STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT
i • 1111- 10111i
VERSUS
Judgment Rendered: SEP 19 2025
ON APPEAL FROM THE 22ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, DIVISION K ST. TAMMANY PARISH, STATE OF LOUISIANA DOCKET NUMBER 2023- 13077
Zara Zeringue Attorneys for Plaintiff -Appellant Kathleen Legendre Gordon Charles Abboud Covington, Louisiana
S. Guy deLaup Attorney for Defendant -Appellee Metairie, Louisiana Elizabeth Giambrone Abboud
BEFORE: i ! • GREENE, J.
In this appeal, a divorced father appeals a judgment ordering that his physical custodial time with his two children be supervised. In an answer to the appeal, the
divorced mother challenges the same judgment insofar as it terminated a previous
requirement that the father submit to random drug and alcohol testing and failed to
require the father to carry a breathalyzer device and submit to breathalyzer testing at any time, rather than only during his custodial time. After review, we reverse in part,
affirm in part, and deny the answer to the appeal.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Gordon Charles Abboud and Elizabeth Giambrone Abboud married on May 6, 2017. The couple had two children —A. A., born on April 21, 2019, and M. A., born on February 11, 2021. 1 In February/ March 2022, Mr. Abboud completed a thirty -day in- patient
substance abuse treatment program for alcohol abuse. On March 18, 2023, Mr. Abboud
began weekly counseling with Jason Scamardo, a licensed professional counselor. On
April 10, 2023, Mr. Abboud voluntarily submitted to a substance abuse evaluation by Patrick M. Dowd, a licensed social worker and addiction counselor, and, on May 20, 2023, Mr. Dowd signed a report opining Mr. Abboud had a moderate alcohol use disorder. Mr.
Dowd recommended that Mr. Abboud continue weekly counseling with Mr. Scamardo, attend drug education counseling sessions, attend Alcoholics Anonymous ( AA) meetings,
obtain a sponsor to model recovery behavior, and abstain from mood altering substances. On June 20, 2023, Mr. Abboud filed a petition for divorce against Mrs. Abboud.
She flied an answer and reconventional demand. Among other relief, both parties sought
joint custody of their children, and Mrs. Abboud sought to be designated domiciliary parent. Pursuant to La. R. S. 46: 236. 5( C)( 1), the trial court signed an order scheduling a hearing on the matter before a hearing officer.2
I We refer to the minor children by their initials to protect their identities. See Uniform Rules — Courts of Appeal, Rules 5- 1 and 5- 2.
2 Before 2003, La. R. S 46: 236. 5 authorized hearing officers to hear only paternity cases brought by the State of Louisiana, support, and support -related matters. Louisiana Acts 2003, No. 964, § 1, broadened hearing officer authority to include all " domestic and family matters." See La. R. S. 46: 236. 5( C)( 1); Yepez v. Yepez, 2021- 0477 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 12/ 22/ 21), 340 So. 3d 36, 40, n. 3.
2 On August 28, 2023, pursuant La. R. S. 46: 235. 5( C)( 3)( a) & ( 4)( f) & (j),3 a hearing
officer held a Zoom video conference with the parties and their attorneys, at which the
parties entered into certain stipulations, including: joint custody with Mrs. Abboud as domiciliary parent; physical custody by Mr. Abboud on each Wednesday; supervised
physical custody on alternating weekends, with designated or mutually -agreed upon persons as supervisors; Mr. Abboud' s submission to random weekly urine drug and
alcohol tests; his additional submission to SoberLink breathalyzer testing when he had physical custody of the children, within thirty minutes of Mrs. Abboud' s request( s) for
such; his advance notice to Mrs. Abboud if driving or unavailable; and, that any positive test for alcohol would result in suspension of Mr. Abboud' s physical custody until further order of the court. On September 5, 2023, pursuant to La. R. S. 46: 236. 5( C)( 7), the trial
court signed a Consent Judgment and Interim Order ( September 5th Consent Judgment),
memorializing the parties' stipulations.
