State of Louisiana In The Interest of E. F.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2010 CJ 1185 STATE OF LOUISIANA IN THE INTEREST OF E JR F On Appeal from the City Court of Slidell Parish of St Tammany Louisiana Docket No 2009 JS 0264 Juvenile Division Honorable James Jim Lamz Judge Presiding Walter P Reed Attorneys for District Attorney Covington LA State of Louisiana and Kathryn Landry Special Appeals Counsel Baton Rouge LA Wayne M Aufrecht Covington LA Attorney for Appellant F E Sr Bryan D Haggerty Attorney for Appellant Slidell LA F J BEFORE PARRO GUIDRY AND HUGHES JJ Judgment rendered October 29 2010 PARRO J The parents of a minor child adjudicated a child in need of care appeal the judgment of the juvenile court assigning the guardianship of the child to his godparents and closing the case of the State of Louisiana through the Department of Social Services Office of Community Services OCS without further court review For the reasons that follow we affirm the judgment of the juvenile court FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND EI the minor child at issue in this matter was taken into the custody of OCS at the age of two months pursuant to an oral instanter order of custody after he was treated by physicians at Children Hospital in New Orleans with what the physicians s deemed to be serious non accidental lifethreatening injuries Specifically EJ was found to have suffered multiple rib fractures and large bilateral subdural hematomas which the physicians stated were consistent with inflicted trauma such as child abuse Neither the parents nor any of the extended family members interviewed by OCS could provide any explanation for the child injuries s Included in the record is the report of Dr Yameika Head a forensic pediatrician at Children Hospital who interviewed JF and reviewed El medical records According s s to this report EJ was in normal health prior to December 8 2008 based on the history provided by JF the mother of El 3 Prior to going to work that morning JF bathed El and she apparently noticed that he seemed very quiet EF then babysat the children The Slidell City Court exercises juvenile jurisdiction for its territorial jurisdiction pursuant to LSACh C art 302 As a court exercising juvenile jurisdiction it has exclusive original jurisdiction in conformity 4 with any special rules prescribed by law over any child alleged to be in need of care and the parents of any such child LSA Ch art 604 C 2 The child and his parents are referred to by their initials to preserve their anonymity in this confidential proceeding The minor child and his father share the same initials The father goes by EF Sr and the minor child was referred to in the record as EF EF Jr or El For clarity we will refer to the father as EF and the minor child as EJ 3 At various times in the record the date of EJ first hospitalization is stated as December 10 2008 s however Dr Head report and the juvenile court written reasons for judgment use the date of s s December 8 2008 We will use that date for consistency 4 IF has another young son from another relationship who lives in the house with her EF and EJ EF also has a young daughter from another relationship who sometimes lives in the house with them 2 while IF went to work Later IF EF and EJ went to the mall and IF noticed that EJ would not eat She further noticed that EJ hands were pulsing his eyes were looking s to the left and he was jittery IF apparently called EJ doctor office and the doctor s s told her to take EJ to the emergency department at Children Hospital At that time EJ s was diagnosed with seizures and was given a full seizure workup including an MRI CT scans an EEG and various other tests EJ was then hospitalized until December 13 2008 when he was released with medication to control the seizures Approximately ten days later IF and her other son noticed that EJ head looked s bigger than normal However no one took EJ to the doctor until several days later on December 27 2008 On that date IF was at work while EJ was again being cared for by EF EF contacted IF at work and told her that he noticed EJ pulsing hand s movement again He later told her that EJ was alert crying and moving When IF came home from work she tried to feed EJ but he would not eat She also noticed the pulsing hand movement IF then brought EJ to Children Hospital where EJ was s diagnosed with seizure activity again Various tests were performed on EJ including a head CT and a chest xray The CT scan revealed fluid on the brain so the Neurosurgery Department performed a subdural tap to relieve the pressure The fluid on El brain was described in one part of Dr Head report as well as in the CT scan s s report dated December 28 2008 as large bilateral chronic subdural hematomas most consistent with child abuse The chest xray revealed multiple healing rib fractures of the left rib cage most consistent with non accidental trauma The fractures were believed to be approximately two to four weeks old Also included in the record is a letter signed by Dr Lori A McBride E treating s neurosurgeon in which she noted that EJ was diagnosed with hematomas after he presented to the emergency room at Children Hospital with seizures an enlarging s s According to the information provided by IF in Dr Head report if both parents were at work the s maternal grandmother would care for EJ In testimony IF provided at a hearing in July 2009 she indicated that her sister and her grandmother also cared for him when she and EF were unavailable EJ is not in daycare however e He was also diagnosed with Respiratory Synctial Virus RSV 3 head circumference and a bulging fontanelle soft spot She acknowledged draining s EJ hematomas several