of temporary custody
shall not be granted unless it clearly appears from specific facts shown by a verified petition or by supporting
affidavit that immediate and irreparable injury will result to the child before the adverse party or his attorney can be
heard in opposition.

                                                            2
          L.L.]
                  has said that her mother' s household is toxic. Always yelling
         and screaming at her. She said she is scared that her mother will one
         day hit her.

         She told her mother that she wanted to live with me. Her mother and
         stepdad responded by yelling, screaming[,] and cursing at her. [ L.L.]
         called me to come get her.

         On my arrival, [ L.L.] was [ literally] shoved out the front door. I
         quickly got [ L.L.] in the car as her mother and stepfather yelled [ and]
         cursed both of us.

          L.L.] says she does not want to go back.

         The trial court granted Kyle' s request for emergency ex parte custody of

L.L. on May 18, 2021, with Amber having supervised visitation every Saturday

from noon until four p.m., pending a hearing on custody to be held on May 26,

2021.     After the hearing, which was conducted via zoom, the trial court denied

Kyle' s request, finding that the situation did not rise to the level of emergency

custody,     and ordered that the most recent custody judgment prior to Kyle' s

application for temporary custody would remain in effect as the controlling

custody judgment. Kyle filed a motion for new trial, alleging that he had retained

an attorney since the hearing and had additional evidence to support his claim that

was not presented at the hearing due to his pro se status.5

        On June 4, 2021, Amber filed a motion for sanctions, contempt, and a civil

warrant, alleging that Kyle failed to return L.L. to her after the trial court denied

his request for temporary custody, despite repeated requests for her return.                             Amber

asked that the court issue a civil warrant for L.L.' s return and that Kyle be held in

contempt for his willful disobedience of the trial court' s judgment.                             Amber also

sought sanctions on the grounds that Kyle' s ex parte rule for custody was

frivolous, misrepresented the facts,               falsely alleged abuse, and failed to properly

inform the court of the background and circumstances involved in this case, and

5 Kyle' s motion for new trial was set for hearing on September 1, 2021; however, the court was closed on that date
due to weather conditions associated with Hurricane Ida, and there is nothing in the record to indicate that his
motion was ever ruled on by the trial court.

                                                         3
consequently caused her to incur legal fees and costs. On July 6, 2021,                                  the trial

court issued the civil warrant as requested, and L.L. was returned to Amber' s

home.

          On July 14, 2021, Kyle filed a motion for modification of custody with a

request for emergency ex parte relief, asserting that a significant change in

circumstances had occurred and substantial harm to L.L. would result if custody
was     not      modified.
                               Kyle again sought immediate temporary custody of L.L.

pending a hearing on his motion. In his motion, Kyle alleged that since L.L.' s

return to Amber' s home, she had begun to have suicidal thoughts and engage in

self h
     - arming behavior for which she was taken to the emergency room on July 9,

2021.     He further alleged that on July 12, 2021, L.L. sent him text messages from

her stepfather' s phone stating that she was scared and asking him to call the police,

and although he attempted to contact Amber about L.L.,                            she refused to respond.

The trial court granted temporary custody of L.L. to Kyle, pending a hearing on his

motion for modification of custody, with Amber having unsupervised visitation on

alternating weekends.              The trial court issued another civil warrant, and two

deputies removed L.L. from Amber' s house on July 14, 2021 and placed her in

Kyle' s custody.          Before leaving Amber' s house with Kyle,                          L.L. handed the

deputies a small plastic bag containing " a miniscule amount of leafy green

material,"       stating " this is my mom[']       s weed."      Although the police report from that

date notes that the bag and its contents were logged and put into evidence, no

charges were filed due to it being "              such a miniscule amount" and "                not being able

to prove possession."

6 The remaining issues in Amber' s motion were set for hearing on September 1, 2021; however, the court was closed
on that date due to weather conditions associated with Hurricane ] da, and it is not clear whether these issues were
ever ruled on.

