Kyle J. Flint VS Kristin L. Lawton and Douglas B. Lawton, As Administrator of the Estate of Kristin L. Lawton
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NO 2010 CU 0872 KYLE J FLINT VERSUS KRISTIN L LAWTON now CUMMINGS r Judgment Rendered October 29 2010 Appealed from the 20th Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Feliciana State of Louisiana Case No 35047 The Honorable William G Carmichael Judge Presiding C Jerome D Aquila New Roads Louisiana Counsel for PlaintiffAppellant Kyle J Flint Charles E Griffin II St Francisville Louisiana Counsel for Defendant Appellee Kristin L Lawton now Cummings BEFORE CARTER C GAIDRY AND WELCH JJ J GAIDRY J In this custody case a father appeals a trial court judgment awarding joint custody to the parties and setting a physical custody schedule For the reasons that follow we affirm FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Kristen Lawton Cummings and Kyle Flint who were never married to one another have one child Micah Flint born October 11 2002 Kristen and Kyle have a contentious relationship and have been to court many times in Micah lifetime to litigate custody matters s On July 19 2007 the trial court rendered judgment granting Kyle and Kristen joint custody of Micah The court declined to designate a domiciliary parent because of the parties inability to communicate effectively with each other regarding issues concerning the child The judgment provided that the parties would alternate physical custody of Micah on a weekly basis On December 19 2007 Kristen filed a petition for a change of custody on the basis of Kyle continued drug use and his absence from the s state due to his participation in a sixmonth drug rehabilitation program On January 23 2008 the trial court continued the hearing on the change of custody due to Kyle absence from the state and pending further orders of s the court rendered judgment granting sole custody of Micah to Kristen s Kyle parents were granted visitation with Micah every other weekend from 00 m 4 p on Friday until 4 p on Sunday 00 m On June 13 2008 Kyle filed a rule for change of custody asserting that he had returned to the state and was sober and seeking joint custody of Micah codomiciliary parent status and equal sharing of the physical 2 custody of Micah The hearing on this request was continued without date at s Kyle request On May 21 2009 Kyle filed a pleading entitled Rule to ReEstablish Visitation Kyle alleged that he was drugfree and entitled to have his custody and visitation reinstated Kyle proposed a custody plan in which the parties would have joint custody with Kristen being the domiciliary parent and with the parties alternating physical custody on a weekly basis A hearing was held on the matter after which the trial court rendered judgment on February 19 2010 awarding joint custody of Micah to Kyle and Kristen naming Kristen the domiciliary parent establishing a joint custody implementation plan and providing that Kyle exercise of physical s custody must be supervised by his parents According to the judgment Kyle would have physical custody of Micah subject to his parents supervision every other weekend from Friday afternoon to Sunday afternoon during the school year and every other week from Friday afternoon until the following Friday afternoon during the summer The judgment also provided for the parties to have equal time with Micah during holidays Kyle appealed from this judgment arguing that the trial court erred in requiring that his exercise of physical custody of Micah be supervised by his parents and in setting a joint custody plan which did not assure him of frequent and continuing contact with Micah DISCUSSION Every child custody case is to be viewed on its own peculiar set of facts and the relationships involved with the paramount goal of reaching a decision which is in the best interest of the child Martello v Martello 06 0594 p 5 La 1 Cir 3 960 So 186 191 The trial court is App 07 23 2d vested with broad discretion in deciding child custody cases Because of the 3 trial court better opportunity to evaluate witnesses and taking into account s the proper allocation of trial and appellate court functions great deference is accorded to the decision of the trial court A trial court determination s regarding child custody will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of discretion Id 060594 at p 5 960 So at 191 92 2d In his first assignment of error Kyle alleges that the trial court s refusal to grant him weeklong physical custody periods during the school year deprives him of frequent and continuing contact with Micah as required by La R 9 S 335 Louisiana Revised Statutes 9 b 2 A 335 provides that in a joint custody situation to the extent that it is feasible and in the best interest of the child physical custody of the child should be shared equally Louisiana Revised Statutes 9 provides that the 2 B 335 child will primarily reside with the domiciliary parent but the other parent shall have physical custody during periods which will assure him of frequent and continuing contact with the child So long as the child is assured of frequent and continuing contact with both parents the primary goal of joint custody is met given the trial court mandate and great discretion for s considering the best interest of the child joint custody does not mean a 50 50 sharing of time on the strength of feasibility alone Stephens v Stephens 020402 pp 8 La 1 Cir 6 822 So 770 777 7 App 02 21 2d The trial court obviously concluded that it was not in Micah best s interest for Kyle to have weeklong physical custody periods during the school year Considering Kyle past problems and his absence from his s s child life for an extended period of time we cannot say that the court abused its discretion in so concluding Although not an equal sharing of time under the specific facts of this case the physical custody schedule 2 established by the court assures Kyle of frequent and continuing contact with Micah In Kyle next assignment of error he argues that the court erred in s providing that his parents must supervise his physical custody periods However at the hearing on Kyle motion to reestablish visitation Kyle s testified that he did not object to the court ordering that his parents supervise his visitation Kyle cites no authority in his brief for his assertion that it was error for the court to order that his physical custody periods be supervised Under the circumstances we find no abuse of discretion in this order of the court This assignment of error is without merit DECREE The February 19 2010 trial court judgment is affirmed Costs of this appeal are to be borne by Kyle Flint AFFIRMED 5
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.
