The Undergraduate Law Review at UC San Diego

Family law procedures in the United States are constitutionally mandated to balance state interests with the private interests of families. The Louisiana family court system serves as an example of this balancing effort, where Bergeron v. Bergeron (1986) creates the standards controlling the state’s rules for child custody modification. Bergeron sets a high evidentiary threshold that must be met before a family court will reconsider an existing custody decree, reflecting the state’s interest in stability. Questions about the decision’s constitutionality have arisen, but the framework in Bergeron has been continually reaffirmed since its establishment by the Louisiana Supreme Court in 1986. This article analyzes the major doctrinal inconsistencies and Fourteenth Amendment due process concerns arising from the Bergeron standard, arguing that the Louisiana custody modification framework risks creating procedural due process barriers and conflicts with prior Supreme Court decisions regarding parental rights. It will also propose a recalibrated approach to custody modification proceedings that preserves state interests while upholding fundamental parental rights and liberty interests.