7 The records from L.L.' s July 9, 2021 hospitalization and copies of the text messages were filed with Kyle' s
motion.

                                                         4
         Although Kyle' s motion to modify custody was originally set for hearing on

July 21, 2021, it was continued several times.         A hearing on the matter was

eventually held on October 15, 2021; however, the parties were unable to finish

their presentation of the evidence on that day, and the hearing resumed on May 12,

2022.    During this time, L.L. continued to live with Kyle and his wife, Amy, and

she was enrolled in a new school near Kyle' s home.

         During a visit with Amber on December 27, 2021, L.L. contacted Amy and

told her that she was scared of Amber and had cut herself. Kyle called the sheriffs

office   to   request a welfare   check,   and a deputy went to Amber' s house to

investigate.    L.L. told the deputy that she was afraid of Amber and wanted to live

with her father permanently. She denied being physically abused by Amber, but

told the deputy that she is afraid of Amber because she yells at her.     She said that

she and Amber had been arguing during dinner the night before because L.L. had

broken a rule, and Amber had stood up abruptly, making L.L. think that Amber

was about to hit her.   After speaking to L.L. and photographing the " small   scratch"

that L.L. told him was self-inflicted, the deputy concluded that L.L. was not in

need of immediate medical attention, nor was she suicidal or homicidal.             The

deputy also spoke with Amber, who informed him that L.L. had done "           the exact

same thing several months ago when she took her cellphone away from her."           The

deputy noted in his report that after reviewing the report from the July 9, 2021

welfare check that resulted in L.L. being taken to the hospital, he believed that L.L.

was attempting to harm herself in order to influence the outcome of the custody

dispute.   Shortly after this incident, L.L. began seeing a counselor, and she was still

treating with him at the time of the May 12, 2022 hearing.

                                             5
         L.L.,     who was fourteen years old at the time the trial began, testified at a

Watermeier'         hearing, the transcript of which was sealed.                           According to L.L.' s

testimony, she currently lives with Kyle and Amy and attends school near their

home.      L.L. expressed a preference to live with Kyle and continue attending school
there.      L.L.    testified at length about the deterioration of her relationship with

Amber and Amber' s reluctance to recognize and seek help for L.L.' s mental health

and academic struggles.
                                     She also testified about her relationship with Kyle and the

positive changes in all aspects of her life since she had been living with him.

         Kyle testified that when L.L.                  was    younger,       he did not always exercise

physical custody as provided in the parties' stipulated judgment.                              He explained that

his work schedule sometimes prevented him from picking up L.L. at the designated

time, and he was not always able to reach an agreement with Amber to pick her up

at a different time,           causing him to miss his physical custody periods entirely.

Later, Kyle remarried, and L.L. " didn' t                really want to come around a whole lot,"                     so

he would pick her up and take her to lunch to spend time with her, but he did not

force her to stay overnight at his house. Kyle testified that even though L.L. did

not come to his house as often as the stipulated judgment provided for, she still

went on vacations with him and his second wife and traveled with them for the

holidays. Around the summer of 2020, when Kyle divorced his second wife, L.L.

started coming to stay at his house more often and spending more time with him.

Kyle married Amy, his third wife, shortly after his divorce from his second wife.

He testified that L.L. gets along well with Amy and enjoys spending time at his

house with them.

         Kyle testified that while he was driving L.L. back to Amber' s house after a

weekend visit in May of 2021, L.L. asked him if she could live with him.                                        When

8 See Watermeier v. Watermeier, 462 So. 2d 1272 ( La.App, 5 Cir.), writ denied, 464 So. 2d 301 ( La. 1985). A
Watermerer hearing is a hearing in chambers, outside the presence of the parents, but in the presence of their
attorneys, with a record of the hearing to be made by the court reporter, to inquire as to the competency of a child to
testify as to custody. In re D.C.M., 2013- 0085, n.9 ( La.App. 1 Cir. 6111113),   170 So. 3d 165, 168, n. 9, writ denied,
2013- 1669 ( La. 7/ 17113), 118 So. 3d 1102-