On November 13, 2023, a hearing officer held a second Zoom video conference
with the parties and their attorneys, at which the parties entered into similar stipulations
to those made in the September 5"h Consent Judgment; however, the November 13th
stipulations did not expressly require that Mr. Abboud' s physical custodial time with the children be supervised. On November 21, 2023, the trial court signed another Consent
Judgment and Interim Order ( November 21st Consent Judgment), memorializing the
parties' stipulationS.4
On May 7, 2024, Mr. Abboud voluntarily submitted to a second substance abuse
evaluation interview by Mr. Dowd, and, on May 21, 2024, Mr. Dowd signed a report in
which his opinion regarding Mr. Abboud"s condition changed from " moderate" to " mild
alcohol use disorder, in early remission." Mr. Dowd recommended that Mr. Abboud
continue counseling with Mr. Scamardo; attend at least four AA meetings per month;
I Also see Louisiana District Court Rules — Appendix 32. 013: Court —Specific Rules on Hearing Officers and Domestic Commissioners, Rule I. Hearing Officers —General.
4 Although recommended by Mr. Dowd, neither the September Stn Consent Judgment nor the November 21st Consent Judgment ordered that Mr. Abboud continue counseling with Mr. Scamardo, attend drug addiction counseling, attend AA meetings, obtain a sponsor, or abstain from all mood -altering substances. 9 abstain from all mood altering substances; continue Soberl-ink breathalyzer testing; and comply with all court requirements.
On July 1, 2024, the trial court signed a judgment of divorce, dissolving the parties' marriage.
On July 26, 2024, a hearing officer held a third conference with the parties and
their attorneys to review the November 21st Consent Judgment's custody order —at that conference, Mr. and Mrs. Abboud both testified. In its Hearing Officer Conference Report,
the hearing officer stated that Mr. Abboud had positive alcohol tests in October 2023, and
Mrs. Abboud suspended some of his physical custodial time. The hearing officer noted
Mr. Abboud' s testimony that he was substantially complying with Mr. Dowd's May 21, 2024 recommendations, including continuous SoberLink breathalyzer monitoring when he had physical custody of the children. However, Mr. Abboud testified that supervision
of his physical custodial time was " very problematic" as he had to get his parents ( who
lived in Baton Rouge) to Mandeville ( where he lived) when the children were with him.
The hearing officer also noted that Mr. Abboud " avoided the question [ as to] whether he
was completely abstaining from alcohol" and that Mrs. Abboud testified that she thought
Mr. Abboud was " abusing alcohol regularly" and had not submitted to drug and alcohol testing since April 2024.
In her Hearing Officer Conference Report, the hearing officer pertinently
recommended that: supervision during Mr. Abboud"s physical custodial time be
discontinued; Mr. Abboud resume weekly drug and alcohol testing and attend two AA or- Smart meetings per week; and, continue Soberl-ink breathalyzer testing before and r during his physical custodial time, upon Mrs. Abboud"s request(s). In an August 8, 2024
Order, the trial court made the hearing officer's July 26, 2024 recommendations
temporary orders of the court pending a future hearing. Pursuant to La. R.S. 46: 236. 5( C)( 6), Mrs. Abboud filed an objection to the Hearing
Officer Conference Report, challenging the recommended discontinuance of supervision
during Mr. Abboud' s physical custodial time and asking that the trial court " revisit the plan of physical custody and drug testing for Mr. Abboud." Mr. Abboud also filed an
0 objection to the Hearing Officer Conference Report, challenging the recommended
resumption of weekly drug and alcohol testing as an " undue hardship
On September 18, 2024, pursuant to La. R. S. 46: 236. 5( C)( 6), the trial court held
5 a hearing where the parties first stipulated to certain matters. The parties then agreed
that the issues left for the trial court to decide were whether the supervision of Mr.
Abboud' s custodial time should be reinstated and to address the issues of weekly drug 6 and alcohol testing. Mr. Abboud, Mrs. Abboud, and Mr. Dowd testified at the hearing
and the parties introduced documentary evidence.
On October 17, 2024, the trial court signed a judgment ordering that all of Mr.