times while he was in the hospital and she estimated that the blood within them was seven to twenty days in age when EJ was admitted She one also asserted that EJ injuries were clearly lifethreatening and that he had evidence of s permanent brain damage as a result of those injuries Finally Dr McBride stated in her letter that the combination of injuries sustained by EJ i the hematomas combined e with the elevated intracranial pressure and the rib fractures were consistent with non accidental trauma in her opinion After the initial subdural tap was performed to relieve the pressure on EJ brain s IF attempted to feed him However after he had eaten a little one of the doctors noticed that EJ respirations were decreasing Therefore EJ was intubated and placed s in the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit Dr Head stated in her report that IF had provided no history of trauma or any family or social history that would explain the injuries that EJ had suffered She also indicated that there was no evidence of a metabolic disorder or any bleeding or coagulation disorders that would explain the injuries Nevertheless Dr Head asserted that EJ had physical findings of head trauma as demonstrated by the bilateral chronic subdural hematomas brain contusions subarachnoid hemorrhages and scalp edema that had been discovered upon examination She also noted the skeletal trauma in the form of the multiple rib fractures suffered by EJ which were palpable upon physical examination She specifically stated that such fractures are generally suffered as the result of anterior posterior compression squeezing a direct blow to the chest or perhaps a crush injury Dr Head further asserted in her report that the seizure activity EJ was experiencing and that had led to his latest admission to the hospital was most likely due to the brain trauma he had sustained Dr Head indicated in her report that she had reported the matter to the appropriate authorities including OCS Therefore pursuant to LSACh art 620 C A an oral instanter order was issued by the juvenile court on January 13 2009 placing the child in the custody of the State The next day the juvenile court signed a written instanter order after it had received an affidavit from a representative of OCS setting forth the specific facts supporting the need for taking E into state custody The child was placed with his godparents Reverend Keith Boyd and his wife Kendra and a continued custody hearing was held on January 22 2009 At the hearing the parents simply stipulated that there were reasonable grounds to retain the child in custody without admitting any of the allegations against them Accordingly the juvenile court signed a written judgment on February 26 2009 finding that there were reasonable grounds to believe that El was a child in need of care and that continued custody with the State was in his best interest and was necessary for his safety and protection The juvenile court further found that OCS had made reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the need for removal of the child from his parents custody because there was a substantial immediate danger that precluded preventive services as an alternative to removal Finally the juvenile court found that OCS made reasonable efforts to reunify the child with his family including searching for a suitable relative placement to no avail On February 17 2009 the State through the Office of the District Attorney for the Parish of St Tammany filed a petition alleging that EJ was a child in need of care Pursuant to LSACh art 624 if a child is not released to the care of his parents a continued custody C hearing shall be held by the court within three days after the child removal or entry into custody In s this matter the continued custody hearing was originally scheduled for January 15 2009 however the parties asked the juvenile court to open the hearing and then recess for a week 8 see LSACh arts 626 and 603 C 6 23 5 on the following grounds The child is a victim of abuse andor neglect perpetrated aided or tolerated by the parent caretaker or person who maintains an inter personal dating or engagement relationship with the parent or caretaker and the child welfare is endangered if he is left with the s parent or caretaker more particularly as shown on the affidavit in support of instanter order on the sic file in these proceedings and made apart sic hereof The petition was later amended to allege with more specificity what injuries the child had suffered while in the custody of his parents i bone rib fractures and subdural e hematoma In addition the amended petition alleged that neither parent could account for how the injuries occurred which placed the child at a risk of harm A hearing on the issue of whether El would be adjudicated a child in need of care was scheduled for May 5 2009 after hearings scheduled for previous dates were opened and then recessed However after a lengthy pre trial conference between the juvenile judge the assistant district attorney and the attorneys for each parent and the child the parents again chose to enter a stipulation that the child was in need of care without admitting the allegations of the petition Accordingly the juvenile court adjudicated El to be a child in need of care finding that the State had proven by a preponderance of the evidence that one or more of the grounds set forth in LSACh C art 606 existed The juvenile court then proceeded to the issue of disposition According to the 9 Allegations that a child is in need of care must assert one or more of the enumerated grounds found in LSACh art 606 The petition filed by the district attorney in this matter asserts neglect pursuant to C A LSACh art 606 