¶1concurring in the result:
¶2This case was essentially a conflict of fact evidence and expert testimony which the trial court resolved in favor of appellee. A reading of the record does not show that the trial court’s findings and conclusions are clearly wrong.
¶3Appellant’s argument that her psychiatrist’s testimony was wrongfully excluded has no merit on appeal because she failed to proffer the testimony in accordance with C.C.P. art. 1636.