Brett Joseph Chiasson VS Giselle Bustillo Chiasson
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2009 CU 1554 BRETT JOSEPH CHIASSON VERSUS GISELLE BUSTILLO CHIASSON Judgment Rendered ITS 1 2 2010 Appeal Twenty First Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of On Tangipahoa from the State of Louisiana Docket No 2006 0004186 Honorable Elizabeth P Wolfe Bradley Judge Presiding Counsel for Plaintiff Appellant Berner Brett Hammond Louisiana Joseph Chiasson Mitchell J Hoffman New Orleans Louisiana Counsel for Defendant Appellee Giselle Bustillo Chiasson Sherman Mack Jeffery T Oglesbee Albany Louisiana BEFORE DOWNING GAIDRY AND McCLENDON JJ UrJ 7 dr hc r I JJ SJj lfill5 f DOWNING J Dr Brett Chiasson appeals the trial that it denied him additional following reasons we court custody ruling to the s For the physical custody of his minor children affirm the judgment of the trial extent court PERTINENT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Brett Chiasson and Giselle Bustille Chiasson Dr 1991 after Dr two 19 completed medical school They are the parents of Chiasson minor children C C The Chiassons 2001 Dr 2008 Follow signed on a July a Petition for 11 m on from Dr 2008 uninterrupted judgment was is entitled on was filed 5 00 p that the rendered and joint custody as domiciliary to during the law and evidence to the legal and the school year to new spend including On Tuesday and Sunday nights court granted Dr Consent Judgment all Chiasson parties on trial new in the best interest of the children 2 and Chiasson asserted that this Dr on after Tuesdays motion for a of m information relevant with their father October 30 2008 the trial the judgment clearly contrary having overnight physical custody Although prayed being designated Chiasson of the children information revealed that it 1 a Friday until Sunday at new time and Custody born in On March Thursdays after school and overnight and that he had discovered more was June 19 2007 exercising physical custody was physical custody 2008 with Ms Chiasson that the judgment contending on who The judgment awarded the parents Chiasson alternating weekends 5 May on 1 2 2008 school until 9 00 p July born in 1995 and D C ultimately divorced were hearing with Dr On was joint custody of the minor children their minor children parent who Chiasson filed be awarded parties married in were s motion for agree that it new was a considered trial decree Following the physical custody schedule 1 modifications trial new as hearing the trial the m overnight stay Sunday night Judgment was on was awarded same following at 7 00 p an m additional alternating custodial weekend every other signed accordingly Dr Chiasson awarded him the transfers and 2 with the judgment and Dr Chiasson rather than 9 00 p continued the with Dr Chiasson would end Tuesday nights and 2 2008 July court now extra the children s should have court requested he overnight custody to disruptions that the trial appeals asserting avoid to more lives DISCUSSION Normally the party to seeking modify considered a decree of permanent custody bears the difficult burden of proving that the continuation of the present custody situation is modification of the custody decree evidence that the harm likely substantially outweighed by Bergeron 492 So 2d 1193 heightened standard does granted of a a new new Ready v of trial suspended Sun Oil Co when two the by advantages La 1200 the child as to justify a change of environment is a the child to 1986 in this apply to proving by clear and convincing be caused its not or trial in accord with La C C P We case Bergeron however that the note insofar as the trial 1971 and 1973 arts v The court grant judgment previously rendered and signed 315 So 2d 840 reviewing court does not even to deleterious so La App 1 Cir 1975 As such the compare the later judgment to the earlier judgment judgments contrary results pronounce disregards the judgment that was set The reviewing aside and reviews the court subsequent judgment under the applicable standards of appellate review in light of the evidence in the record La App 2 Cir 12 9 98 Gilley s v Wendy 723 So 2d 517 523 3 s Inc 31 353 pp 11 12 In the absence of trial court shall award To the extent it 9 335 A court 2 b The law does not custody mandate be shared custody physical Stephens 02 0402 7 p Because of the trial court best interest of the child So 2d the or This nce a shall La feasible s court 1 Cir App reasonable and the visitation 6 21 02 joint custody does alone not mean a Stephens The Stephens v 822 So 2d 770 mandate and great discretion for strength of feasibility at 777 O equally equal sharing paramount consideration is always the best interest of the child on the is imbued with much discretion in the determination of what constitutes time to the best isfeasible and in of the child physical custody of the children shall RS La agreement the La C C art 132 parents jointly interest an 777 considering the fifty fifty sharing of 02 0402 pp 7 8 822 further stated joint custody arrangement has except for good cause been decreed the shown render a court joint custody order implementation allocating the time that each parent is to have physical custody of the minor child Enough time should be given so that each parent is assured they will be in frequent and continuing contact with the child However only if it is both feasible and in the best interest