parent’s right to visitation is the best interest of the child. Under Article 136, the parent seeking to restrict or deny access or visitation of the other parent to the child has the burden of proving that visitation would not be in best interest of the child. Since Ms. Mire was the party that sought to terminate visitation, she had the burden of proof on this issue. Absent conclusive evidence that visitation would seriously endanger the child’s physical, mental, moral, or emotional health, a noncustodial parent is entitled to reasonable visitation rights. Maxwell v. LeBlanc, 434 So.2d 375 (La.1983); see Smith v. Smith, 41,871 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1/24/07), 948 So.2d 386, writ not considered, 07-0621 (La.4/20/07), 954 So.2d 149, reconsideration denied, 07-0621 (La.6/22/07), 959 So.2d 485 (<HOLDING>); see also La. C.C. art. 137 (denying
holding that the presumption of legitimacy shifts the burden of persuasion to the putative father to establish that he did not father the child holding that a child was not barred by a former statute of limitations applicable to actions to establish the existence of a father and child relationship when the current action was to establish the nonexistence of a father and child relationship and the presumed father no longer persisted in maintaining paternity holding that plaintiff had cared for his father who suffered severe depression after murder of his daughter within meaning of fmla interim regulation because inter alia he discussed with his father grief associated with murder and provided reassuring physical presence to his father holding that fiveyearold child was not required to visit in prison the father who was convicted of murder holding that the trial court had erred in imposing an obligation to pay child support when clear and convincing evidence established that the husband was not the father of the child