home. Sally testified that “it would be weird with him going home every night.” However, the restriction mandating that situation was imposed by the parties themselves, and Sally admits that she believed it to be in her children’s best interests at the time of the consent judgment. The record simply does not support a finding that having Sally’s fiancé babysit the ^children alone or spend the night with Sally while the children are present is in the children’s best interests. Courts of this state have recognized that an award of custody is not a tool to regulate human behavior. See Montgomery v. Marcantel, 591 So.2d 1272, 1274 (La.App. 3 Cir.1991). Additionally, societal attitudes toward unmarried couples living together have changed over the years. See Montgomery, 591 So.2d at 1274 (<HOLDING>); compare Lozes v. Lozes, 542 So.2d 603, 605
recognizing that in todays society conduct which would once have been scandalous is acceptable or perhaps even the norm holding that im proper means may be wrongful by reason of a statute or other regulation or a recognized rule of common law or perhaps an established standard of a trade or profession holding that even in separate trial other crimes evidence would not have been admissible and identification testimony would have been admissible recognizing the possibility that a defendant could have been prejudiced by the actual conduct of a codefendants defense holding that such conduct or the causing of the result must have been the persons conscious objective