of the child should the granting equal physical custody to the parents The best interest of the child inquiry is the dominant consideration in any custody determination and cannot be balanced against any other right or privilege court consider Id The record the additional clearly establishes that overnight visitation he requests equal time with the children court it is feasible to award Dr Chiasson As such we abused its discretion in finding that it children for Dr Chiasson to be so that the parents could have must determine whether the trial was awarded the not in the best interest of the requested additional overnight visitations The trial to court determine if the properly considered the factors under proposed custody arrangement 4 was La C C art 134 in the best interest of the children favorably in Although found that the court parties compared many of the factors the court indicated that Dr Chiasson the rock of the the trial the trial court family and the remarked that more stable parent of the it s very impressive to two see a was Additionally father fighting to spend time with his children The trial for additional one court court s findings coupled with its award of physical custody overnight stay determined that it was per month in the best interest of the children additional time with their father criteria the additional children court s chief Even reason for like d the routine from the in so allowing overnight of physical custody the children was family the trial court abuse its discretion in Dr and Mrs Chiasson court not we Dr spend Article 134 Chiasson because it only appeared and the arrangement s proper application factors and its reasonable actions based thereon not reviewing to s one that the provided stability Considering did that the trial clearly reflects We setting the award acknowledge may have resolved the matter abuse its discretion however we we of must art 134 conclude the trial court physical custody between that had differently of the La C C we been sitting Since the trial as trial court did affirm the judgment DECREE For the Costs of this foregoing appeal are reasons assessed we affirm the judgment of the trial against Dr AFFIRMED 5 Brett Joseph Chiasson court STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2009 CU 1554 BRETT JOSEPH CHIASSON VERSUS GISELLE BUSTILLO CHIASSON McCLENDON J I dissents and assigns reasons respectfully disagree with the majority did not abuse its discretion in failing s conclusion that the trial court to award Dr Chiasson the additional overnight visitation he sought with his children There current the overwhelming testimony that the children was environment with cc prescriptive medication and D C sleeping the day an were revealed that c c able to was spend being pulled to take care of his mom before and after the more separation from to testimony and that cc felt Dr Chiasson 1 was feasible to award the court found it in the best interest of the children Iike d Ms Chiasson s action breaking during the pertinent period included firing a estranged husband s home weapon in the to 2 However the family home attempted into her While the trial court indicated that the children liked the routine of the spoke court s the routine from family and the arrangement provided the children stability suicide and 2 Moreover spend additional time with their father the majority affirms the trial the during periods of emotional instability both decision because the trial court found that the children I requiring help his children with in different directions Although the majority acknowledges that it overnight visitation and the trial thriving in inordinate amount of time time with them who had not depression Chiasson testified that he believed he could Dr these issues if he obligated from suffering were the trial judge at the time of the hearing family neither child testified or reasoning of the trial court is contrary to the result reached requested visitation schedule actually affords than the visitation Chiasson is ordered required by the to return the alternating custodial weekend and on Tuesdays but sought a and every fourth need for its to Sunday night of every other pick the children up from school Chiasson at 7 00 p more disruptive time overnight on the was with their father cases sought Further at issue in the children Moreover s s time the grant Dr two hours best interest to the paramount interest in all must be the best interests of the minor children that the trial court abused its discretion in overnight visitation requested In child light of the I find failing to award Dr Chiasson the Accordingly 2 in best interest foregoing and under the extraordinary circumstances presented herein additional day merely allowing effectively reduced the feasible and in these children Chiasson the relief he to school the next nights spent with their father every Tuesday night by it Dr Chiasson m to the children than judgment the trial court while finding it Clearly custody required on Dr order s stability additional exchanges every Tuesday evening Sunday is spend additional children Under the trial court children return them to Mrs the children to be with their father to court s stability and fewer exchanges keep the children overnight and take them to While there is crafting is more In fact the father I respectfully dissent
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
