NOT DESTGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST CIRCUIT

2011 CU 0319

HALEY MAOR GREEN

VERSUSL

CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL GREEN

Judgment Rendered SP 4 01

On Appeal from the Twentieth Judicial District CourIn and for the Parish of West Feliciana

State afLuisiana

Docket No 20192

Honorable William G Carmichael Judge Presiding

Sydney Picau PlaintiffAppelleeSt Francisville Louisiana Hley Majar Green

Vincent A Saffiotti DefendantAppellantBaton Rouge Louisiana Christopher Michael Green

I

xr

BEFORE WHIPPLE McDONALD AND McCLENDON JJ

McCLENDON

Christopher Michael Green and Haley Major Gren were married on May 4

2002 and Ms Green was pregnant with their third child when they separated

The Greens were divorced an July 8 209

Mr Green and Ms Green entered into three successive stipulated

judgments each modifying the previaus judgment In each of the stipulated

judgments the parties agreed to joint custody with Ms Green as the domiciliary

parent The judgmnts also provided for numerous other details

After Mr Green filed a rule for modification of the third stipulated

judgment and Ms Green filed an answer and reconventional demand the

parties went to trial on the matter

The trial court issued a judgment on November 22 2010 In pertinent

part th judgment prohibited Mr Green from allowing his girlfriend Kristin

delaBretonne to be present for exchanging th children and prohibited Mr

Green from having Ms delaBretanne within eysight or hearing distance of the

exchanges urther the judgment prohibited Ms delaBretonne from

transporting traveling with or entertaining the minor children outside the

presence of Mr Green and prohibited Ms delaBretanne from attending the minor

childrensactivities The judgment denied Mr Greens request for alternating the

Christmas day visitations everyyar

Mr Green appeals th trial court judgment He assigns as errar the trial

courts restrictions an his ability to have the children around Ms delaBretonn at

designatd times the trial courts restrictions an the exercise of his custody of

the children and the trial courts refusal to rotate Christmas day visitation

between the parties

The paramount consideration in any determination of child custody is the

best interest of the child ach child custody case must be viewed in light of its

own particular set of facts and circumstances The trial court is vested with vast

discretion in matters of child custody and visitation and its determination is

entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed an appeal unless a clear

2

showing of abuse af discretion is made Stephens v Stephens 0204Q2

LaApp 1 Cir62102 822 SaZd 770 774 Although we may have found

differently after a thorough review af the record we find no abuse of discretion

in th trial courtsjudgment on these issues

Moreover although as a general rule rotation of Christmas day visitation

between parents may be more advisable the trial court may have considered Mr

Greens failure to fully exercise previous holiday visitations including Christmas

Ev as well as his failure to exercise his alternating Christmas day visitation with

his minor child fram another relationship Given thse unique circumstances

we find no error in the trial courts apparent conclusion that maintaining the

curren schedule was in the best interest of the minor children

Hawever we da find that the trial court abused its discretion in restricting

the actions of Ms delaBretonne who is not a party to the proceedings Instead

the trial court should have restricted the actions of Mr Green in regard to

bringing Ms delaBretanne around the children Thus the trial court judgment is

amended ta provide that Mr Green is prohibited from allawing Ms delaBretonne

to be present at the exchanges or within eyesight or hearing of the exchanges

of the children Further the trial court judgment is amended to provid that Mr

Green is prohibited from allowing Ms delaBretonne to stay at the house they

share after the childrens bedtime and he shall not allow her to return ta the

home prior to 830 am ar prior to the minor children waking up unless Mr

Green and Ms delaBretonne marry at which time that restriction automatically

terminates

In all other respects the trial court judgment dated Navember 22 2010

is affirmd Casts of this appeal are assessed to Mr Green This memorandum

1

Despite a court order that granted him Christmas day visitation with his oldest child onalternating years Mr Green testified that the child has never been with him on Christmasmorning and that he has not taken any formal attion against th childs mather regarding same

z We note that the parties stipulated that Ms dela6retonne uvould not be present at theexchanges

3

opinion is rendered in compliance with the Louisiana Uniform Rules Courts of

Appeal Rule21618

AMENDED AND AS AMENDED AFFIRMED

I

4