STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT
CW 04-1154
MILISSA LAPRAIRIE MORRIS
VERSUS
JIMMY MORRIS
**********
APPEAL FROM THE NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF RAPIDES, NO. 193,961-E HONORABLE BERT DEXTER RYLAND, DISTRICT JUDGE
JOHN D. SAUNDERS JUDGE
Court composed of John D. Saunders, Marc T. Amy, and Michael G. Sullivan, Judges.
Amy, J., concurs and assigns reasons.
WRIT DENIED.
Lauren Gay Coleman Attorney at Law 5615 D Jackson St. Ext. #B Alexandria, LA 71303 (318) 449-9857 Counsel for: Plaintiff/Applicant Milissa Laprairie Morris James Ogden Middleton, II. Attorney at Law 1412 Centre Court, Ste 403 Alexandria, LA 71301 (318) 443-4377 Counsel for: Defendant/Respondent Jimmy Morris SAUNDERS, J.
This custody dispute comes before us on a writ application. Jimmy Morris
seeks amendment of a joint custody decree rendered by a Louisiana court wherein his
former spouse was named custodial parent. The children currently reside with their
mother and her third husband in Texas. Mr. Morris alleges that the children have
been subjected to domestic violence and neglect. The trial court ruled that it had
jurisdiction over the matter and Mrs. Adams sought supervisory writs. We find that
significant connection, continuing, and emergency jurisdiction all apply and affirm
the trial court’s judgment.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Jimmy Morris and Milissa Morris were married in 1994 and lived in Rapides
Parish, where all three of their minor children were born. The couple obtained a
judgment of divorce and a joint custody decree from the Ninth Judicial District Court
in 1999. Milissa Morris then married Chris Swindler and moved to Texas in
December of 2000. Mr. Morris has remarried and remains domiciled in Louisiana.
In 2001, Milissa divorced Mr. Swindler and subsequently married Jason Adams.
During a recent visit from his children, Mr. Morris filed a petition to modify
the custody agreement between himself and Mrs. Adams claiming that the children
asked to live with him and that Mrs. Adams is an unfit mother. Mr. Morris references
several incidents that he claims demonstrate the need to modify the custody
agreement. Morris claims that the children are victims of domestic violence. He cites
one instance where Mrs. Adams summoned the Texas authorities and gave a
statement providing that Jason Adams battered her and the children, destroyed several
household items in a violent rage, and bashed her windshield with a 2x4. Mrs. Adams now claims that she lied to the police when giving this statement and that
these events never transpired. Mr. Morris also claims that the children were severely
injured because they were thrown from the bed of a pickup truck driven by Mrs.
Adams when she was involved in an accident. Mrs. Adams was arrested for child
endangerment in relation to this accident. On another occasion, Mrs. Adams was
taken by a friend to an emergency room in Texas where it was reported that she was
kicked, slapped, knocked down, and beaten with a golf club and remote control by
Jason Adams, who also threatened to kill her and the children and pulled the phone
from the wall so that the police could not be contacted. Mrs. Adams now claims that
both her friend and the deputy sheriff falsified these reports. Mr. Morris also claims
that, on one trip to pick up his daughters, both Jason and Milissa Adams had been
bonded out of jail earlier that day following arrests for disorderly conduct. He further
contends that the children are neglected as evidenced by the fact that he has found
worms in their stool, a rotten tooth, and repeated lice infestations. Additionally, Mr.
Morris alleges that the incidents of domestic violence have so impacted his daughter
Kourtney, that she now often hides in fear in a closet even when she is in no apparent
danger.
Mrs. Adams filed an exception of lack of jurisdiction in response to Mr.
Morris’ petition. This exception was denied and Mrs. Adams sought supervisory
writs from this court.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
1) The trial court erred in denying Mrs. Adams’ Exception of Jurisdiction.
-2- STANDARD OF REVIEW
When reviewing questions of law, appellate courts are to determine if the trial
court’s ruling was legally correct or not. Cleland v. City of Lake Charles, 02-0805
(La.App. 3 Cir. 3/5/03), 840 So.2d 686, writ denied, 03-1380 (La. 9/19/03), 853
So.2d 645.
