Judgment rendered August 26, 2026.
Application for rehearing may be filed
within the delay allowed by Art. 2166,
La. C.C.P.
No. 57,088-CA
COURT OF APPEAL
SECOND CIRCUIT
STATE OF LOUISIANA
*****
HEATHER MARIE CAMPBELL Plaintiff-Appellant LESTER
versus
JAMES VANCE LESTER Defendant-Appellee
*****
Appealed from the
First Judicial District Court for the
Parish of Caddo, Louisiana
Trial Court No. 619,181
Honorable Karelia R. Stewart, Judge
*****
MINIFIELD & HARPER Counsel for Appellant By: Pamela Rene Harper
THE LAW OFFICE OF Counsel for Appellee CHRISTOPHER M. STAHL
By: Christopher M. Stahl
*****
Before PITMAN, ROBINSON, and HUNTER, JJ.
ROBINSON, J.
Heather Hagmeyer (“Heather”) appeals a judgment naming her former
husband, James Lester (“James”), as the domiciliary parent of their two
children. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment.
FACTS
Heather and James married on April 29, 2006. Two children, CL and
AL, were born during the marriage. CL was born on August 26, 2014. AL
was born on December 3, 2015. The couple separated in 2018.
On September 11, 2019, Heather filed a petition for a La. C.C. art.
103 divorce. She sought shared custody of the children with the parties
alternating visitation every other week.
A judgment of divorce was rendered on October 2, 2019. The parties
were to share custody of the children, with the parties alternating visitation
every other week. No domiciliary parent was designated.
Heather began dating Eric Hagmeyer in 2019, and she married him in
2023. James married Heather Bays in June of 2023, after they had been in a
relationship since July of 2022.
In June of 2024, James took his family on vacation to Colorado.
Before they left, Heather told James that CL may have been exposed to a
bacterial infection. CL vomited when they arrived in Dallas, so James took
CL to a Quick Care medical facility. The doctor there thought it was a viral
infection, but prescribed antibiotics in case CL’s condition worsened. With
a few days remaining in the trip, James brought CL to an onsite Nurse
Practitioner (“NP”) because he continued to feel unwell. She said CL’s vitals were fine and suggested letting the virus run its course. CL returned to
the NP the day before they left because he looked pale.
Upon returning to Bossier City late on Saturday night, James
exchanged custody with Heather’s parents because Heather was in Texas
and they could not agree on an exchange location in Texas. James claimed
that he told Heather’s mother that CL needed to go to the doctor in the
morning. Heather took CL to a pediatrician on Monday after he vomited,
and he was subsequently admitted to the hospital for nearly a week for
treatment of an infection.
On July 8, 2024, Heather filed a rule to show cause seeking to have
CL’s visitation with James suspended until his health improved. She also
sought a Joint Custody Implementation Plan (“JCIP”), the continuation of
shared custody, and that she be named as domiciliary parent.
James filed an answer and a reconventional demand. He maintained
that the ex parte order suspending visitation was not in compliance with La.
C.C.P. art. 3945, and he sought an immediate order rescinding it. James
wanted to continue with shared physical custody, but with him as the
domiciliary parent and subject to a JCIP.
On July 29, 2024, the trial court vacated the order suspending
visitation. On November 18, 2024, the court rendered judgment awarding
shared custody subject to a JCIP.
Trial
In 2025, the court heard testimony concerning the domiciliary parent
issue on June 10, September 15, and September 24.
2
Heather testified at length about actions taken by James and decisions
made by him which she believed disqualified him from being the
domiciliary parent. Her complaints mostly centered around the following:
• The latter part of the Colorado trip fell on her weekend. She
had asked James to reschedule it, and his response was that
their plane tickets were not refundable. In addition, James did
not keep her completely updated on CL’s health while they
were in Colorado.
• She was unable to attend several medical appointments because
she was unaware that they had been scheduled. James has
rescheduled other appointments without informing her.
• She almost missed a doctor’s appointment for CL when James
did not tell her that he and her son had been brought to the
exam room early.
• She learned for the first time at a doctor’s appointment that
James had switched the children’s health insurance to his wife’s
insurer. At a later doctor’s appointment, she learned that James
was no longer using his wife’s insurance. James has not
provided her with a new insurance card.
• AL was referred by her pediatrician to an endocrinologist at
Ochsner. James unilaterally switched to an endocrinologist at
Willis Knighton.
• James did not inform her when he had taken the children to
Quick Care during his week.
• The children are often starving when they return from James’s
house because they eat plant-based chicken nuggets and wheat
bread while there. They also only get two little pieces of
French toast sticks for breakfast.
