Louisiana Family Law: Civil Code Article 134(10) and its Applicability to a Divorce Attorney

This article deals with Louisiana Civil Code Art. 134(10) and how each party will go about making sure that the other will continue to have a close relationship with the child. Section (10) recognizes that although one parent may be awarded custody of the child or children, it is still important for the children’s development that they remain in contact with the non-custodial parent.  Thus, a court can consider each parents willingness and ability to facilitate this process.  (However, if one of the parent’s is not interested in maintaining a relationship with the other, a divorce attorney may argue that that parent should not be given primary control over the child because it would have a deleterious effect on the child’s relationship with the other parent.)
Take for example two very different parents.  One parent understands that although the marriage is over, it is still crucial that the child remain in contact with both parents.  This particular parent’s divorce attorney displays to the court that they understand this crucial point, and that, moving forward, they plan to make sure that the child can still experience the love and devotion of two parents rather than one. 
Now let us say that the other parent is the exact opposite.  They feel that the child does not need to see both parents, that they, if made the sole custodial parent, need be the only parent in the child’s life.  Let us say that this parent’s divorce attorney does not have the facts necessary to rebut an indication to the court that they have no interest in sharing the child, or allowing the child to see the other parent in any way.  A court could likely determine under Section (10) that the first parent is a more appropriate custodial parent.
Sometimes a “peacemaker” parent, vis-a-vis custody, is treated more favorably under this section.  Other times, it may be the parent with greater responsibility and with adequate financial means who prevails under section (10).  If for example one parent is better suited to take on the transportation costs of the child to see the other parent, or is more likely to regularly and responsibly schedule such visits, a court may view them more favorably.  
In a lot of cases, it is difficult for either parent’s divorce attorney to clearly prove to a court that they are significantly better suited than the other parent to facilitate and encourage a continuing relationship with the child’s non-custodial parent.  This is why the court is granted great latitude in considering each case on its individual merits, and oftentimes in conjunction with other sections under article 134.  That said, it is likely not in a parent’s best interests to represent to a court in a custody proceeding that they have no inclination in sharing the child with the other parent.  This may indicate that, were they granted custody, the child would suffer more harm than good.   
New Orleans divorce attorney Will Beaumont provides this article as an informational tool in order that you may better understand the law.  It is not legal advice.