DISCUSSION
The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act sets forth factors to be considered
by courts before assuming jurisdiction over custody disputes. In the instant matter,
Mrs. Adams essentially argues that the Ninth Judicial District Court lacks jurisdiction
to adjudicate this matter because the children currently live in Texas making it their
“home state” pursuant to La.R.S. 13:1702(C). We disagree.
Louisiana courts have jurisdiction to make custody determinations if:
(1) This state (i) is the home state of the child at the time of commencement of the proceeding, or (ii) had been the child's home state within six months before commencement of the proceeding and the child is absent from this state because of his removal or retention by a person claiming his custody or for other reasons, and a parent or person acting as parent continues to live in this state; or (2) It is in the best interest of the child that a court of this state assume jurisdiction because (i) the child and his parents, or the child and at least one contestant, have a significant connection with this state, and (ii) there is available in this state substantial evidence concerning the child's present or future care, protection, training, and personal relationships; or (3) The child is physically present in this state and (i) the child has been abandoned or (ii) it is necessary in an emergency to protect the child because he has been subjected to or threatened with mistreatment or abuse or is otherwise neglected or dependent; or
-3- (4) (I) It appears that no other state would have jurisdiction under prerequisites substantially in accordance with Paragraphs (1), (2), or (3), or another state has declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that this state is the more appropriate forum to determine the custody of the child, and (ii) it is in the best interest of the child that this court assume jurisdiction.
La.R.S. 13:1702. While the child’s home state may be the preferred forum, the above
quoted language does provide for alternative fora. In appropriate circumstances, a
Louisiana court may exercise significant connection, continuing, or emergency
jurisdiction. All apply here.
This court has recently addressed significant connection jurisdiction in
affirming a trial court’s exercise of jurisdiction under similar circumstances.
Lindmeier v. Lindmeier, 03-1392 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/3/04), 867 So.2d 165, writ denied,
04-0877 (La. 4/21/04), 870 So.2d 280. In Lindmeier, we gave weight to the fact that
the minor child spent a significant amount of her young life in Louisiana before
moving to Canada with her father. Lindmeier, 867 So.2d 165. We also considered
the fact that the vast majority of the child’s extended family continued to reside in
Louisiana. Id.
As in Lindmeier, the minor children at issue here spent a significant portion of
their lives in Louisiana. Their parents were married in 1994 and divorced in 1999.
The children remained in Louisiana throughout this period and did not move to Texas
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT
CW 04-1154
MILISSA LAPRAIRIE MORRIS
VERSUS
JIMMY MORRIS
**********
APPEAL FROM THE NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF RAPIDES, NO. 193,961-E HONORABLE BERT DEXTER RYLAND, DISTRICT JUDGE
JOHN D. SAUNDERS JUDGE
Court composed of John D. Saunders, Marc T. Amy, and Michael G. Sullivan, Judges.
Amy, J., concurs and assigns reasons.
WRIT DENIED.
Lauren Gay Coleman Attorney at Law 5615 D Jackson St. Ext. #B Alexandria, LA 71303 (318) 449-9857 Counsel for: Plaintiff/Applicant Milissa Laprairie Morris James Ogden Middleton, II. Attorney at Law 1412 Centre Court, Ste 403 Alexandria, LA 71301 (318) 443-4377 Counsel for: Defendant/Respondent Jimmy Morris SAUNDERS, J.
This custody dispute comes before us on a writ application. Jimmy Morris
seeks amendment of a joint custody decree rendered by a Louisiana court wherein his
former spouse was named custodial parent. The children currently reside with their
mother and her third husband in Texas. Mr. Morris alleges that the children have
been subjected to domestic violence and neglect. The trial court ruled that it had
jurisdiction over the matter and Mrs. Adams sought supervisory writs. We find that
significant connection, continuing, and emergency jurisdiction all apply and affirm
the trial court’s judgment.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Jimmy Morris and Milissa Morris were married in 1994 and lived in Rapides
Parish, where all three of their minor children were born. The couple obtained a
judgment of divorce and a joint custody decree from the Ninth Judicial District Court
in 1999. Milissa Morris then married Chris Swindler and moved to Texas in
December of 2000. Mr. Morris has remarried and remains domiciled in Louisiana.