but it also asserts an allegation similar to the ground of abuse found in C 2 A Subparagraph A of Article 606 which provides 1 The child is the victim of abuse perpetrated aided or tolerated by the parent or caretaker by a person who maintains an interpersonal dating or engagement relationship with the parent or caretaker or by a person living in the same residence with the parent or caretaker as a spouse whether married or not and his welfare is seriously endangered if he is left within the custody or control of that parent or caretaker 10 Such a stipulation without admission is permitted pursuant to LSACh art 647 as long as certain C requirements are met First a pre hearing conference must be convened in accordance with LSACh C art 646 Such a conference was apparently held between the juvenile judge the assistant district 1 attorney and counsel for all other parties just prior to the hearing in this matter In addition LSACh C art 647 requires that the parents personally appear before the court The court must fully inform the 2 parents of their rights as well as the consequences of the stipulation including their responsibility to comply with the case plan and correct the conditions requiring the child to be in care LSACh art C 3 647 and 4 Finally the parents must knowingly and voluntarily consent to the judgment LSACh C art 647 All requirements appear to have been met in this case 5 6 written judgment of adjudication and disposition signed May 29 2009 the court found that the continued custody of the child with OCS was in the child best interest as it s was safe appropriate and the least restrictive placement consistent with the circumstances of the case The court further ordered that the case plan developed by OCS and dated February 16 2009 was in the best interest of the child and was made a part of the judgment Pursuant to the case plan the goal for the child was reunification with his parents but the child was to remain in the physical custody of the Boyds until reunification was possible The case plan also allowed the parents to have liberal visitation with EJ as long as it was supervised by the Boyds The judgment of adjudication and disposition was not appealed The various case plans in place for this family required that the parents maintain employment that they maintain contact with OCS that they provide support for their child while he remained in foster care and that they attend family therapy and parenting classes as well as various other requirements 12 It is undisputed that the parents made progress on certain parts of their case plan and that they were cooperative with OCS in partially complying with the requirements of the case plan However the case plan dated June 2009 also provided the following with regard to the specific issues conditions or behaviors that needed to be changed or demonstrated in order to keep the child safe 13 The parents will need to gain an understanding of the injuries their child sustained They will need to acknowledge that the injuries were non accidental in nature and that EJ was the victim of physical abuse They need to be able to verbalize how they are going to be able to protect him in the future from an injury such as he has suffered 11 The written judgment refers to the case plan as having been created on February 16 2009 however the written transcript of the hearing says the case plan was dated February 6 2009 Furthermore there is no case plan dated February 16 2009 Therefore it appears that the date in the judgment is a typographical error In any event a case plan dated June 30 2010 was approved by the juvenile court on August 10 2010 Accordingly the February case plan was superseded by a subsequent case plan At one point the case plan required EF to attend anger management courses however the juvenile court modified that portion of the plan at the sixmonth case review hearing in July 2009 to require EF to attend therapy to deal with certain issues surrounding abuse he may have suffered as a child 13 Other case plans had provided variations of the same statement 7 It is this portion of the case plan that is at issue in this matter because OCS contends that while the parents have made progress with other parts of their case plan they have not made any progress with this part On July 6 2009 the juvenile court convened a sixmonth case review hearing pursuant to LSACh art 692 The parents initially chose not to stipulate to anything C at this hearing as they had at previous hearings JF testified at the hearing and denied any knowledge of how EJ had been injured She indicated that she had questioned her mother grandmother and sister about whether they had ever accidentally dropped EJ while caring for him however she denied that she had ever asked EF if he had caused the injuries accidentally or otherwise She was never cross examined however because after a recess and a conference with the juvenile judge in chambers the parents again decided to stipulate without admission pursuant to LSACh art 647 C EF never testified at this or any other hearing In December 2009 OCS applied to the juvenile court for permission to have a subdural to peritoneal shunt inserted to help drain the fluid from El brain According s to the letter sent to the juvenile court by OCS the accumulation of fluid in EJ brain s had not drained in over six months and Dr McBride had recommended the insertion of the shunt At the parents request a second opinion was sought from another doctor however that doctor agreed with Dr McBride and the juvenile court approved the procedure Despite the recommendation of this procedure by two physicians EF apparently did not see the need for such procedures and tended to minimize his son health issues