                                                           6
they arrived at Amber' s house, he told Amber about L.L.' s request.         Initially,

Amber stormed off, but when she returned, she told him that L.L. would not be

going anywhere with him and that she would see him in court.           Kyle left, but

shortly afterwards he got a phone call from L.L.,    who was crying.    Kyle testified

that he could hear yelling and screaming in the background, and L.L. asked him to

please come get her because she was scared.      Kyle drove back to Amber' s house,

and L.L. came outside to meet him. Kyle testified that when L.L. walked out the

front door holding her belongings, it appeared that Amber' s husband, John, pushed

her from behind.     He testified that John was " cussing" at him and Amber was

 hollering and screaming" that he was " nothing but a sperm donor."     After L.L. got

into Kyle' s car, Amber sent L.L. a text message saying " Good    luck with your new

family."    Following this incident, Kyle obtained emergency ex parte custody of

L.L.,   and she stayed with him until July, when Amber obtained a civil warrant for

her return.

        Kyle testified that shortly after her return to Amber' s house, L.L. was taken

to the emergency room on July 9, 2021 for self h
                                               - arming behavior. On that day,

Kyle called the sheriffs office and requested a wellness check after L.L. called

him crying and asking him to come get her because she was scared.            He later

received a call from a deputy telling him that L.L. had been taken to a hospital for

evaluation because she informed the deputy that she had been cutting herself. Kyle

went to the hospital and, after speaking to the doctors, agreed to allow L.L. to be

discharged to Amber' s home. Kyle acknowledged that L.L.' s cuts were not deep

at all and were more like scratches and testified that he believed the cuts were a

 cry for help."    After receiving concerning text messages from L.L. a few days

after her return to Amber' s house, Kyle filed a motion to modify custody and for

temporary ex parte custody. His request for temporary custody was granted, and

L.L. has been living primarily with him since that time.

                                           7
       Kyle testified that L.L. is happy living with him and has made a great group

of friends at her new school and is showing interest in trying new extracurricular

activities.   He testified that she is doing better in school since he had her evaluated

by a doctor and she started taking prescribed medication for ADHD.       Kyle said that

L.L. has been seeing a counselor at school weekly since January 13, 2022,           and

feels like she is making progress with the counselor, and he intends to continue her

in counseling. He testified that L.L. is often nervous and seems depressed when it

is time to go to Amber' s house for a weekend. He explained that L.L. " wants          a

better relationship with her mother, but it worries her whenever she has to go on

the weekends."      Kyle testified that when L.L. lived with Amber, Amber did not

keep him informed about a number of important matters involving L.L.           He also

testified that Amber frequently takes away L.L.' s phone as a punishment, which

prevents her from contacting Kyle while she is with Amber.          Kyle admitted that

since L.L. has been with him, he has made several medical decisions for her

without discussing them with Amber first, such as taking her for an ADHD

evaluation or a vaccination or giving her over-the- counter melatonin gummies to

help her sleep at night, but he testified that both the ADHD medication and the

vaccination were recommended by her doctor.         Although he and Amber have had

trouble communicating and agreeing on custody matters, Kyle testified that he is

making an effort now to keep Amber informed of everything going on with L.L.,

and has tried to include her in things, such as having Amber over to his house to

take pictures of L.L. before school dances.

       Amber testified that L.L. lived primarily with her for the first thirteen years

of her life, and Kyle did not see her a lot during that time.     She testified that the

allegations made by L.L. and Kyle that her house is not a stable and healthy

environment are untrue and she believes that L.L. is manipulating the system.       She

believes that L.L. wants to live with Kyle because he does not have strict rules and

                                            8
she has more freedom at his house.                     She denied that she and John are always

fighting and yelling and that she forced L.L. to participate in sports at the expense

of her grades. In fact, she testified that she cut L.L. from a team she coached when

L.L.' s grades dropped.          Amber also denied that the bag of "weed" that L.L, gave to

the deputy belonged to her and denied that she or John smokes marijuana.                                 Amber

testified that she frequently takes L.L.' s phone away as a punishment for breaking

rules, lying to her, lying about her to "             official people,"       and being defiant, but L.L.

still manages to obtain phones from other people to use.