• James forces AL to interact with a friend who bullies her.
• AL takes Levothyroxine every day, while CL takes a
multivitamin and folic acid. James only gives her the exact
number of pills that the children will need to take while with
her. She is also never told when prescriptions are ready.
• James had signed the children up for numerous extracurricular
activities without discussing it with her beforehand.
3
• James listed him and his wife as emergency contacts for a
school field trip.
• James hired a tutor for AL during his week without discussing
it with her.
• She used to call the kids multiple times each day, but after
James remarried, she was no longer able to call the children as
often. After court intervention, she now calls them every day,
although James limits the calls to ten minutes. James does not
call the children when they are at her home.
• For CL’s birthday in August of 2024, she asked James for the
addresses of his parents and of his wife’s family in order to
send them party invitations because CL really wanted them
there, but James refused to give her the addresses. James has
not invited her or her family to other birthday parties that he has
hosted. Before the JCIP, she did not see the children on their
birthdays because they fell on James’s week.
• CL asked if they were “drunkards and druggers,” and said that
was what his paternal grandmother told him. She also said that
they were not God’s people.
• James wants to keep his family separate from her family.
James has told her that the children have two families, and he
will remain focused on building his own.
• She learned from AL that she was getting baptized. When she
asked James about it, he replied that it was not his
responsibility to tell her about it. She contacted the church to
find out when the baptism was going to occur. James told her
that CL was being baptized two days beforehand. In addition,
he would not allow the children to attend their cousin’s
baptism.
• James is not flexible with exchanges. She cited one instance
when she asked James if they could be flexible with the
exchange because they would be busy with Thanksgiving
cooking, and he replied that exchanges could only occur at the
designated locations.
• James will not give her the contact information for any family
hosting a sleepover attended by the children.
4
Ruling
The court noted that Heather acknowledged that James was
responsible during their marriage for registering the children for school. The
court believed that under the circumstances, James was the more appropriate
person to be named as the domiciliary parent. The court concluded that
more of the evidence supported James being named as the domiciliary
parent.
On November 17, 2025, the court rendered judgment designating
James as the domiciliary parent. The judgment further stated that James and
Heather shall be listed as emergency contacts on all school platforms, that
James and Heather shall input any and all information regarding the children
onto the Our Family Wizard app, and that all family vacations and trips were
to be scheduled during the custodial parent’s week of physical custody.
Heather has appealed.
DISCUSSION
Heather argues on appeal that the trial court did not consider the
twelfth factor of La. C.C. art. 134 when it designated James as the
domiciliary parent. That factor is the “willingness and ability of each party
to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing relationship between the
child and the other party, except when objectively substantial evidence of
specific abusive, reckless, or illegal conduct has caused one party to have
reasonable concerns for the child’s safety or well-being while in the care of
the other party.”
The paramount consideration in any determination of child custody is
the best interest of the child. La. C.C. art. 131; Abrams v. Turner, 52,922
5
(La. App. 2 Cir. 9/25/19), 282 So. 3d 304. The best interest of the child is
the sole criterion to be met in making a custody award, as the trial court sits
as a sort of fiduciary on behalf of the child and must pursue actively that
course of conduct which will be of the greatest benefit to the child. Hodges
v. Hodges, 15-0585 (La. 11/23/15), 181 So. 3d 700; Rasbury v. Rasbury,
56,391 (La. App. 2 Cir. 7/16/25), 418 So. 3d 483. The non-exclusive list of
relevant factors to be considered in determining the best interest of the child
is found in La. C.C. art. 134.
While the court is not bound to make a mechanical evaluation of all
the statutory factors listed in La. C.C. art. 134, it should decide each case on
its own facts in light of those factors. Harris v. Rogers, 56,915 (La. App. 2
Cir. 7/15/26), 2026 WL 2035834, __ So. 3d __; Abrams, supra. Nor is the
court bound to give more weight to one factor over another; rather, when
determining the best interest of the child, the factors must be weighed and
balanced in view of the evidence presented. Id. The factors are provided as
a guide to the court, and the relative weight given to each factor is left to the
discretion of the trial court. Id.
A trial court’s determination in the establishment of custody is entitled
to great weight and will not be reversed on appeal unless an abuse of
discretion is clearly shown. Thompson v. Thompson, 532 So. 2d 101 (La.
1988); Rasbury, supra.
Heather works in a retail consignment store owned by her family, and
she also helps her husband with his painting business. At the time of trial,
Heather had been living in a home in Bossier for less than two years and was
6
buying it. That is her eighth home since the separation. In several instances,
she was forced to move because of mold or electrical problems.