Abboud' s physical custodial time be supervised by designated or mutually agreed upon
parties; vacating the previous order that Mr. Abboud submit to weekly random drug and
alcohol testing; continuing the same SoberLink breathalyzer testing requirements; and,
ordering Mr. Abboud to attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings and counseling with Mr.
Scamardo once a week.
Mr. Abboud appeals the October 17, 2024 judgment, contending:
1) the trial court legally erred in deeming him unfit without clear and convincing evidence that his past conduct forfeited his rights to his children,
2) the trial court legally erred in deeming him unfit without considering what custodial arrangement would be in the children' s best interest under La. C. C. art. 134, and
3) the trial court legally erred in ordering supervised custody without considering the children' s best interest or whether there is a less restrictive alternative, such as SoberLink, that would allow Mr. Abboud to actually exercise his agreed- upon custodial time.
Mrs. Abboud answered the appeal, contending:
1) the trial court erred in terminating Mr. Abboud' s random weekly drug and alcohol testing,
5 On February 3, 2025, the trial court signed a Stipulated Judgment memorializing the parties' September 18, 2024 stipulations, including continued joint custody, with Mrs. Abboud as domiciliary parent and Mr. Abboud having physical custody on designated days; use of the Our Family Wizard communication program; and compliance with specified parenting guidelines.
6 Under La. R. S. 46: 236. 5( C)( 6), the trial court shall consider any objection to the hearing officer's recommendations at a contradictory hearing and shall accept, reject, or modify the hearing officer's findings in whole or in part. The trial court's review of the hearing officer's recommendations is de novo. Fairbanks v, Beninate, 20- 206 ( La. App. 5 Cir. 12/ 23/ 20), 308 So. 3d 1222, 1234, writ denied, 2021- 00250 ( La. 3/ 23/ 21), 313 So. 3d 272; State in Interest of Harper v. Harper, 53, 485 ( La. App. 2 Cir. 5/ 20/ 20), 296 So. 3d 1163, 1166- 67.
5 2) the trial court erred in ordering Mr. Abboud to only comply with SoberLink breathalyzer testing requirements during his custodial time, but instead should have ordered that he submit to such requirements at any time.
As we will discuss herein, the trial court was bound to apply the best interest of
the child analysis in deciding this case. Although the trial court did not expressly articulate its analysis, such is not required. Mr. Abboud argues the trial court legally erred by
deeming him unfit without clear and convincing evidence or without considering the best interest of the child factors. We note that, fitness and the clear and convincing standard
generally apply in termination of parental right cases and when a non -parent seeks
custody. See State in Interest of L.J., 2023- 1357 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 12/ 26/ 24), 404 So. 3d 956, 966 ( termination of parental rights); Weicks v. Stromberg, 2023- 1004 ( La. App. I Cir. 3/ 22/ 24), 388 So. 3d 398, 402 ( non -parent). Neither situation exists here; thus, we
do not address assignments of error numbers one and two.
DISCUSSION
We begin our discussion by clarifying relevant terminology. On appeal, both
parties sometimes reference Mr. Abboud' s physical custodial time with his children as
visitation." All relevant judgments herein have awarded Mr. Abboud joint custody of his children — his time with his children is more properly referenced as " physical custody,"" rather than " visitation." See La. R. S. 9: 335( A)( 1) & ( 2) ( noting that, when joint custody
is decreed, the implementation order shall allocate the time periods during which each parent shall have " physical custody" }; Evans v, Lungrin, 97- 0541 ( La. 2/ 6/ 98), 708 So. 2d
731, 737. Conversely, " visitation," as referenced in La. C. C. art. 136, is the proper term
for a parent's time with his children when he is not granted custody or joint custody. See Lewis v. Marcotte, 2021- 0432 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 12/ 22/ 21), 339 So. 3d 1189, 1192, n. 2.
Thus, herein, we properly reference and analyze Mr. Abboud' s custodial time as " physical
custody."
Parent and Child Rights in Custody Determinations
The best interest of the child is the paramount consideration in all custody litigation, including actions to modify custody. La. C. C. arts. 131 & 134; Trade F v.