         Amber testified that when Kyle cannot get in touch with L.L. because she is

not allowed access to the phone, he calls law enforcement for a welfare check. On

one such occasion, Amber and L.L. had been arguing because Amber took away

some of L.L.' s clothes that had been purchased for her by Amy.                            Amber explained

that she thought the clothes were inappropriate, and she did not want L.L. to be

able to wear them when she was at Kyle' s house.                          Amber testified that she had

taken L.L.' s phone away,             so L.L. used her younger brother' s phone to contact

Kyle.      Kyle called the sheriff' s office and requested a welfare check, and the

deputy insisted on sending L.L. to the hospital by ambulance after L.L. disclosed to

him that she had been cutting herself. Amber initially testified that this incident on

July 9, 2021 was the first time she heard of any self -harming behavior.                             However,

on cross- examination she admitted that L.L.' s school had notified her about such

behavior in 2018 and asked her to take L.L. to a counselor.'                           Amber testified that

she brought L.L. to a counselor in 2018 as recommended by the school, but when

the counselor became ill and could no longer see L.L., she did not look for another

counselor.      Amber also brought L.L. to see a counselor once after the July 9, 2021

hospitalization; however,            after that visit Kyle obtained an order of temporary

  Although the October 18, 2018 " Parent/ Guardiarn Emergency Conference Notice" that Amber signed clearly states
 I have been informed that my child has been expressing suicidal thoughts," and " I have been advised that I should
immediately take my child to a hospital to be evaluated," Amber insisted that no one ever told her that L.L. had
threatened suicide.
custody and had L.L. removed from her home before she could return to the

counselor.

      Amber testified that since L.L. has been living with Kyle, he has not kept her

informed about what is going on with L.L., such as the fact that she was seeing a

counselor at school or that he was taking her to a doctor. She testified that she

informed Kyle in 2018 when L.L. went to a counselor, but she could not recall how

she communicated that information to him and admitted that she listed her husband

John as the " parent" to contact in case of emergency on the counseling intake form.

Amber testified that she would communicate with Kyle if L.L. came back to live at

her house and would make sure L.L. continues to get counseling.       Amber testified

that she gets along well with Kyle' s wife Amy, and they could do things together

as a family.

      Amy, Kyle' s wife, testified that she has a good relationship with L.L. and

enjoys spending time with her.      Amy helps to monitor L.L.' s schoolwork and

grades, and she testified that L.L. has recently started going to math tutoring. Amy

explained that she is not trying to replace L.L.' s mother, and she has encouraged

L.L. on a number of occasions to open up to Amber. Amy has attempted to build a

relationship with Amber as well, and they recently took L.L. shopping for a

homecoming dress together. Amy testified that L.L. gets nervous when it is time

to go to Amber' s house for a weekend, but that is improving over time. According

to Amy, L.L. is starting to build a relationship with Amber and is happy when she

returns from a visit and says that they had a good time.

      Amber' s husband, John, testified that he has been married to Amber for

eight years and has been around L.L. " 100 percent of the time"   since she was about

a year and a half old. He testified that he has been like a father to L.L., although he

did not usually help with homework or go to sporting events because he is tired

after work and has things to do around the house. John testified that he used to get

                                          10
along well with Kyle, but he does not really know Amy at all.                    John denied the

allegations that he shoved L.L. as she walked out the door on the day she left to

live with Kyle.

       Sandy Boulion, Amber' s mother, testified that she believes that L.L. wants

to live with Kyle because he does not have any rules and L.L. thinks Amber has

too many rules.      She testified that L.L. and Amber' s relationship has changed in

the last year and a half, and they disagree frequently because L.L. " get[ s]                    very

upset when her mother tells her no; it doesn' t matter what the subject is, but there' s

going to be a little fit to be thrown." Sandy testified that L.L. has recently become

distant from her as well.

