## Facts

- Katherine Leigh Odom (mother) and Mark W. Odom (father) remarried in 1987 after an earlier divorce; two children were born of the remarriage (Gary, 1988; Miranda, 1989).
- In April 1990, the mother left the marital home with the children and entered a family-violence shelter, reporting physical abuse; shelter personnel observed injuries on the mother and a bruise on the infant.
- The father filed for separation and sought custody; the mother answered and sought separation, custody, and support, alleging physical and mental abuse.
- The mother initially obtained temporary custody with the father receiving visitation; mediation was ordered but failed.
- A later divorce judgment awarded the father custody by default; the appellate record did not show that custody was litigated or supported by a transcript or evidence reflecting a best-interest determination.
- The mother later filed a rule to change custody; the parties stipulated joint custody was not in the children’s best interest, and the court ordered home studies.
- Evaluations portrayed the mother as cooperative and an appropriate caregiver and portrayed the father as uncooperative, controlling, and unlikely to support the children’s relationship with the mother.
- After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied the mother’s requested custody change and maintained custody with the father; the mother appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the prior custody award to the father was a “considered decree,” triggering the heightened modification burden under Bergeron v. Bergeron.
2. If not a considered decree, whether the mother proved changed circumstances and that awarding her custody would serve the children’s best interest.

## Decision

- The court of appeal held the prior custody award was not a considered decree because the record did not show custody was litigated or decided after weighing evidence.
- The court applied the change-in-circumstances and best-interest standard rather than Bergeron’s heavy burden.
- The court found the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to modify custody in light of the evidence, including domestic violence evidence and professional home evaluations.
- The judgment denying the mother’s rule to change custody and maintaining the father’s custody was reversed and remanded for entry of a custody decree consistent with the opinion (custody to the mother with appropriate visitation for the father).

## Legal Principles

- A heightened custody-modification burden applies only after a “considered decree” of permanent custody; the party invoking that burden must show the earlier custody issue was actually litigated (e.g., by transcript or comparable proof).
- If the record does not show prior litigation of custody, the earlier award is presumed uncontested and not a considered decree.
- Absent a considered decree, the moving party must prove a change in circumstances and that the requested modification is in the child’s best interest.
- Custody determinations receive substantial deference on appeal, but reversal is warranted for clear abuse of discretion based on the evidentiary record.
- Evidence bearing on best interest includes domestic violence, parental fitness and stability, cooperation with evaluators, and willingness to support the child’s relationship with the other parent.

## Conclusion

The court of appeal reversed the denial of the mother’s requested custody change because the father failed to show the earlier default custody award was a considered decree, and the evidence under the change-in-circumstances and best-interest standard required awarding custody to the mother.


Odom v. Odom, 606 So. 2d 862 (La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992)