In 2001, Milissa divorced Mr. Swindler and subsequently married Jason Adams.
During a recent visit from his children, Mr. Morris filed a petition to modify
the custody agreement between himself and Mrs. Adams claiming that the children
asked to live with him and that Mrs. Adams is an unfit mother. Mr. Morris references
several incidents that he claims demonstrate the need to modify the custody
agreement. Morris claims that the children are victims of domestic violence. He cites
one instance where Mrs. Adams summoned the Texas authorities and gave a
statement providing that Jason Adams battered her and the children, destroyed several
household items in a violent rage, and bashed her windshield with a 2x4. Mrs. Adams now claims that she lied to the police when giving this statement and that
these events never transpired. Mr. Morris also claims that the children were severely
injured because they were thrown from the bed of a pickup truck driven by Mrs.
Adams when she was involved in an accident. Mrs. Adams was arrested for child
endangerment in relation to this accident. On another occasion, Mrs. Adams was
taken by a friend to an emergency room in Texas where it was reported that she was
kicked, slapped, knocked down, and beaten with a golf club and remote control by
Jason Adams, who also threatened to kill her and the children and pulled the phone
from the wall so that the police could not be contacted. Mrs. Adams now claims that
both her friend and the deputy sheriff falsified these reports. Mr. Morris also claims
that, on one trip to pick up his daughters, both Jason and Milissa Adams had been
bonded out of jail earlier that day following arrests for disorderly conduct. He further
contends that the children are neglected as evidenced by the fact that he has found
worms in their stool, a rotten tooth, and repeated lice infestations. Additionally, Mr.
Morris alleges that the incidents of domestic violence have so impacted his daughter
Kourtney, that she now often hides in fear in a closet even when she is in no apparent
danger.
Mrs. Adams filed an exception of lack of jurisdiction in response to Mr.
Morris’ petition. This exception was denied and Mrs. Adams sought supervisory
writs from this court.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
1) The trial court erred in denying Mrs. Adams’ Exception of Jurisdiction.
-2- STANDARD OF REVIEW
When reviewing questions of law, appellate courts are to determine if the trial
court’s ruling was legally correct or not. Cleland v. City of Lake Charles, 02-0805
(La.App. 3 Cir. 3/5/03), 840 So.2d 686, writ denied, 03-1380 (La. 9/19/03), 853
So.2d 645.
DISCUSSION
The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act sets forth factors to be considered
by courts before assuming jurisdiction over custody disputes. In the instant matter,
Mrs. Adams essentially argues that the Ninth Judicial District Court lacks jurisdiction
to adjudicate this matter because the children currently live in Texas making it their
“home state” pursuant to La.R.S. 13:1702(C). We disagree.
Louisiana courts have jurisdiction to make custody determinations if:
(1) This state (i) is the home state of the child at the time of commencement of the proceeding, or (ii) had been the child's home state within six months before commencement of the proceeding and the child is absent from this state because of his removal or retention by a person claiming his custody or for other reasons, and a parent or person acting as parent continues to live in this state; or (2) It is in the best interest of the child that a court of this state assume jurisdiction because (i) the child and his parents, or the child and at least one contestant, have a significant connection with this state, and (ii) there is available in this state substantial evidence concerning the child's present or future care, protection, training, and personal relationships; or (3) The child is physically present in this state and (i) the child has been abandoned or (ii) it is necessary in an emergency to protect the child because he has been subjected to or threatened with mistreatment or abuse or is otherwise neglected or dependent; or
-3- (4) (I) It appears that no other state would have jurisdiction under prerequisites substantially in accordance with Paragraphs (1), (2), or (3), or another state has declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that this state is the more appropriate forum to determine the custody of the child, and (ii) it is in the best interest of the child that this court assume jurisdiction.
La.R.S. 13:1702. While the child’s home state may be the preferred forum, the above
quoted language does provide for alternative fora. In appropriate circumstances, a
Louisiana court may exercise significant connection, continuing, or emergency
jurisdiction. All apply here.
This court has recently addressed significant connection jurisdiction in
affirming a trial court’s exercise of jurisdiction under similar circumstances.