       A report from Justin Laborde, LCSW, was filed in evidence. Laborde has

been L.L.' s "   primary mental health therapist" since January 13,              2022.    L.L. was

originally referred to therapy for "           excessive worry,     history of unstable family

relationships, and history of self -injurious behaviors" and has been diagnosed with

Generalized Anxiety Disorder.             Laborde noted that L.L.       identified her primary

stressors as peer and family relationships and academic achievement.                      Over the

course of several months of counseling sessions, L.L. has reported an overall

decrease in anxiety symptoms and increased feelings of stability,                        which   she

attributes to reduced levels of conflict in her current placement compared to her

previous   placement,          an improved social network ( particularly at school),             and

access to medication and counseling services.                     Without giving an opinion

regarding custody or domiciliary arrangements, Laborde reported the following

regarding his therapy sessions with L.L.:

                 L.L.]    has spent significant amounts of time during therapy
      processing         her    relationship   with   her   mother. [    L.L.]    reported

       significant levels of conflict with her mother at the beginning of
      therapy.  According to [ L.L.], her tumultuous relationship with her
       mother was a primary factor in moving in with her father. Since the
       beginning of therapy, [ L. L.]           has noted       an improvement      in the
       relationship with her mother.             Initially, [   L.L.] noted moderate to
         severe anxiety when forced to interact with her mother.                              While the
         anxiety has declined in severity, [ L.L.]               continues to denote symptoms
         in anticipation of interaction with her mother. [                             L.L]      remains

         committed to the treatment goal of a better relationship with her
         mother.      However, [ L.L.] has also acknowledged that she would like

         to see continued improvement in relationship before she would feel
         comfortable being with her mother for more than a few days at a time.

         At the close of evidence, the trial court noted that although it was clear that

L.L. wanted to live with Kyle, the reasonable preference of the child is only one

factor to be considered when determining the best interest of the child.                                 The trial

court declined to change the domiciliary parent named in the 2011                                         consent

judgment, but changed the physical custody allocation to give Kyle additional

periods of physical custody.              The trial court issued a judgment10 ordering that the

parties will have joint custody of L.L., with Amber designated as the domiciliary

parent.
           The judgment provided that Kyle will have physical custody of L.L. three

weekends a month during the school year, with weekends starting Thursday

afternoons when he picks L.L. up from school and ending Monday morning when

he drops L. L.        off at     school."       During the summer, the parties will alternate

physical custody on a weekly basis.                     The judgment also provides for telephone

visitation for each parent when the child is with the other parent, as well as a

holiday physical custody schedule, and an order that L.L. is to be given medication

as prescribed and attend counseling, This appeal followed.

                                               DISCUSSION

         In his sole assignment of error on appeal, Kyle argues that the trial court

erred in failing to name him as domiciliary parent when the overwhelming

evidence adduced at trial demonstrated that it would be in L.L.' s best interest to

live with him.

10 The court issued an amended judgment on July 6, 2022 in order to correct a typographical error in the original
judgment signed by the court.

 I The judgment further provides that if Kyle is unable to pick up or drop off L.L. at school, then his weekends will
be shortened.

                                                         12
         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.       See La. C. C. art. 131; Moore v. Prater, 2021- 1430, p. 4 ( La.App.                                    1

Cir. 6/ 3/ 22), 342 So.3d 994, 998.                  The best interest of the child standard governs

all child custody determinations, including the determination of whether to modify

the domiciliary parent designation.                         Council v. Livingston, 2019- 1049,                        p.   9

 La.App. 4 Cir. 3113120), ---                So. 3d ---, ---,    writ denied, 2020- 00753 ( La. 7110120),

298 So. 3d 178.           The trial court is in the best position to ascertain the best interest

of the child given the unique circumstances of the particular case; thus, the trial

court' s custody determination is entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed

on appeal unless an abuse of discretion is clearly shown.                                    Tumminello v. Clark,

2022- 0929, p. 6 ( La.App. 1 Cir. 12129122), ---                     So. 3d ---, ---

         Louisiana Civil Code article 134( A)                     provides the following non- exclusive

list of factors that the trial court shall consider, along with any other relevant

factors, in determining the best interest of the child:

                     1)     The potential for the child to be abused, as defined by
                            Children' s        Code Article 603, I121 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.

