Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 12-12-2024

Case Style:

Jayce Allen Campbell v. Kaylee Lynn Frye

Case Number: 2014-2018

Judge: William J. Cutrera

Court: Judicial District Court, Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana

Plaintiff's Attorney:


Click Here For The Best Family Law Lawyer Directory



Defendant's Attorney:


Click Here For The Best Family Law Lawyer Directory



Description:


Lake Charles, Louisiana family law lawyer represented the parties in a child custody dispute.



The parties share two minor children, A.C. and D.C., born in 2010 and 2012, respectively. The parties never married but cohabited until approximately August of 2012.

On May 20, 2014, Mr. Campbell filed a "Petition Applying for Ex Parte Temporary Custody" seeking sole custody of the children with Appellee, Kaylee Lynn Frye Veillon, being permitted supervised visitation and restricting Ms. Veillon from removing the children from Calcasieu Parish. This marked the first filing between the parties. The Order was signed placing the children in Mr. Campbell's custody and scheduling a rule to show cause hearing regarding granting Mr. Campbell sole custody, or, alternatively, joint custody.

On June 12, 2014, the parties entered a Stipulated Judgment, signed by the court, giving both parties joint custody of the children and designating Mr. Campbell as the domiciliary parent.

The parties operated pursuant to the Stipulated Judgment until September 24, 2019, when Ms. Veillon filed a "Petition for Ex-Parte Temporary Sole Custody." Therein, she made several allegations including that Mr. Campbell was incarcerated due to contempt stemming from a child desertion charge, that the Department of Children and Family Services had an open case against Mr. Campbell, and that Mr. Campbell was on probation for domestic abuse battery and child endangerment. The petition was granted on September 25, 2019, and a rule to show cause hearing was set for October 17, 2019, regarding granting Ms. Veillon sole custody. Service was requested on Mr. Campbell at "Calcasieu Correctional Center."

The day of the hearing, Mr. Campbell filed an "Answer to Petition for Ex-Parte Custody" requesting the September 25, 2019 Order be overturned and the stipulated judgment be reinstated. Mr. Campbell alleged the DCFS investigation was completed, he was released from jail, completed his probation for domestic abuse battery, and that it would be in the children's best interest to return home.

A minute entry dated October 17, 2019, states that the parties appeared for a hearing on "various rules filed on behalf of the parties[.]" The entry continues:

A stipulated agreement is dictated to the Court Reporter and recognized by the Court as to visitation, Status Conference set for February 13, 2020 . . . and a Trial date set for June 15, 2020. . . Protective Order to be extended, parties waive delays .... Formal decree to be signed upon presentation[.]

The trial court signed a judgment on November 20, 2019, in which the "parties agreed" Mr. Campbell would have visitation supervised by Jan Caniff, a relative, but decreeing that "all other orders remain in full force and effect." The trial date was later continued at the request of Mr. Campbell.

Thereafter, nothing was filed into the record for approximately three- and one-half years. A minute entry dated January 19,2021, states, "This matter comes before the Court for Trial on the merits, same being regularly fixed." The entry indicates neither party appeared, and the matter was passed without date.

On January 18, 2024, Mr. Campbell filed an "Exparte Petition for Temporary Custody." He sought "temporary sole custody . . . until a hearing [could] be held to determine whether it is in [the children's] best interest for Jayce Campbell to have sole custody[.]" He asserted it was in the children's best interest to be in his sole
custody because both Ms. Veillon and her husband were arrested for domestic abuse battery, and Ms. Veillon was also arrested for resisting arrest by force and battery on an officer. The court issued an Order placing the children with Mr. Campbell and setting a rule to show cause hearing for February 6, 2024.

Prior to the rule to show cause hearing, Ms. Veillon filed an "Answer and Reconventional Demand" on February 2, 2024. Though admitting the parties were granted joint custody of the children in 2019 and that she and her husband were arrested, she detailed reasons why the children should be returned to her sole custody with Mr. Campbell exercising visitation as provided for in the November 19, 2019 Judgment. Alternatively, she proposed a 50/50 custody plan. The court ordered Mr. Campbell to show cause on March 7, 2024, why custody of the children should not remain the same as stated in the November 19, 2019 Judgment or, alternatively, be altered to 50/50 custody.