s according to at least one of the therapists and the Court Appointed Special Advocate CASA volunteer who worked with the family According to a letter in the record from Dana Hulsey one of the licensed clinical social workers appointed to work with the family EF denied that EJ had any lasting injury or that he needed a shunt at all Ms Hulsey further noted that EF seemed strongly against further medical treatment for El s injury during her sessions with him Likewise Lynn Bordes the CASA volunteer noted 8 in her report dated December 23 2009 that both parents tended to minimize the severity of his lifethreatening injuries preferring instead to focus on how well he was doing at the time The juvenile court convened a twelvemonth joint case review and permanency plan review hearing on April 6 2010 at which it also considered a joint motion to modify the judgment of disposition filed by the parents The motion to modify primarily sought the return of EJ to his parents However as an alternative prayer for relief the parents requested that El be returned to the custody of JF with EF agreeing to temporarily vacate the family home subject to his satisfactorily meeting certain guidelines set by the juvenile court In addition to the motion to modify at issue before the court was the recommendation by OCS that the permanent plan for El should be changed from reunification to a transfer of guardianship from his parents to the Boyds OCS further requested that its case be closed without further court review According to the minute entry from the above hearing the juvenile court apparently conducted a pretrial conference and then notified counsel for all parties that they were allowed to file briefs on the matter It appears that no new evidence or testimony was accepted into the record at this hearing although the juvenile court s written reasons for judgment indicate that the parties stipulated at the hearing that the parents had substantially complied with their case plan they had not provided OCS with an explanation as to how their infant son had received serious non accidental life threatening injuries The juvenile court gave the parents and the State the option to submit briefs on the issues within thirty days of the hearing The parents submitted a joint brief but the State did not submit a brief After reviewing the parents brief and the record the juvenile court issued 14 These hearings may be held simultaneously pursuant to LSACh art 711 C 15 There is no mention of this in the minute entry for this date nor is there a transcript of this hearing in the record However in various other places in the record as well as in the briefs on appeal it appears that the major disagreement between the parties is the fact that the parents were unable or unwilling to givecontinued safety forhehow the injuries to theirhad occurred nor were they able to provide any plan for an explanation if were returned to El care his 9 written reasons for judgment finding that it was clearly in EYs best interest to live outside his parents home Therefore the juvenile court granted guardianship of the child to the Boyds as the most appropriate and least restrictive placement The juvenile court later signed a judgment in accordance with its written reasons decreed permanent placement with the Boyds and closed the OCS case without further review 16 It is from this judgment that the parents have appealed DISCUSSION In their sole assignment of error on appeal EF and JF contend that the juvenile court erred in assigning guardianship to the Boyds when El injuries were never s confirmed to have been caused by the parents A court of appeal may not overturn a judgment of a juvenile court absent an error of law or a factual finding that is manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong See Stobart v State Through Department of Transportation and Development 617 So 2d 880 882 n La 1993 see also State In Interest of GA 942227 La App 1st Cir 2 95 27 7 664 So 106 110 2d Pursuant to this standard the twopart test for the appellate review of a factual finding is 1 whether there is a reasonable factual basis in the record for the finding of the juvenile court and 2 whether the record further establishes that the finding is not manifestly erroneous See Mart v Hill 505 So 2d 1120 1127 La 1987 Thus if there is no reasonable factual basis in the record for the trier of fact finding no additional inquiry is necessary to conclude there was s manifest error However if a reasonable factual basis exists an appellate court may set aside a factual finding only if after reviewing the record in its entirety it determines the factual finding was clearly wrong See Stobart 617 So at 882 Moss v State 2d 16 If at any point during the child in need of care proceedings the child is removed from his parents care and control and placed in the custody of the State the child case is required to go through a series of s case review and permanency plan review hearings until such time as the child achieves a permanent placement as defined by LSACh art 603 See LSACh arts 687 and 701 Pursuant to LSACh C C C art 603 placement with a legal guardian is considered a permanent placement c 20 We note that there is no notice of appeal in the record indicating that the attorney appointed to represent EJ appealed the judgment of the juvenile court However this court sent out a notice of abandonment to E7 counsel on July 26 2010 and when no brief was received the appeal was s dismissed as to EJ only on August 13 2010 10 07 1686 La App 1st Cir 8 993 So 687 693 writ denied 082166 La 08 2d 08 14 11 996 So 1092 2d Even though an appellate court may feel its own evaluations and inferences are as reasonable as the fact finder