12 Louisiana Children' s Code article 603 defines ` abuse" as:

         A] ny one of the following acts that seriously endanger the physical, mental, or emotional health,
         welfare, and safety of the child:

         a)   The infliction, attempted infliction, or, as a result of inadequate supervision, the allowance of
              the infliction or attempted infliction of physical or mental injury upon the child by a parent or
              any other person.
         b)   The exploitation or overwork of a child by a parent or any other person, including but not
              limited to commercial sexual exploitation of the child.
         c)   The involvement of the child in any sexual act with a parent or any other person, or the aiding
              or toleration by the parent, caretaker, or any other person of the child' s involvement in any of
              the following:
               i) Any sexual act with any other person.
               ii) Pornographic displays.
               iii) Any sexual activity constituting a crime under the laws of this state.
         d)   A coerced abortion conducted upon a child.
         e)   Female genital mutilation as defined by R,S. 14: 43. 4 of the child or of a sister of the child.

                                                            13
               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.

Moore, 2021- 1430 at p. 7, 342 So. 3d at 1000. 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,     nor is the trial court required to specifically explain its

weighing and balancing of the Article 134 factors.               Rather, the trial court should

decide each case on its own facts and circumstances in light of Article 134 and all

other relevant factors.   Tumminello, 2022- 0929 at p. 8, ---        So. 3d at -

      Additionally, in most child custody cases, the trial court' s determination is

based heavily on factual findings. Yepez v. Yepez, 2021- 0477, p. S ( La.App. 1 Cir.

1212.2121), 340 So. 3d 36, 41- 42. It is well- settled that an appellate court cannot set

aside the trial court' s findings of fact in the absence of manifest error or unless

                                                14
those findings are clearly wrong.       See Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So. 2d 840, 844 ( La.

1989).     When presented with two permissible views of the evidence, the trial

court' s choice between them cannot be manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong.

Stobart v. State through Department of Transportation and Development,                     617

So. 2d 880, 883 ( La. 1993).      Furthermore, it is well- settled that where there is a

conflict in testimony, the trial court' s reasonable evaluations of credibility and

reasonable inferences of fact are not to be disturbed by a reviewing court.            Moore,

2021--1430 at p.    9, 342 So. 3d at 1001.         If documents or objective evidence so

contradict a witness' s story,     or the story itself is so internally inconsistent or

implausible that a reasonable fact finder would not credit it, the reviewing court

may find manifest error or clear wrongness, even in a finding purportedly based

upon a credibility determination. But in the absence of such factors, where the

finding is based on the trial court' s decision to credit the testimony of one party

over the other, the finding can virtually never be manifestly erroneous or clearly

wrong. Rosell, 549 So. 2d at 844- 45. One court has observed:

         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. C. C. art. 134.

Fuller v. Fuller, 54, 098, pp. 24- 25 ( La.App. 2 Cir. 7121121),   324 So. 3d 1103, 1114,

writ denied, 2021- 01223 ( La. 9127121), 324 So. 3d 621.

         In cases where the underlying custody decree is a stipulated judgment and

the parties have consented to a custodial arrangement with no evidence as to

parental fitness, a party seeking a modification of that judgment must prove that:

 1)   there has been a change in circumstances materially affecting the welfare of the

child since the original (   or   previous)   custody decree was entered;      and (     2) the

                                              15
proposed modification is in the best interest of the child.     Yepez, 2021- 0477 at p. 8,

340 So. 3d at 42.        Accordingly, a party seeking modification of the domiciliary

parent designated in a stipulated judgment must meet the two -prong test of proving

that there has been a change in circumstances materially affecting the welfare of

the child since the consent judgment, as well as proving that the proposed

modification is in the best interest of the child.    Tinsley v. Tinsley, 2016- 0891, pp.

