Yvonne Landry VS Jeffrey Thomas
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUIS ANA COURT OF APPEAL 1CIRCUIT FIRS 2012 ClJ 1975 YVONNELANDRY VERSUS JEFFREY THUMAS Judgment Rendered MAY 3 1 2013 APPEALED FROM THE TWGNTY JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT SECOND IN AND FOR THE PARISII OF ST TAMMANY STATL OF LOUISIANA DOCKET NUMBEK 2008 10514 THE HONORABLE DAWN AMACKER JUDGE Richard Ducote Attorney for Plaintiff Appellant Pittsburgh Pennsylvania Yvonne Landry Kobert C Stern Attorney for Defendant Appellee New Jeffrey Thomas Orleans Louisiana BEFORE KUHN PETTIGREW AND McDONALD JJ McDonald J At issue in this appea is a judgment by the trial court terminating the requirement for supervision of the visitation between a father Jeffrey Thomas and his minor child S which had been in effect since April 2010 The mother of T the child Yvonne Landry appeals the judgment asserting the trial court erred because there was no finding that it was in the child best interest to discontinue s the supervision requirement Ms Landry also appeals the refusal of the trial court to accept Dr Dickson as an expert in the assessment and treatment of children alleged to have been sexually abused and the refusal of the trial court to allow Dr Dickson to testify about the significance ofthe child symptoms s FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The facts and procedural history have already been detailed in the companion case Landry v Thomas 2012 CU 1974 La App 1 Cir 5 13 31 unpublished also decided today and will not be repeated herein On January 17 2012 Mr Thomas filed a to Change Custody To Motion Remove Therapist To Terminate Supervision of Visitation and For Specific Visitation These matters were heard on May 31 2012 and a judgment was signed on Tune 25 2012 terminating the supetvised visitation removing Amy Dickson as S therapist and appointing Lisa 7 in her place and s I adlock providing for other matters that are not in dispute ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS NOS 1 AND 2 In these assignments of error Ms Landry asserts that the trial cowt erred in refusing to accept Dr Dickson as an expert in the assessment and treat of ment The minor child sinitials are used in accordai with I R 46 I R44 W ce a S In the com case Landry v Thomas 2012 CU 1974 La npp 1 Cir 5 unpublished also decided anion 13 31 this date Ms Landry appezls he judgment of the trial courl denying her motion to provide lor professionally ised ation supen visi and tbe failure to granl a new trial on this is ue 2 children alleged to have been sexually abused and erred in refusing to allow Dr Dickson to testify about the significance of S symptoms s C At the May 31 2012 hearing on this matter Dr Dickson was tendered by Ms Landry as an expert in the field of clinical psychology and the psychological nent treat of children where sexual abuse is at issue Mr Thomas stipulated that Dr Dickson was an expert in clinical psychology and clinical child psychology and she was accepted as such by the trial court However the trial court refused to accept Dr Dickson as an expert in the treatment of children where sexual abuse is at issue At the June 27 201 l hearing Ms Landry had previously sought to have Dr llickson similarly qualif ed as an expert in the psychological treatment of children where sexual abuse is at issue and the court refused to accept her as such The June 27 2011 hearing was continued to December 8 2011 and resulted in a judgment dated May 3 2012 7 judgment is the subject of appeal 2012 CU hat 1974 There was no appeal or request for review of the decision by the trial court on Iune 37 2011 to not accept Dr Dickson as an expert in the treatment of children where sexual abuse is at issue However the fact that Ms Landry did not choose to appeal the former decision does not prohibit her from raising it in this appeal Trial judges are generally given wide discretion in determining whether a question or subject falls within the scope of an expert witness field of expertise s Absent a clear abuse of the trial court discretion in accepting a witness as an s expert appellate courts will not reject the testimony of an expert or tind reversible error Belle Pass Terminal Inc v Jolin Inc 92 La App 1 Cir 3 U94 1545 1 634 So 466 477 writ denied 94 La 6 638 So 1094 2d 0906 94 17 2d Dr Dickson was serving as S therapist and not an evaluator in this s T case The parties stipulated that Dr Dickson would provide therapy to S Dr T Dickson testified that her role in the case was to provide emotional support to S T 3 and to hear about different behavior that contributed to her emotional developmental and physical well being During Dr Dickson testimony at the May 31 2012 hearing the foIlowing s exhange took place THE COURT But you have not been appointed to be the evaluator so you trender an opinion can you on which environment might be can g causi the child to exhibit these behaviors Would that be correct DR DICKSON s That correct THE COURT That would be a dual role which you are prevented ethically from maintaining in a case is that correct DR DICKSON That is correct THE COURT You would require a lot more information than you have right now in arder to reach a conclusion on what is the cause of this child s behavior is that correct DR DICKSON That is correct After a thorough review of the record we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to accept Dr Dickson as an expert in the treatment of children where sexual abuse is at issue Further we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to allow Dr Dickson to testify about the significance of S symptotns s T 4 IENT ASSIGNI OF ERROR NO 3 In this assignment of en Ms Landry asserts that the triaf court erred in terminating the requirement for supervision of the visitation between Mr Thomas and S T Each child custody case must be viewed in light of its own particular set of facts and circumstances The paramount consideration in any determination of child custody is the best interest of the child Thus the trial court is in the best position to ascertain the best interests of the child given each unique set of circumstances Accordingly a hial court detei7nination of custody is entitled to s great veight and will not be reversed on appea unless an abuse of discretion is clearly shown Perry v Monistere 2008 La App 1 Cir 12 4 1629 08 23 3d So 850 852 When Judge Crain determined that supervised visitation was appropriate for Mr Thomas in his reasons fiorjudgment he stated that after therapy and after S T matured it could be possible to determine definitely whether sexual abuse did ar did not occur The child therapist Dr Dickson was ordered to report to the s court any indication that sexual abuse had occurred without raising the issue with T S There was no such reporting to the court by Dr Dickson Thus after more than a year of supervised visitation Judge Amacker determined that the time had come to allow Mr Thomas unsupervised visitation with his daughter In her oral reasons for judgment Judge Amacker stated Part of the problem in the beginning on this one was the stipulation that I allowed the parties to make with their attorneys that the therapist at the time Dr Amy Dickson would be limited in certain circumstances as far as she would certainly be required to come in and testify as a mandatory reporter if there had been any further disclosures by the child or anyone else of any previous abuse or current abuse s It obvious from the testimony today that there has been absolutely no disclosures to anyone of any physical verbal mental or 5 sexual abuse child by anyone since Judge Gain heard this case of this since he heard this case which has been over one year now s It obvious from Judge Crain Reasons for Judgment that he s contemplated that as the child got older certainly she would be more verbaL That was the point of us appointing a therapist 1 am hearing from everyone that S is verbal to all of you and there have been T absolutely no disclosures And that why I am lifting the requirement s of supeivision She is to live her life and have a joyful life as a young child should And I am convinced she hasn for quite some time and I am going to t do what I can to change that And that the reason for my decision s today Clearly the h court found that it was in the best inter of S to lift the ial est T requirement for supervised visitation with Mr Thomas after more than a year of supervised visitation After a tharough review of the record and looking at both the reasons for supervised visitarion and the reasons for lifting ihe supervision requirernent we can 6nd no clear abuse of the discretion in the trial court s dermination to terminate the supervised visitation For the foregoing reasons the trial court judgment is affirmed Costs are assessed against Ms Landry AFFIRMED 6
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.