Lindmeier v. Lindmeier, 03-1392 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/3/04), 867 So.2d 165, writ denied,
04-0877 (La. 4/21/04), 870 So.2d 280. In Lindmeier, we gave weight to the fact that
the minor child spent a significant amount of her young life in Louisiana before
moving to Canada with her father. Lindmeier, 867 So.2d 165. We also considered
the fact that the vast majority of the child’s extended family continued to reside in
Louisiana. Id.
As in Lindmeier, the minor children at issue here spent a significant portion of
their lives in Louisiana. Their parents were married in 1994 and divorced in 1999.
The children remained in Louisiana throughout this period and did not move to Texas
until their mother relocated in 2000. We also note that Kourtney, the oldest of the
three children, spent nearly all of the 2001-2002 school year in Alexandria while
living with her father. Given these facts, it is apparent that the time spent by the
children in Louisiana and Texas is, at a minimum, comparable. -4- The significant amount of time spent in Louisiana is one example of the
connections with this state. Further tipping the jurisdictional scales in favor of
Louisiana is the fact that the overwhelming majority of the children’s extended family
reside in this state. Mrs. Adams is their only relative in Texas, while their father,
aunts, uncles, cousins, grandparents and great-grandparents all reside in Louisiana.
The presence of this familial network in Louisiana means that the majority of the
evidence regarding the “present or future care, protection, training, and personal
relationships” of the children is located here. Lindmeier, 867 So.2d at 171. By
examining this evidence, the Louisiana court would be able to protect the best
interests of the minor children, which is of paramount importance in any custody
dispute. Accordingly, the significant amount of time spent by the children in
Louisiana and the presence of nearly all of their family makes significant connection
jurisdiction proper.
While, given our ruling, it is not necessary to invoke the doctrine, continuing
jurisdiction also applies to the instant matter. Continuing jurisdiction is available to
a “state that render[s] the original custody order, as long as it has not relinquished
jurisdiction and jurisdiction requirements of the UCCJA are met at the time
modification is sought.” In re D.R.P., 38,200 (La.App. 2 Cir. 12/10/03), 862 So.2d
1073, 1076, citing Holdsworth v. Holdsworth, 621 So.2d 71 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1993);
Gay v. Morrison, 511 So.2d 1173 (La.App. 4 Cir.), writ denied, 515 So.2d 1108
(La.1987). We have already determined that the requirements of the UCCJA are
satisfied; therefore, the only question would be whether the district court has
relinquished jurisdiction. It has not. In fact, after rendering the original decree, the
-5- trial court rendered additional judgments, each at the behest of Mrs. Adams, in this
matter in 2001, 2002, and 2003. Accordingly, we believe continuing jurisdiction also
makes jurisdiction proper in the instant matter.
Furthermore, emergency jurisdiction applies in this case. Mr. Morris has
alleged sufficient facts for the exercise of that jurisdiction. He claims that Mrs.
Adams is an alcoholic that has caused significant injury to the children as a result of
an accident in which she was driving without a license while under the influence of
alcohol. He also claims that the children are neglected in that they have had head lice
on several occasions, as well as rotten teeth and worms in their stool. Mr. Morris
further claims that the children are victims of domestic abuse and have suffered
psychological trauma which will require counseling. He also asserts that the children
have told him that they regularly go hungry and are only given water to drink. These
allegations are more than sufficient to warrant the exercise of emergency jurisdiction
so that their veracity may be evaluated as a basis for modifying the current custody
arrangement.
CONCLUSION
According to the various grounds for jurisdiction referenced above, the trial
court properly found jurisdiction over this dispute. The trial court’s denial of Mrs.
Adams’ exception of lack of jurisdiction is affirmed. Furthermore, given our ruling
here, the stay previously entered by this court is unnecessary. That order is vacated
and the matter may proceed without further delay. Costs of this proceeding are
assessed to Mrs. Adams.
WRITS DENIED.
-6- NUMBER CW04-1154
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT
STATE OF LOUISIANA
AMY, J., concurring.
I concur in the result reached by the majority. As I find this matter resolved by
reference to La.R.S. 13:1702(A)(2), I do not reach the issue of whether jurisdiction
exists pursuant to La.R.S. 13:1702(A)(3), that portion of the statute establishing
jurisdiction in emergency situations.