11- 12 ( La.App. 1 Cir. 1/ 18117), 211 So. 3d 405, 413. If the first prong of the test is

not met and a change in circumstances materially affecting the child is not shown,

the inquiry ends, and there is no basis for altering the custody decree. Lunney v.

Lunney, 2011- 1891, p. 4 ( La.App. 1 Cir. 2110/ 12),     91 So. 3d 350, 353, writ denied,

2012- 0610 ( La. 414112), 85 So. 3d 130.

       Because Kyle sought to modify a stipulated judgment, he bore the burden of

proving a change in circumstances materially affecting the welfare of the child and

that the proposed modification, i. e.,    that he be designated as the domiciliary parent

subject to specific physical custodial periods in favor of Amber, would be in the

best interest of the child.    See Tinsley, 2016- 0891 at pp. 11- 12, 211 So. 3d at 413;

Bonnecarrere v. Bonnecarrere, 2009- 1647, p. 6 ( La.App. 1 Cir. 4114/ 10), 37 So. 3d

10381 1044, writ denied, 2010- 1639 ( La. 8111110),     42 So. 3d 381.

       In this case, the trial court did not make an express finding that a change in

circumstances materially affecting the welfare of the child had occurred.         Rather,

the trial court talked about its assessment of the Article 134 factors relevant to this

case and then said that it was not going to change the domiciliary parent named in

the 2011 judgment, but was going to " change the custody."           The trial court then

listed several changes it was making to the joint custody implementation order,

including changing the physical custody allocation, ordering the parties to give

L.L.   medication   as    prescribed,   and ordering the parties to continue providing

counseling for L.L.

                                              16
        This court has previously held that when a trial court modifies a custody

decree without determining whether there has been a change in circumstances

materially affecting the welfare of the child, a legal error occurs, warranting a de

novo review of the evidence.    See Estay v. Estay, 2021- 0329, p. 7 ( La.App. 1 Cir.

4/ 27/22), 2022WL1237892, * 4 ( unpublished);   Cedotal v. Cedotal, 2005- 1524, p. 7

 La.App. 1 Cir. 11/ 4/ 05), 927 So. 2d 433, 437; and Bonnecarrere, 2009- 1647 at p.

7, 37 So. 3d at 1044. However, since this court reviews judgments, not reasons for

judgments, and considering the presumption of correctness of a trial          court' s

determination, this court has held that where the record fails to demonstrate that

the   trial   court actually applied an incorrect burden of proof,     the   manifest

error/clearly wrong standard of review can be applied to ascertain whether there is

support for an implicit factual finding that a change of circumstances materially

affecting the welfare of the child occurred since the last stipulated judgment.

Estay, 2021- 0329 at pp. 8- 9, 2022WL1237892 at * 5.

        We cannot determine from the transcript of the proceedings or the written

judgment what legal standard the trial court applied in this matter. The trial court

confirmed with the parties prior to beginning the hearing on October 15, 2021 that

the previous custody decree was a stipulated judgment.      However, there was no

reference at the hearing to the applicable burden of proof for the proposed

modification of the stipulated judgment aside from the trial court' s discussion of

the factors relevant to determining the best interest of the child.    Nevertheless,

since the record does not demonstrate that the trial court actually applied an

incorrect burden of proof, we will apply the manifest error/clearly wrong standard

of review to the implicit factual finding that a change of circumstances materially

affecting the welfare of the child occurred.       See Estay, 2021- 0329 at p. 8,

2022WL1237892 at * 5.