reasonable s evaluations of credibility and reasonable inferences of fact should not be disturbed upon review where conflict exists in the testimony Rosell v ESCO 549 So 840 844 La 2d 1989 In ruling on this matter the juvenile court issued written reasons for judgment in which it provided very detailed findings of fact Many of the facts upon which the court relied are stated above however the court also made the following findings The Court acknowledges that the parents have substantially complied with their case plan however the fact remains that the cause of this child serious life threatening injuries is unknown s In the February 12 2010 Court Letter OCS indicated that the parents have complied with all aspects of the case plan except for explaining how the child was injured and devising or articulating an explanation as to how they can keep the child safe should he be returned to their care case plan states in pertinent part The The parents will need to gain an understanding of the injuries that their child sustained They will need to acknowledge that the injuries were non accidental in nature and that EJ was the victim of physical abuse They need to be able to verbalize how they are going to be able to protect him in the future from an injury such as he has suffered Frankly most of the aspects of the case plan such as maintaining employment providing support etc are insignificant The child came into care for no other reason than these lifethreatening injuries By failing to explain how these injuries were inflicted and failing to provide OCS with a plan to ensure their child safety the parents have not altered s or modified in a significant way the behavior which served as a basis for the state removal of a child from the home The Court simply does not s believe that the parents in this matter do not know how this infant suffered broken ribs and chronic subdural hematomas that require medical intervention to this day To return the child to these parents who have failed to address the most important aspect of their case plan would not be in the child best interest as it would place the child at risk for further s abuse In addition to the danger of exposing this child to further abuse the Court is concerned that the child will not receive adequate medical care since the parents have minimized the extent of the child injuries to s all parties The physicians at Children Hospital have determined the s 11 injuries are not accidental Both OCS and CASA have indicated that the parents appear to minimize the seriousness of the child lifethreatening s injuries and focus more on how well the child is doing in spite of them Moreover the licensed clinical social worker Donna Hulsey who met with EF and completed a report on February 15 2010 stated EF denied that Ell needed a shunt or had any lasting injury He said that his wife and stepson both had large heads He said that Ell met all developmental milestones on time EF seemed strongly against further medical treatment for EYs injury during my sessions with him Ms Hulsey recommended that the child should not be returned home and should remain in State custody since it is not known who injured the s baby Another licensed clinical social worker named Lisa Tadlock evaluated both parents and submitted reports date May 1 2009 In d her report Ms Tadlock stated that due to the severity of the child s injuries and lack of explanation as to how the injuries occurred she could not recommend returning the child to his parents at that time Both CASA and OCS recommend transferring legal guardianship of the child to Mr and Mrs Boyd In their brief the parents argue that both parents have repeatedly demonstrated to the State and this Honorable Court their care and concern for their child by exploring every possible cause of this injury Absolutely no evidence of this has been presented to the Court and no further explanation was given in their brief The child is only 18 months old at this time and is still unable to verbally communicate Considering the threat of further abuse and the strong indication that the parents will continue to minimize the child s medical needs it is clear the child best interests are served by living s outside his parents home For almost a year after EJ was taken into State custody reunification with his parents was the permanent plan pursuant to his case plan However because OCS CASA and the various social workers providing services to the family were concerned about the parents inability or unwillingness to comply with the specified part of the case plan quoted above OCS made a determination to change its recommendation of the permanent plan to permanent guardianship with the godparents Pursuant to LSACh C art 702 in order for reunification to remain as the 1 C permanent plan for the child the parents must be complying with the case plan and 12 making significant measurable progress toward achieving its goals and correcting the conditions requiring the child to be in care The parents contend that they were complying with their case plan as was stipulated However as noted by the juvenile court the parents failed to make any progress in complying with the single most important part of their case plan namely they failed to provide any explanation for the lifethreatening injuries sustained by EJ and they failed to provide OCS with a plan to ensure El safety if he were to be returned to them s The parents rely on State in the Interest of L v M 620 So 1309 Z S Y 2d 1317 La 1993 for the proposition that a reasonable expectation of reformation exists when a parent has cooperated with state officials and has shown improvement although all of the problems that exist have not been eliminated However more