James is a software developer for a Shreveport business. He lived in
the family home in Keithville for about a year after the separation, then
moved to a home in Bossier City, where he lived for one year. He built a
home in Bossier City where he has lived since May of 2020.
Heather testified that at first, the children would go back and forth,
and there were times when she would not have custody for an entire week.
She also testified that she allowed James to schedule medical and
dental appointments when they divorced because she felt sorry for him and
she wanted him to have something to do. James went to all the
appointments. Heather agreed that it was fair to say that up until 2024,
James had been primarily responsible for seeing to the children’s medical
needs.
According to Heather, James registered the children each school year
because she did not understand how to register them over a zoom call. They
have both registered the children for the last couple of years of school.
When Heather had to work early, she would often bring the children
to James in the morning to get them to school. Sometimes, the children
were not dressed or had not been fed breakfast when they arrived at James’s
home.
Heather wanted to enroll the children at University Elementary in
Shreveport for the 2023-2024 school year because it was close to her home
at the time, she had gone there, and University’s earlier starting time would
have helped her. James objected to it, so she dropped it.
7
Heather acknowledged that James has always carried the children on
his insurance, and until the JCIP was implemented, he did not ask her to
reimburse him for what he paid for medical insurance.
Heather testified that being domiciliary parent meant being able to
keep one big family for the children. If she were made domiciliary parent,
she would continue to have a willingness to involve James with the children,
and to encourage the children to maintain a relationship with their father.
Heather feared that James, in the role of domiciliary parent, would
not notify her of events in the children’s lives. She wanted to be involved in
decisions about the children.
Emily Lester, James’s mother, testified that she kept the children at
her home after school for about four years. Later, she would meet the school
bus and then watch the children at James’s home. She further testified that
James had the kids most of the time from 2018 to 2023, and during that time
frame, James made the medical and dental appointments and took the kids to
them. She went to most of those appointments with James. She denied
referring to Heather and her husband as “drunkards and druggers,” or saying
that they were going to Hell.
James testified that they started out with a 50-50 custody arrangement,
but it quickly became 70-30, and he sometimes had the children for two
weeks in a row. He described the custody routine as sporadic and random,
and that for four years, he had the children more than Heather did.
James testified that Heather would not be at many medical and dental
appointments, but she has come to every appointment since seeking
domiciliary status. He also testified that he placed the children in daycare
8
when they were younger, and he has been primarily responsible for
registering the kids for school and getting their after-school activities set up.
He did not think that Heather was very involved in school matters before she
sought domiciliary status.
Regarding what happened with the endocrinologist, James testified
that AL was seen by a NP at Ochsner. Ochsner is not in his insurance
network, so he told Heather that he would switch AL to an endocrinologist
at Willis Knighton unless she agreed to pay half of the bill.
James testified that he tried to keep Heather informed about anything
involving the children. He felt that prior to July of 2024, she was not very
responsive when he gave her information about their medical treatment and
school-related activities. She never asked to see the children on their
birthdays. He told Heather that he placed an insurance card in an envelope
in CL’s backpack, but the envelope was unopened when CL returned the
next week. He believed that he provided the children with normal food
when they were with him. He did not invite Heather or her family to the
children’s birthday parties because they are small gatherings with just
immediate family members present.
James was not pleased that Heather allowed the children to watch a
movie about zombies in 2023, or that she permitted a seven-year-old CL to
get his ears pierced over his objection. He testified that CL accused him of
lying and taking his mother’s trailer and cooking pots, and CL also told him
that Heather is always griping about him.
James did not believe that Heather exercised good judgment or was in
a position of stability. He feared that, if she were domiciliary parent, she
9
would move them from their schools based on her history of frequent moves,
change their doctors, upend what is familiar to them, and give them full
access to online entertainment choices. Heather complains that he allows
CL to play a violent video game.
James testified that if he were designated domiciliary parent, he would
continue to keep Heather informed of all medical and dental appointments
and school matters, and would include her in discussions about decisions
about the children.
It is apparent from the record that both parents care deeply about the
children and desire what is best for them. Based on our review of the record,
we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in designating
James as the domiciliary parent.
Deficient brief
James argues that Heather’s appellant brief is deficient because it
contains five pages of facts without corresponding references to page
numbers in the record. He maintains that the argument should be struck.
Under the circumstances of this case, we find that striking or not considering
the argument would be unnecessarily harsh.
CONCLUSION
At Heather’s costs, the judgment is AFFIRMED.
10