Matthew J. Broussard v. Anna K. Mack

── Matthew J. Broussard v. Anna K. Mack ── Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal Date: May 20, 2026 Category: General STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 25-741 MATTHEW J. BROUSSARD VERSUS ANNA K. MACK ********** APPEAL FROM THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF ACADIA, NO. 202510451 HONORABLE DAVID A. BLANCHET, DISTRICT JUDGE ********** VAN H. KYZAR JUDGE ********** Court composed of Van H. Kyzar, Ledricka J. Thierry, and Wilbur L. Stiles, Judges. AFFIRMED. Jeffery S. Wittenbrink Wittenbrink Law Firm 331 St. Ferdinand Street Baton Rouge, LA 70802 (225) 308-6850 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT: Anna K. Mack Matthew J. Broussard 207 Thirteenth Street Mermentau, LA 70566 (337) 368-5661 PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE: PRO SE KYZAR, Judge. Defendant, Anna K. Mack, appeals from two trial court judgments adopting the custody and visitation recommendations and the child support recommendations of the hearing officer in favor of Plaintiff, Matthew J. Broussard. For the following reasons, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiff and Defendant, although never married, are the parents of two minor children. On May 14, 2025, Plaintiff, in proper person, filed a Rule for Custody, Visitation, Paternity, Child Support, Spousal Support or Other Relief against Defendant, seeking sole custody of the children, supervised periodic visitation in favor of Defendant, and child support. The trial court’s May 25, 2025 order set a hearing officer conference for July 8, 2025, and a subsequent August 5, 2025 hearing in the event either party timely objected to the hearing officer’s recommendations. Defendant was personally served with Plaintiff’s rule on June 9, 2025. On Thursday, July 3, 2025, Defendant retained counsel to represent her at the hearing. On July 7, counsel notified the hearing officer and the Acadia Parish Clerk of Court of his representation of Defendant via email and facsimile. As he was unable to attend the July 8 hearing, he requested that the matter be continued. Based on his telephone conversation with a deputy clerk, he was incorrectly told that his letter requesting a continuance was sufficient to continue the matter and that a formal motion was not necessary. He later received an email from the deputy clerk informing him that she had “filed the fax letter and removed the matter from the docket.” Based on this response, counsel informed Defendant that the matter had been continued.  Plaintiff, who was now represented by counsel, appeared at the July 8, 2025 hearing before the hearing officer with his counsel present. In the July 9, 2025 findings of fact regarding the custody and visitation issue and the child support issue, the hearing officer stated: Counsel for the mother, who the undersigned notes is not formally enrolled in this matter, reached out to the clerks’ [sic] office Monday, July 7, 2025, the day before this conference, and requested that today’s hearing be continued via letter fax filed with the clerk’s office. Apparently, the clerk’s office responded to counsel that the matter would be taken off of the docket while advising of the cost for filing a formal and order to re-set. Thereafter, the undersigned hearing officer contacted counsel via email to inquire if the other party was contacted and whether or not the continuance was opposed or unopposed. The undersigned hearing officer never received any response from counsel for the mother. A copy of the email correspondence and letter from counsel for the mother is attached hereto. As of the start of today’s hearing, coun