Opinion
No. 2020-CJ-0545
06-12-2020
DAVID JOSEPH MAIN v. DENA BACH MAIN
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, FIFTH CIRCUIT, PARISH OF JEFFERSON JOHNSON, C.J., would grant the writ application and assigns reasons.
In this case, the father sought visitation with a minor child. The record reveals facts that are deeply disturbing and demonstrate a long history of family violence and abuse perpetrated by the father. As acknowledged by the court of appeal, there is objective evidence of the father's specific abusive, reckless, and illegal conduct which has caused the mother to have reasonable concerns for the child's safety or well-being while in the father's care. Main v. Main, 19-503 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2/19/20), 292 So. 3d 135, 147 n.28. The court-appointed custody evaluator, Dr. Thompson, provided an expert opinion that court-ordered visitation with the father should be avoided, leaving that choice to the minor. Dr. Thompson testified the minor was extremely fearful of the father and did not want contact with him. Specifically, Dr. Thompson opined visitation, even with supervision, would not be beneficial to the minor and had the potential to cause psychological damage. Additionally, Dr. Thompson testified that given the minor's age and developmental stage, successful reunification would require full participation, support and desire on both sides-and here, the teenaged minor was not supportive of the idea.
In my view, it is our duty to protect the child and ensure court actions are in a child's best interest. Court-ordered visitation with a parent should be for the benefit of the child, not to satisfy the desire of the parent. See La. C.C. art. 136; La. R.S. 9:341. I see no benefit to the minor in this case. The evidence presented at the hearing showed the father has recurring mental health and substance abuse issues; the father threatened to shoot one of the minor's older brothers (an event she witnessed); the father encouraged and arranged a sexual encounter for another older brother (when he was a minor); and encouraged and participated in drug abuse by the same brother, who subsequently died of a drug overdose while residing with the father.
Based on the frankly horrible facts of this case, I cannot in good conscience agree with the court of appeal's ruling ordering therapeutically supervised visitation between the father and the minor child, who is currently sixteen years old and has expressed a desire not to see her father. I find no error in the district court's ruling that visitation (even therapeutically supervised visitation) was not in the child's best interest.
Thus, I would grant the writ application and reinstate the judgment of the district court.