On February 6, 2024, the rule to show cause hearing was held on Mr. Campbell's "Exparte Petition for Temporary Custody." Mr. Campbell called witnesses to testify, including himself, his mother, and Ms. Veillon. Both Mr. Campbell and Ms. Veillon testified that they were operating under an agreed-to-custody arrangement, which, apparently, was mistakenly not filed with the court. Under this agreement, the parties had joint custody with Ms. Veillon as domiciliary parent. As Mr. Campbell was working out of state, he testified he was given the children for one to two weeks at a time when he would come home on a break or for holidays. Mr. Campbell further admitted that when an ex parte judgment was rendered in 2019 giving Ms. Veillon sole custody, he was in jail due to a probation violation. Ele explained that around 2018, "or it might have been before that[,]" he pled guilty to a charge of domestic violence against Ms. Veillon. He admitted to the court that the incident occurred while the children were present. He was out on probation in 2019 when he was then arrested and his probation revoked. Therefore, he had to finish his domestic violence sentence at that time. Mr. Campbell also provided testimony regarding the events precipitating the current ex parte motion and admitted the Computer Assisted Dispatch report regarding the domestic battery call at Ms. Veilion's address into evidence.

At the conclusion of Mr. Campbell's case-in-chief, Ms. Veillon moved for involuntary dismissal of the ex parte petition based on the applicability of La.R.S. 9:364, and the trial court agreed. Louisiana Revised Statutes 9:364 creates a presumption that, in this case, Mr. Campbell shall not be awarded sole or joint custody of the children because of the trial court's finding of a history of perpetrating family violence. The trial court also found the presumption had not been overcome; thus, Mr. Campbell was prohibited from being awarded sole or joint custody of the children.

The trial court provided oral reasons and tasked Ms. Veillon's counsel with preparing the judgment. Judgment following the hearing was signed on March 12, 2024. The judgment dismissed the ex parte petition filed by Mr. Campbell, ordered both parties to submit to a drug screen, and assessed Mr. Campbell with court costs. The judgment did not mention the custody arrangement, despite the trial court's oral ruling indicating that the ex parte motion was "basically being denied at this point" and custody is "being reverted back to [the] 2019 judgment."

On March 5, 2024, Mr. Campbell filed an "Answer Opposing Reconventional Demand and Counterclaim." Therein, he asserted he and Ms. Veillon had been following an agreed upon custody and visitation plan since 2021, giving both parties joint custody and Ms. Veillon domiciliary parent status, even though the agreement was never filed in the court. Mr. Campbell further requested that the court apply the new version of La.R.S. 9:341 to Ms. Veilion in reviewing her prior arrests. In his counterclaim he further seeks sole custody of the children with supervised visitation granted to Ms. Veillon due to her two domestic violence child endangerment episodes, that Ms. Veillon submit to an anger management program and a mental health evaluation, be cast with costs, or, alternatively, that the parties be awarded shared custody.

In response, Ms. Veillon filed a "Peremptory Exception of Res Judicata" asserting that the counterclaim seeking sole custody in favor of Mr. Campbell is res judicata as the argument in support is based on the same allegations asserted in his prior ex parte petition for temporary custody, which was dismissed by the trial court's March 12, 2024, Judgment of Involuntary Dismissal.

The trial court heard the exception motion on May 2, 2024, wherein it denied Mr. Campbell's attorney the opportunity to argue in opposition. Judgment on this ruling was not signed until June 18, 2024.

On May 3, 2024, Mr. Campbell filed a "Motion for Appeal" appealing "the Judgment rendered on February 6, 2024, signed on the 12th day of March, 2024."

On June 18, 2024, the trial court granted the peremptory exception of res judicata.

* * *

FAMILY LAW. CHILD CUSTODY. The case concerns an appeal regarding the trial court's involuntary dismissal of an ex parte petition for temporary custody filed by the appellant, seeking sole custody of his minor children. The appellate court addressed whether it had jurisdiction to review the dismissal, ultimately concluding that the dismissal was a non-appealable interlocutory judgment.

FAMILY LAW. DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. The court examined the applicability of Louisiana Revised Statute 9:364, which creates a presumption against awarding custody to a parent with a history of family violence, and determined that the presumption was not overcome in the appellant's case, impacting custody considerations.

PROCEDURAL LAW. INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENTS. The judgment dismissed the appellant's petition as a non-appealable interlocutory order, reiterating that appeals are limited to final judgments determining the merits of a case or as expressly provided by law, thereby impacting the procedural disposition of custody-related orders.

Key Phrases Involuntary dismissal. Temporary custody. Family violence. Revised Statutes. Appellate jurisdiction.

Outcome: Dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



Find a Lawyer

Subject:
City:
State:
 

Find a Case

Subject:
County:
State: