Before the Fatal Exchange: Inside the 14th JDC Custody Battle Behind the Allen Murder Case

He filed Thursday. She killed him Saturday. Ten days later, the sheriff’s return records that she was served with his custody papers.

MOSS BLUFF — Brett Daigle’s attorneys filed to change custody, visitation and child support—and hold his former wife in contempt—on May 22, 2025.

Two days later, Randolyn Paige Allen shot and killed him during a custody exchange.

Ten days after the shooting, a sheriff’s return records personal service of those court papers on Allen.

By then, attorney Alyson Vamvoras’s office had notified court personnel of Daigle’s death and requested that pending service be stopped.

That sequence appears in the family-court record preceding Allen’s October 15, 2026, conviction for second-degree murder.

According to KPLC’s courtroom coverage, jurors watched Daigle’s cellphone recording of the encounter and returned their verdict after approximately half an hour of deliberation. Sentencing was scheduled for December 9. KPLC trial coverage⁠

The verdict determined Allen’s criminal responsibility. The family-court documents show how the custody arrangement developed, what Daigle sought to change and what happened to his filing after his death.

The agreement before the conflict returned

Allen filed for divorce in September 2022, shortly before the couple’s twentieth wedding anniversary.

Her petition alleged that Daigle had threatened suicide, sent a recorded farewell and made threatening statements involving her and the children. It referenced supporting exhibits that were not available for this review.

The records reviewed do not show a contested hearing determining whether those allegations were true.

An October 20, 2022, minute entry instead states that the parties had reached an agreement. The scheduled hearing was passed without a new date pending settlement documents.

Judge W. Mitchell “Mitch” Redd signed the judgment adopting the parties’ joint stipulation and custody plan as court orders.

Allen received sole custody. Daigle could have reasonable visitation while in Louisiana during the school year, “as agreed upon by the parties.” Other visitation also required agreement.

The visitation provision reviewed supplied no fixed calendar to govern contact when the parents could not agree.

Their divorce judgment was rendered and signed March 14, 2024. Attorney Erin Abrams represented Allen at that hearing. Daigle appeared representing himself.

What he wanted changed

By May 2025, Daigle was asking for a different arrangement.

His filing alleged repeated denied visits, blocked telephone communication and visits restricted to Allen’s home. It listed specific occasions in 2024 when he said requests for contact had been denied.

He also alleged exclusion from educational and medical records and decisions.

With the older children now adults, he sought joint custody and equal access to the remaining minor child. Alternatively, he requested specific visitation, including at his Colorado home, defined telephone access and shared travel expenses.

He argued that the child’s homeschooling allowed flexibility for visits during the school year.

These were Daigle’s allegations and requests. The documents reviewed do not show a court finding that Allen wrongfully withheld the child.

He was seeking an order granting more clearly defined access. The earlier arrangement depended on agreement.

A family trip and a fatal exchange

Daigle’s current wife described the Louisiana trip as a family visit planned months ahead that expanded into a reunion with Brett’s relatives.

Planning that trip and arranging the particular custody exchange were separate matters. The complete communications governing the May 24 visit were not available for this review.

At trial, prosecutor Charles Robinson described a scheduled visit for which Daigle had provided advance notice. Joyce testified that she encouraged her husband to record the encounter, saying his attorney had advised it, according to KPLC.

Defense attorney King Alexander emphasized Allen’s claimed fear, her cooperation with investigators and the defense’s explanation that she experienced substance-induced auditory hallucinations.

KPLC reported that Alexander acknowledged Allen’s teenage son did not hear the alleged threat. Her treating nurse practitioner testified that her records contained no documented history of psychosis or hallucinations. The jury returned a second-degree murder verdict. KPLC courtroom reporting⁠

The earlier family-court allegations do not establish justification for the shooting. The conviction does not independently determine the truth of every allegation made during the divorce.

The request to stop service

The clearest unexplained sequence appears after Daigle’s death.

On May 29, an email from Vamvoras’s office notified court personnel that Daigle had died. It confirmed that the office had filed the custody, visitation, support and contempt rule on May 22.

The email was addressed to Jodi Harlow, Rhonda Verzwyvelt and Hearing Officer Tom Shea, with Vamvoras copied.

According to the email, a hearing officer conference was scheduled for June 25 at 9 a.m. The accompanying notice identified Shea as the hearing officer.

Vamvoras’s office requested that the conference be removed from the docket and “any pending service on Ms. Allen be terminated.”

The email was filed in the court record May 30. The hearing notice reviewed also bears a May 30 date.

The sheriff’s return records receipt of the service paperwork on June 2 and personal service on Allen by Deputy Miller on June 3 at 12:35 p.m.

That was ten days after the shooting and five days after the email requesting that pending service stop. The records reviewed do not establish whether Allen knew about the filing before the shooting.

The child left behind

A later hearing officer’s report states that the remaining minor child continued living with her maternal grandfather after Allen’s arrest.

Allen had also lived in his household before her arrest, according to the report, which identifies the grandfather as the petitioner in the subsequent custody proceeding. The page reviewed does not establish the final custody award.

For the children, the consequences extend beyond the docket: their father is dead, their mother has been convicted of killing him, and their family’s private conflict became public evidence.

The records do not establish that the 14th Judicial District Court caused the killing or could have predicted it. They leave unanswered questions about how an arrangement dependent on agreement functioned once cooperation broke down.

What assistance did either parent seek? How were competing allegations of danger and denied access assessed? Were additional exchange safeguards requested or considered? The materials reviewed do not supply those answers.