Francisco D., 2015- 1812 ( La. 3/ 15/ 16), 188 So. 3d 231, 235. Louisiana Civil Code article
n. 134 provides a non- exclusive list of factors the trial court shall consider, along with any other relevant factors, in determining the best interest of the child. Moore v, Prater,
2021- 1430 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 6/ 3/ 22), 342 So. 3d 994, 1000. In making this determination,
the trial court is not bound to make a mechanical evaluation of the La. C. C. art. 134
factors, and the weight to be given each factor is left to its discretion. Id The trial court
is in the best position to ascertain the best interest of the child given each unique set of
circumstances and because of its superior opportunity to observe the parties and the
witnesses who testified at the trial. Allen v, Allen, 2015- 0973 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 11/ 9/ 15), 184 So. 3d 718, 720. Accordingly, the trial court's determination as to whether a parent' s
physical custody should be supervised is entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed
on appeal absent a clear abuse of discretion. Id
Notwithstanding the primacy of a child' s best interest in custody determinations,
a biological parent has constitutionally protected rights regarding his children. See Troxel v, Granville, 530 U. S. 57, 65, 120 S. Ct. 2054, 2060, 147 L. Ed. 2d 49 ( 2000); In re L. M.M.,
Jr., 2017- 1988 ( La. 6/ 27/ 18), 319 So. 3d 231, 241. The Fourteenth Amendment to the
United States Constitution protects a biological parent's due process rights to the
companionship, care, custody, and management of his child. Tracie F, 188 So. 3d at 242.
Similarly, La. Const. art. 1, § 24 protects the reciprocal rights and obligations of biological
parents and children. Id Thus, courts must consider the paramount concern for the
best interest of the child as well as the parent's concomitant fundamental rights. Cook;
v, Sullivan, 2020- 01471 ( La. 9/ 30/ 21), 330 So. 3d 152, 158.
Conditions Of Mr. Abboud' s Physical Custody
We now decide whether the trial court abused its discretion in ordering that: Mr. Abboud' s physical custody be supervised, he was no longer required to submit to random
drug and alcohol testing, and he continue the SoberLink breathalyzer testing
requirements only before and during his physical custody.
At the September 18, 2024 hearing, Mrs. Abboud testified that she was agreeable
to continued joint custody with Mr. Abboud but wanted his physical custodial time to be
supervised because of his alcohol problem. She stated that, when they were married,
Mr. Abboud regularly came home drunk. When asked if Mr. Abboud' s alcohol use ever
7 affected his care of the children, Mrs. Abboud stated, "[ S] ometimes he passed out, but I
was always there so the care of the children was never in question when I was there
because I was there." She explained that the marriage broke up in February 2023, after
an incident when Mr. Abboud was obviously drunk and planned to drive with their son in
the vehicle. She acknowledged Mr. Abboud' s in- patient rehabilitation treatment in
February/ March 2022 and stated that she wanted Mr. Abboud to comply with Mr. Dowd' s
recommendations. She stated she was concerned that Mr. Abboud was not complying
with court-ordered drug testing and thought that showed he had a " real problem." She
admitted, however, that Mr. Abboud was submitting to Sober ink breathalyzer testing
during his physical custodial time and that the parties " had not had issues" since
unsupervised custody had been implemented.
Mr. Abboud testified that he had been counseling with Mr. Scamardo about twice
a week for a year and a half (since March 2023) and that he wanted to continue. He also
stated he had attended online Smart meetings, a self -managed addiction recovery
treatment program, and was willing to continue that as well. He testified that, during his
physical custody of the children, he had voluntarily submitted to SoberLink breathalyzer
testing multiple times per day since September 2023 and identified an exhibit showing
he had done so 306 times without a positive result for alcohol. On cross- examination,
however, Mr. Abboud acknowledged that, as of the day before the hearing, he had missed
forty-five court-ordered weekly drug and alcohol tests and had not complied with several
of Mr. Dowd' s recommendations, including drug education counseling, AA meeting
attendance, obtaining a sponsor, abstaining from all mood -altering Substances, and
complying with court requirements. Regarding the missed drug and alcohol tests, Mr.