                                         17
          At the time the previous custody decree was entered in 2011, L.L. was only

four years old and Kyle apparently lacked appropriate housing for L.L. to stay with

him overnight.     In the last few years, Kyle has remarried, and L.L. regularly spends

time at his home.      L.L.' s relationship with Amber has deteriorated significantly,

and L.L. has had mental health struggles related in part to her relationship with her

mother, which have resulted in anxiety and self h
                                                - arming behavior.         At the time

Kyle filed the motion for modification of custody, L.L. was 14 years old and had

expressed a strong preference to live with Kyle.      The reasonable preference of a

child to live with the other parent is not, of itself, a change in circumstances.

Harrel v. Harrel, 52, 248, p. 10 ( La.App. 2 Cir. 6/ 27/ 18), 251 So. 3d 546, 553.

However, the deterioration of L.L.' s relationship with Amber, as well as Amber' s

apparent reluctance to recognize and seek help for L.L.' s mental health and

academic struggles, which contributed to L.L.' s desire to live primarily with Kyle,

have resulted in a change in circumstances materially affecting L.L.' s welfare.

Based on our review of the record, we cannot say that the implicit factual finding

that a change of circumstances materially affecting the welfare of the child

occurred since the 2011 stipulated judgment was manifestly erroneous or clearly

4' ONO

      Kyle argues on appeal that the trial court erred in failing to conclude that it

would be in L.L.' s best interest to live primarily with him as the domiciliary
parent.
           In making its determination regarding L.L.' s best interest, the trial court

recognized L.L.' s clear preference to live with Kyle, but explained that the

reasonable preference of the child is only one factor to be considered.       The trial

court also noted the length of time L.L. has lived with Amber as the domiciliary

parent.    The trial court did not believe that there was any abuse or that Amber' s

house is an unhealthy environment for L.L. The trial court noted L.L.' s history of

academic struggles, but found that both parents were concerned about her grades

                                           18
regardless of where L.L. lived.   After weighing all of the relevant factors, the trial

court concluded that it was in L.L.' s best interest for Amber to remain the

domiciliary parent. Although we may have weighed the evidence differently, the

trial court is in the best position to ascertain the best interest of the child given the

unique circumstances of the particular case.     After a thorough review of the entire

record, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in concluding that it

is in L.L.' s best interest for Amber to remain the domiciliary parent.

                                       DECREE

      For the reasons set forth herein,     the July 6,   2022 amended judgment is

affirmed.   Costs of this appeal are assessed to appellant, Kyle Leger.

      AFFIRMED.

                                           19
                             STATE OF LOUISIANA

                               COURT OF APPEAL

                                 FIRST CIRCUIT

                                      2022 CU 1113

                                 AMBER LEDER

                                        VERSUS

                           KYLE BRANDON LEGER
     Ck

HESTER, J. dissenting,

       I respectfully dissent from the majority' s opinion.    In this case, Kyle has

proven a change in circumstances materially affecting the welfare of L.L. since the

previous decree was entered and that his proposed modification is in L.L' s best

interest.   See Yepez v. Yepez, 2021- 0477 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 12122121),   340 So. 3d

36, 42.

       While living primarily with her father for nearly a year prior to the conclusion

of the trial, L.L. showed significant improvement in her school life, her home life,

and her health and wellness.     The evidence showed that these improvements are

largely due to the changes in lifestyle that occurred when she was living with her

father. L.L. started working with a tutor to improve her grades, restarted counseling

to improve her anxiety and strengthen her familial relationships, and got back on

track with her healthcare appointments.      Additionally,   L.L. expressed a strong

preference to live with her father.

       The primary consideration in any determination of child custody is the best

interest of the child.   The evidence presented by Kyle in this matter, particularly

considering the relevant factors under La. Civ. Code art. 134( A), clearly showed that
it was in the best interest of L.L. to continue to reside primarily with Kyle. For these

reasons, I find the trial court abused its discretion by failing to name Kyle as the

domiciliary parent and by failing to implement a custody schedule whereby L.L.

continues to reside primarily with Kyle. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.