Opinion
24-CA-407
10-18-2024
CODEY SHORT v. ASHLEY BURQUERA
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT, CODEY SHORT Jeremy L. Schrady COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE, ASHLEY BURQUERA Christen E. DeNicholas
ON APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 843-612, DIVISION "J" HONORABLE STEPHEN C. GREFER, JUDGE PRESIDING
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT,
CODEY SHORT
Jeremy L. Schrady
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE,
ASHLEY BURQUERA
Christen E. DeNicholas
Panel composed of Judges Marc E. Johnson, Scott U.Schlegel, and Timothy S. Marcel
SCOTT U.SCHLEGEL JUDGE
Appellant, Codey Short, appeals the trial court's judgment of June 25, 2024. For the following reasons, the appeal is dismissed. The judgment is an interlocutory judgment and not subject to appellate review.
Procedural History
On April 3, 2024, the domestic commissioner held a hearing pursuant to the Post-Separation Family Violence Relief Act ("PSFVRA"), La. R.S. §9:361, et seq., and found that a "history of family violence," as defined by La. R.S. § 9:362(4), had been perpetrated by both Mr. Short and appellee, Ashley Burquera. The domestic commissioner issued an order in open court granting the parties joint custody of their two minor children (ages two and four), with no domiciliary parent designation. The judgment from this hearing was rendered and signed on June 27, 2024.
Mr. Short filed a timely objection to the domestic commissioner's judgment on April 10, 2024. The trial court conducted a do novo hearing on Mr. Short's objection on May 30, 2024. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court issued a judgment and oral reasons denying Mr. Short's objection to the domestic commissioner's judgment. In its oral reasons, the trial court indicated that there was not sufficient proof that the actions of the parties triggered the PSFVRA and ordered that "for the time being, the consent judgment that was in effect will remain in effect with regard to custody and exchanges." The trial court did, however, modify the consent judgment and ordered (1) a change to the drop-off time; (2) both parties to enroll in and complete a court-monitored domestic abuse intervention program; and (3) a custody evaluator and/or a substance abuse psychological evaluator. The judgment from the hearing, signed on June 25, 2024, includes the following language:
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the parties shall submit to the following evaluations to be conducted by Dr. Kristen Lusher:
- Defendant shall submit to random drug testing and a substance abuse evaluation;
- Both parties shall submit to a full custody evaluation; and
- Both parties shall submit to psychological evaluations.
Mr. Short appeals from the judgment of June 25, 2024, asserting that (1) the trial court erred as a matter of law in disregarding the PSFVRA after finding two relevant incidents of domestic violence perpetrated by Ms. Burquera against Mr. Short; (2) any finding that Mr. Short had perpetrated a history of family violence is unsupported by sufficient evidence as a matter of law; and (3) the trial court erred as a matter of law in awarding joint custody.
Discussion
As a preliminary matter, we must first determine whether this court has jurisdiction over Mr. Short's appeal.
Mr. Short cites La. C.C.P. arts. 3943, 3942(A), and 2087(A), and asserts that this court has jurisdiction over the appeal because an appeal from a judgment awarding custody must be taken within 30 days from the expiration of the period for filing for a new trial. Mr. Short's statement of jurisdiction also asserts that this court has supervisory jurisdiction to review the trial court's order pursuant to La. Const. art. V, § 10 (1974), La. C.C.P. art. 2201, and Uniform Rules-Courts of Appeal, Rule 4-1, et seq.
A review of the judgment, however, leads to the conclusion that the trial court's judgment, regardless of how it was titled, is an interim judgment and thus, interlocutory in nature. Further action is anticipated in the case. In addition to ordering the defendant to undergo a substance abuse evaluation and both parties to undergo psychological evaluations, the trial court ordered a full custody evaluation. Thus, we find that the judgment appealed from is not a final judgment because a final custody determination has not been made.
The proper procedural vehicle to contest an interlocutory judgment is by application for supervisory writ. See La. C.C.P. art. 2201. It is not this Court's policy to convert jurisdictionally defective appeals into supervisory writ applications. See In re Medical Review Panel Proceedings of Foster, 17-653 (La.App. 5 Cir. 3/28/18), 243 So.3d 1282, 1285; State v. Toussaint, 14-352 (La.App. 5 Cir. 10/29/14), 164 So.3d 900, 901 n. 3. However, Mr. Short is permitted to file an application for supervisory writ, should he choose to do so, to review the trial court's ruling within 30 days of the date of this decision.
APPEAL DISMISSED
SUS
TSM
MEJ
JOHNSON, J., CONCURS WITH REASONS
I write separately to clarify that Appellant, Cody Short, is allowed to file an application for supervisory writ to review the trial court's judgment-particularly the rulings upholding the domestic commissioner's finding that both parties have a history of domestic violence and the PSFVRA has not been triggered-within 30 days of the date of this decision, should he choose to do so.