Abboud stated, "[ P] Ienty of times[,] I was out of town traveling with others for work.
Whether right or wrong, I didn't want to tell people that work for me that I had to go
drug test somewhere." Regarding AA meeting attendance, Mr. Abboud testified he did
not like AA and chose the Smart program instead. He admitted that his counseling with
Mr. Scamardo was not drug education counseling. Regarding his behavior when he does
not have physical custody of his children, Mr. Abboud admitted that he continues to drink
regularly, frequently buys alcohol at convenience stores, and has three to five drinks per day. He specifically admitted that, on June 15, 2024, during his supervised physical
custody of the children, he left them sleeping in his parents' care, and, then with his
parents' knowledge, drove to a convenience store, where he bought alcohol and had a
drink that night.
Mr. Dowd was accepted as an expert in addiction and addiction recovery at trial.
He identified his May 2023 and May 2024 reports opining that Mr. Abboud had an alcohol
abuse disorder and wherein he made certain recommendations to address the disorder.
He explained that, if Mr. Abboud would follow his recommendations, he would have
success at achieving " abstinence." Based on Mr. Abboud' s testimony, Mr. Dowd testified
that Mr. Abboud had regressed and the degree of his alcohol disorder as of the hearing date appeared to be " moderate," not " mild" nor in " early remission." He agreed with Mrs.
Abboud' s counsel that Mr. Abboud' s frequent alcohol purchases at convenience stores
indicated that he was drinking and driving but acknowledged on cross examination that
he had no personal knowledge that this was true. When asked if the children were " at
risk" with Mr. Abboud, Mr. Dowd stated, " That's not up to me to make that decision."
When the trial court directly questioned Mr. Dowd regarding his opinion on methods of
alcohol testing, Mr. Dowd testified that many of his clients with child custody issues
successfully use Soberl-ink breathalyzer testing to track alcohol usage. However, he
admitted that urine testing had some advantages and a combination of urine testing and
Soberl-ink breathalyzer testing " wouldn't hurt."
At the end of the hearing and a brief recess, the trial court orally ruled that Mr.
Abboud' s physical custodial time be supervised by designated or mutually agreed upon
parties; the previous order that he submit to weekly random drug and alcohol testing
would be discontinued; Soberl-ink breathalyzer testing requirements during his physical custodial time would continue; and, he attend AA meetings and therapy with Mr.
Scamardo once a week. In her oral reasons, the trial court pertinently addressed Mr,. Abboud as follows:
Dad, I appreciate your honesty on the stand today. I don' t think you' re being honest with yourself, but that's another issue for you and Mr. Scamardo to take care of. My hope would have been that your goal would be abstinence, such as Mr. Dowd testified to and . . . has
0 recommended since May of 2023, but that doesn' t seem to be what your goal is right now, not today. And, you' ve made that choice.
I always tell people I want healthy parents. How do I define healthy parents? Parents who are free from mind -altering substances like alcohol, like drugs; because if you' re not a healthy parent, you' re not fully engaged with your child. And your children deserve to have healthy parents. And what I' m ordering today is not punitive to [ Dad], but it's acknowledging that he' s not where the Court had hoped he would be yet.
M] y issue is do I still require someone to supervise [ Dad] and what do I do about testing for his alcohol use? If [Dad] had come up here today and told me that he' s really trying and he wants to overcome his addiction to alcohol,. I would have a different ruling; but I don' t. So I' m going to still require [ supervised physical custody]. ... My hope is that some day you' re going to choose your kids over your alcohol, but you have to get to that point.
I' m still going to require you to stay on ... [ SoberLink], that's testing during custodial time, and ... upon request of [ Mrs. Abboud]. ... [ Y] ou' re going to carry the [ SoberLink] device with you at all times when you have the children.
At this point in time, ... I see no point of you going through urine drug screens. When you' re finally ready to get serious about putting your kids first, then I can see reinstating that. ... ( Emphasis added.)
In Allen, 184 So. 3d at 721- 22, this Court affirmed a trial court's judgment awarding unsupervised physical custody to a father based in part on the trial court's finding that there was no evidence that the father's alleged mental health problems or alcohol abuse
had affected his time with his children. At the time of the Allen trial, the father had not
been with his children unsupervised in over two years and admitted that he drank a few beers a week and had an occasional glass of wine. Id The trial court in Allen reasoned
that the development of a good relationship between the father and his children required
that they be able to interact directly with him on a one-to-one basis without somebody looking over his shoulder. Id. at 721. Noting that the trial court's judgment specifically ordered both parents to refrain from alcohol or illegal substances when exercising physical custody of the children, the Allen Court found the trial court did not abuse its discretion
in awarding unsupervised physical custody to the father. Id, at 723.
After review, we agree with the Allen Court's reasoning and find merit to Mr. Abboud' s third assignment of error. We conclude that, in this case, the trial court abused its discretion in determining that the best interest of the children herein required that Mr.
10 Abboud' s physical custody be supervised due to his refusal to abstain from alcohol
altogether. Undeniably, the record shows Mr. Abboud has a history of alcohol use, which
is a factor that must be considered in a best interest of the child analysis. See La. C. C.
art. 134( A)( 8); Buckner v. Berry, 55, 832 ( La. App. 2 Cir. 7/ 17/ 24), 400 So. 3d 116, 130.
Further, Mr. Abboud has admitted that, when exercising physical custody, he continues
to drink daily, and he has even consumed alcohol during his physical custodial time with
the children, when the children were in the care of his parents. However, similar to the
circumstances in Allen, there is no evidence in the record that Mr. Abboud' s alcohol
disorder has caused harm to his children.
The October 17, 2024 judgment clearly requires that Mr. Abboud carry his
Soberl-ink breathalyzer and continue to submit to Soberl-ink breathalyzer testing before and during his physical custody, upon Mrs. Abboud' s request. The evidence shows that,
since the September 5, 2023 Consent Judgment, Mr. Abboud has consistently submitted
to such testing when he has the children, with no positive results for alcohol. Further,
Mrs. Abboud presented no evidence showing that Mr. Abboud' s alcohol disorder has
harmed the children either during the marriage or thereafter. Her expert witness, Mr.
Dowd, expressly declined to opine as to whether the children were at risk when with Mr.
Abboud. And, although Mr. Dowd opined that Mr. Abboud' s frequent alcohol purchases
at convenience stores indicated that he was drinking and driving, there is no evidence
that Mr. Abboud drinks and drives with his children in the vehicle. Further, Mrs. Abboud
admitted that, during the prior time when Mr. Abboud' s physical custody was
unsupervised, there had been " no issues."
Without evidence that Mr. Abboud' s alcohol disorder has harmed his children, and
in light of Mr. Abboud's due process rights to the companionship, care, custody, and management of his children, we reject a rule requiring that he abstain from alcohol when
he is not exercising physical custody of his children. See Tracie F, 188 So. 3d at 242.
And, because we reject a rule that polices Mr. Abboud' s alcohol usage when he is not
exercising physical custody, we likewise reject Mrs. Abboud' s contentions that he should
be required to submit to Soberl-ink breathalyzer testing at any time, rather than only before and during his physical custody, or that he should resume weekly random alcohol
11 and drug testing. Accordingly, we conclude the trial court abused its discretion in
requiring that Mr. Abboud's physical custody be supervised without evidence of harm to
the children and when the safeguard of Soberl-ink breathalyzer testing will be in place before and during his physical custody.
CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, we reverse the October 17, 2024 judgment insofar as it
ordered that all physical custody exercised by Gordon Charles Abboud be supervised. In
all other respects, we affirm the October 17, 2024 judgment. We deny Elizabeth
Giambrone Abboud' s answer to the appeal and assess costs of the appeal to her.
3UDGMENT REVERSED IN PART AND AFFIRMED IN PART; ANSWER TO APPEAL DENIED.