Zachary Joel Seay v. Kirby Jane Banks

── Zachary Joel Seay v. Kirby Jane Banks ── Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal Date: May 13, 2026 Category: General NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 26-12 ZACHARY JOEL SEAY VERSUS KIRBY JANE BANKS ********** APPEAL FROM THE THIRTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF VERNON, NUMBER 100,937, DIVISION B HONORABLE C. ANTHONY EAVES, DISTRICT JUDGE ********** SHARON DARVILLE WILSON JUDGE ********** Court composed of Elizabeth A. Pickett, Shannon J. Gremillion, and Sharon Darville Wilson, Judges. AFFIRMED. Elvin C. Fontenot, Jr. LAW OFFICE OF ELVIN C. FONTENOT, JR. 110 East Texas Street Leesville, Louisiana 71446 (337) 239-2684 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE: Zachary Joel Seay Jonathan T. Jarrett THE JARRETT FIRM 1304 Lafayette Street Lafayette, Louisiana 70501 (337) 291-9833 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT: Kirby Jane Banks WILSON, Judge. In this custody proceeding, the mother, Kirby Jane Banks (Ms. Banks), appeals the trial court judgment awarding sole custody of the two minor children to their father, Zachary Joel Seay (Mr. Seay). We affirm. I. ISSUES Ms. Banks asserts the following six assignments of error: 1. The trial court failed to properly consider the history of domestic violence between the parties in evaluating the custody factors in La.[Civ.Code] art. 134. 2. The trial court improperly failed to admit evidence concerning the history of domestic violence between the parties. 3. The trial court failed to comport with the requirements of the Post Separation Family Violence Relief Act concerning awards of custody or visitation to parents with a history of family violence. 4. The [t]rial [c]ourt failed to apply the proper legal standard in awarding [s]ole [c]ustody to the Father. 5. The trial court failed to allow Mother finite and enforceable time periods in its considered decree of child custody, in violation of her constitutional rights and authority as a parent. 6. The trial court failed to admit testimony of Mother’s treating physician, which would have influenced the outcome of the case. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW The trial court is in a better position to evaluate the best interest of the child from its observances of the parties and witnesses; thus, a trial court’s determination in a child custody case is entitled to great weight on appeal and will not be disturbed unless there is a clear abuse of discretion. Hawthorne v. Hawthorne, 96-89, p. 12 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/22/96), 676 So.2d 619, 625, writ denied, 96-1650 (La. 10/25/96), 681 So.2d 365. Ms. Banks, however, argues that a de novo review of the record is warranted based on alleged legal errors by the trial court. Having determined that the trial court did not make any error of law, as discussed more fully below, we review this matter under the manifest error and abuse of discretion standards of review: the trial court’s factual findings are reviewed for manifest error while “the actual custody issue is subject to an abuse of discretion evaluation.” Hebert v. Blanchard, 97-550, p. 6 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/29/97), 702 So.2d 1102, 1106. III. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Mr. Seay and Ms. Banks were married on August 20, 2005, and were divorced by judgment dated February 21, 2013, 1 in Lafayette Parish, Louisiana. Three children were born of or legitimi