§345. Appointment of attorney in child custody or visitation proceedings
A. In any child custody or visitation proceeding, the court, upon its own motion, upon motion of any parent or party, or upon motion of the child, may appoint an attorney to represent the child if, after a contradictory hearing, the court determines such appointment would be in the best interest of the child. In determining the best interest of the child, the court shall consider:
(1) Whether the child custody or visitation proceeding is exceptionally intense or protracted.
(2) Whether an attorney representing the child could provide the court with significant information not otherwise readily available or likely to be presented to the court.
(3) Whether there exists a possibility that neither parent is capable of providing an adequate and stable environment for the child.
(4) Whether the interests of the child and those of either parent, or of another party to the proceeding, conflict.
(5) Any other factor relevant in determining the best interest of the child.
B. The court shall appoint an attorney to represent the child if, in the contradictory hearing, any party presents a prima facie case that a parent or other person caring for the child has sexually, physically, or emotionally abused the child or knew or should have known that the child was being abused.
C. The order appointing an attorney to represent the child shall serve as his enrollment as counsel of record on behalf of the child.
D. Upon appointment as attorney for the child, the attorney shall interview the child, review all relevant records, and conduct discovery as deemed necessary to ascertain facts relevant to the child's custody or visitation.
E. The appointed attorney shall have the right to make any motion and participate in the custody or visitation hearing to the same extent as authorized for either parent.
F. Any costs associated with the appointment of an attorney at law shall be apportioned among the parties as the court deems just, taking into consideration the parties' ability to pay. When the parties' ability to pay is limited, the court shall attempt to secure proper representation without compensation.
Acts 1993, No. 261, §5, eff. Jan. 1, 1994.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
17
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1994–2022 · leading case:
Gerhardt v. Gerhardt, 70 So. 3d 863 (La. Ct. App. 2011).
Gerhardt v. Gerhardt, 70 So. 3d 863 (La. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 2× “R.S. 9:345 based on the children’s claims of abuse by Walter.”
Manno v. Manno, 154 So. 3d 655 (La. Ct. App. 2014).
“R.S. 9:345. However, despite the allegations against Mark, Molly filed a motion to dissolve the protective order on January 18, 2007, and a contradictory hearing was held wherein Molly was questioned by the juvenile court regarding the alleged sexual abuse of A.”
Rodock v. Pommier, 225 So. 3d 512 (La. Ct. App. 2017).
“R.S. 9:345. These orders reflect an attempt by | inthe judge to foster and promote the best interest of the *520 child and are not evidence of bias or prejudice against Pauline.”
C.L.S. v. G.J.S., 953 So. 2d 1025 (La. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 8× “LsR.S. 9:345(A) provides in relevant part that “[i]n any child custody case .”
Nail v. Clavier, 745 So. 2d 1221 (La. Ct. App. 1999).
“R.S. 9:345 authorizes the trial court to apportion the cost of an attorney appointed in a child custody case as it deems just.”
Lamp v. Lamp, 833 So. 2d 1224 (La. Ct. App. 2002).
“R.S. 9:345(A). Attached to this motion was a copy of Scott's petition to annul the judgment changing Dakota's name, alleging fraud and ill practices by the Pearsons.”
Gallet v. Gallet, 10 So. 3d 255 (La. Ct. App. 2009).
“R.S. 9:345. We further note that the language of the statute makes it clear that the decision as to whether to appoint an attorney for a child is discretionary with the trial court.”
Cls v. Gjs, 953 So. 2d 1025 (La. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 8× “R.S. 9:345(A) provides in relevant part that "[i]n any child custody case .”
Chance v. Chance, 817 So. 2d 492 (La. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 5× “R.S. 9:345(A), over the objections of *496 either parent.”
McGovern v. McGovern, 189 So. 3d 503 (La. Ct. App. 2016).
“Before making this determination, the court shall hold a contradictory hearing as provided for in R.S. 9:345 in order to determine whether the court should appoint an attorney to represent the child.”
Laurent v. Prevost, 251 So. 3d 504 (2018).
· cites it 3× “R.S. 9:345 because the trial court failed to hold a contradictory hearing on the issue and take into account the parties' ability to pay for the representation.”
Hagen v. Hagen, 110 So. 3d 172 (La. Ct. App. 2012).
“LSA-R.S. 9:345(A). The Incomes Shares approach to child support guidelines incorporates a numerical schedule of support amounts.”
— La. Rev. Stat. § 9:345(A) — 7 cases
Lamp v. Lamp, 833 So. 2d 1224 (La. Ct. App. 2002).
“R.S. 9:345(A). Attached to this motion was a copy of Scott's petition to annul the judgment changing Dakota's name, alleging fraud and ill practices by the Pearsons.”
C.L.S. v. G.J.S., 953 So. 2d 1025 (La. Ct. App. 2007).
“LsR.S. 9:345(A) provides in relevant part that “[i]n any child custody case .”
Cls v. Gjs, 953 So. 2d 1025 (La. Ct. App. 2007).
“R.S. 9:345(A) provides in relevant part that "[i]n any child custody case .”
Hagen v. Hagen, 110 So. 3d 172 (La. Ct. App. 2012).
“LSA-R.S. 9:345(A). The Incomes Shares approach to child support guidelines incorporates a numerical schedule of support amounts.”
Chance v. Chance, 817 So. 2d 492 (La. Ct. App. 2002).
“R.S. 9:345(A), over the objections of *496 either parent.”
— La. Rev. Stat. § 9:345(B) — 2 cases
C.L.S. v. G.J.S., 953 So. 2d 1025 (La. Ct. App. 2007).
“LsR.S. 9:345(A) provides in relevant part that “[i]n any child custody case .”
Cls v. Gjs, 953 So. 2d 1025 (La. Ct. App. 2007).
“R.S. 9:345(A) provides in relevant part that "[i]n any child custody case .”
— La. Rev. Stat. § 9:345(D) — 2 cases
C.L.S. v. G.J.S., 953 So. 2d 1025 (La. Ct. App. 2007).
“LsR.S. 9:345(A) provides in relevant part that “[i]n any child custody case .”
Cls v. Gjs, 953 So. 2d 1025 (La. Ct. App. 2007).
“R.S. 9:345(A) provides in relevant part that "[i]n any child custody case .”
— La. Rev. Stat. § 9:345(F) — 1 case
Chance v. Chance, 817 So. 2d 492 (La. Ct. App. 2002).
“R.S. 9:345(A), over the objections of *496 either parent.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.