Christopher Lee Cowart VS Mahgen White
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION E STA7 OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIKST ClRCU1T 2012 CU 1005 CHRISTOPHER LEE COWART VERSUS MAHGAN WHITE f x NOV Judgment Rendered n 2 2012 x PPEALED FROM THE TWENTY JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT FIRST IN AND FOK THE PARISH OF LIVINGSTON STATE OF LOUISIANA DOCKET NUMBER 122816 DIVISION F HONORABLE ELIZABETI P WOLFE JUDGF I C Glenn Westmoreland Livingston Louisiana Cassandra Butler Independence Louisiana BEFORE Attorney for Plaintiff Appellee Christopher Lee Cowart Attarney for Defendant Appellant Mahgan White KUHN PETTIGREW AND McDONALD JJ McDONALD J This is an appeal of a child custody judgment Christopher Lee Cowart and Mahgan White had one child together Dixie LeeAnn Gowart Dixie born August 6 2007 Mr Cowart and Ms White entered into a consent judgment signed by the trial court on May 5 2009 in which they shared joint custody of Dixie with alternating weekly visitation Ms White lives in Ethel Louisiana and Mr Cowart lives in Hammond Louisiana Thereafter on August 25 2011 Ms White filed a Kule for Modification of Custody asserking that Dixie would be starting kindergarten in 2012 and weekly rotating custody would no longer be feasible Ms White sought sole custody or in the alternative asked to be named the domiciliary parent Mr Cowart then filed a Rule far Modification of Custody on September 29 2011 also seeking to be nained Dixie domiciliary parent s Following a hearing the tr court ruled awarding continued joint custody ial and namin Mr Cowart the domiciliary parent effective at the start of the school year August 2012 awarding weekend visitation to Ms White every Friday afternoon until Monday morning during the school year and awarding visitarion to Ms White for the summer starting one week after scliool ends and ending one week before school begins with Mr Cowart having every weekend visitation during the summer from Friday night unril Monday morning Ms White is appealing that judgment and asserts that the trial court erred in naming Mr Cowart as the domiciliary parent The trial court is vested with broad discretion in deciding child custody cases Because of the trial court better opportunity to evaluate witnesses and s taking into accouut the proper allocation of trial and appellate court functions great deference is accorded to the decision of the trial court A trial court s determination regarding child custody will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of 2 discretion Martello v Martello 2006 La App 1 Cir 3 960 So 0594 07 23 2d 192 19 186 The trial court gave detailed reasons for its judgment Ms White asserts that the trial court erred in finding that Mr Cowart was better able to provide Dixie with food clothing medical care and other material needs Ms White further argues that the trial court erred in determining Ms White failed to encourage the relarionship between Dixie and Mr Cowart by failing to leave Dixie for a visit when Mr Co was not present for the exchange However we note that these vart were only two of the factors that the court considered in its detailed analysis of the case After a thorough review of the record we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in determining that joint custody with Mr Cowart as the domiciliary parent was in Dixie best interest Thus we affirm the trial court s judgment Ms White is cast with costs This memorandum opinion is issued in compliance with the Unifotm Rules Courts of Appeal Rule 2 B 1 16 AFFIRMED 3
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.
