Hodges v. Hodges

181 So. 3d 700 (La. 2015)

FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

  • Justin Hodges and Amy Hodges were married in Ascension Parish on January 22, 2011
  • The couple was domiciled in Livingston Parish
  • They had one child, M.H., born on June 25, 2012
  • Justin Hodges instituted a divorce action on May 28, 2014
  • Both parties sought joint custody of their child, and both parties asked the Court to be designated as the child’s domiciliary parent
  • Trial Court:
  • Conducted a trial and issued a considered decree
  • Trial court’s ruling:
  • Joint custody
  • Equal physical custody to be alternated weekly
  • Designated both parties as “co-domiciliary parents”
  • The mother (Amy Hodges) appealed.
  • 1st Circuit Court of Appeal:
  • Upheld the trial court’s designation of “co-domiciliary parents”
  • But, also remanded to the trial court to issue a valid JCIP (Appellate Court held that the judgment rendered by the trial court failed to comply with the requirements for a JCIP as stated in La. R.S. 9:335(A)(3)
  • The mother (Amy Hodges) applied for a writ with the LA Supreme Court, which was granted.

HOLDING

  • REVERSED: The LA Supreme Court reversed the portion of the ruling from the 1st Circuit that upheld the trial court’s designation of “co-domiciliary parents”
  • AFFIRMED: Agreed with the Appellate Court regarding the custody judgment rendered by the trial courtfailed to comply with the requirements for a JCIP as stated in La. R.S. 9:335(A)(3)

BOTTOMLINE: The Court differentiates between “physical custody” and “legal custody”

  • When parties are awarded joint custody, the court must designate one domiciliary parent unless the implementation order provides otherwise, or for other good cause shown (even where the parties share “physical custody”
  • A court could choose not to designate a domiciliary parent and, instead, allocate authority via JCIP)

RECENT JURISPRUDENCE

  • Hodges has been reaffirmed in Tracie F. v. Francisco D., 2015-1812 (La. 3/15/16).
  • Holding in Tracie F. v. Francisco D.:
  • Overrules Cutts v. Cutts, 931 So. 2d 467 (La. App. 3d Cir. 2006). This ruling inTracie F.ishuge in cases where there is a consent judgment on child custody between a parent and a non-parent. Under such circumstances between a parent and non-parent, even the parent must now show a material change in circumstancesbeforethecustody judgment can be changed.
  • Tracie F. also confirms the LA Supreme Court’s ruling in Hodges. This particular point is not the “highlight” of the case, but Footnote 8 provides “Parenthetically, in Hodges v. Hodges, 15–0585, pp. 8–9 (La .11/23/15), 181 So.3d 700, 706, we determined that there can only be one domiciliary parent.”

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW and FAMILY LAW

Parents have the fundamental right to rear their child. Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000). In hearing a case that involves the infringement of a fundamental right, the Court will apply strict scrutiny (see below for the “test”).

Certain laws enacted by the Legislature could treat similarly situated classes of people differently (i.e. parents vs. non-parents; men vs. women; etc.). If so, the following scrutiny would be applied:

  • Strict Scrutiny:
  • Race
  • Alienage/national origin
  • Religion (could also be under Establishment Clause)
  • TEST: Compelling Interest and Narrowly Tailored
  • Intermediate Scrutiny:
  • Gender
  • Legitimacy
  • TEST:
  • The discrimination serves an “important” state interest; and
  • The discrimination is “substantially related” to serving that important interest
  • Rational Basis:
  • Any other discrimination other than those classes listed above
  • TEST:
  • Discrimination serves a “legitimate” interest; and
  • The discrimination is rationally related to serving that legitimate interest.