than mere cooperation with agency authorities is required More importantly reformation of the parents is demonstrated by a significant substantial indication of reformation such as altering or modifying in a significant way the behavior that served as a basis for the s State removal of a child from the home See State in the Interest of EG 950018 La App 1st Cir 6 657 So 1094 1097 writ denied 951865 La 9 658 95 23 2d 95 1 2d So 1263 see also State in Interest of S 980922 La 10 719 So 445 M 98 20 2d 45051 Since in this case the juvenile court found that El was removed from his parents home for no other reason than because of the lifethreatening injuries he sustained and it is undisputed that the parents have made no progress in addressing that aspect of their case plan it is clear there is no evidence that the parents have modified in a significant way the behavior that served as a basis for the State removal s of the child from the home Accordingly there is no evidence of parental reformation in this matter The parents further contend that they have been deprived of their constitutional 18 The jurisprudence discussing reformation has been developed in the context of the approval or refusal 8 n the court applied the concept of reformation while reviewing a juvenile court judgment approving a s to approve the termination of parental rights However in State in the Interest of S 719 So at 459 M 2d permanency plan with a goal of reunification with the mother While the matter currently before this court does not involve the termination of parental rights it does involve the transfer of custody from the parents to a legal guardian and therefore at least involves the restriction of the parents rights to raise their child 13 right to raise their child by the judgment of the juvenile court Specifically the parents rely on Santosky v Kramer 455 U 745 758 59 102 S 1388 1397 71 L S Ct 2d Ed 599 1982 and Lassiter v Department of Social Services 452 U 18 27 101 S S Ct 2153 215960 68 L 640 1981 for the proposition that a natural parent desire 2d Ed s for and right to the companionship care custody and management of his or her children is an interest far more precious than any property right The parents further contend that if the juvenile court judgment is allowed to stand they will be deprived s of their constitutional right to raise their child and the parentchild relationship between EJ and his parents will be permanently aborted without any evidence of harm to E7 being presented As noted above the record is filled with evidence of the harm that was inflicted upon EJ The medical evidence is overwhelming that EJ suffered inflicted trauma consistent with child abuse as evidenced by the bilateral subdural hematomas brain contusions subarachnoid hemorrhages and broken ribs the doctors discovered during his examinations Moreover the evidence in the record is that EJ had been in the immediate care of his parents both times he had to be taken to the hospital for treatment The parents themselves have offered no explanation for the injuries and have failed and refused to provide a plan to provide for El safety should he be s returned to their custody Furthermore they have continued to minimize these injuries despite the overwhelming evidence of their lifethreatening nature It is true that a parent right to the care custody and management of children s is a fundamental liberty interest warranting great deference and vigilant protection under the law State in the Interest of Three Minor Children 558 So 1238 1243 2d La App 1st Cir 1990 However in addition to protecting the parents rights the courts of this state are required to protect the child rights to thrive and survive State s In Interest of GA 664 So at 114 Louisiana Children Code article 702 requires 2d s C that the juvenile court determine the permanent plan that is the most appropriate and in the best interest of the child in accordance with certain priorities of placement 14 Furthermore LSACh art 601 which addresses the purpose of the Child in Need of C Care provisions provides in pertinent part t health safety and best interest of he the child shall be the paramount concern in all proceedings under this Title We also note that despite the parents assertions in their brief to this court that their relationship with EJ has been severed by the juvenile court ruling this is not the s case The juvenile court ruling did not terminate the parents parental rights rather s it granted the Boyds legal guardianship of EJ According to the judgment this disposition shall remain in effect until the child eighteenth birthday or until it is s modified by the juvenile court Therefore the parents have the right to file a motion to modify the disposition if they so choose a fact which they acknowledge in their brief to this court Moreover the parents retain residual parental rights including the right of visitation with EJ pursuant to LSACh art 116 which allow them to continue to C 24 maintain certain rights and responsibilities toward EJ Given the record we find that there was a reasonable factual basis to support the juvenile court conclusion that EJ best interests would be better served by living s s outside his parents home considering the threat of further abuse and the strong indication that the parents would continue to minimize EJ medical needs We further s find based on our review of the record that the factual determinations of the juvenile court were not manifestly erroneous DECREE For the reasons set forth above the judgment of the juvenile court granting the guardianship of EJ to Keith and Kendra Boyd and closing the case of the State of Louisiana through the Department of Social Services Office of Community Services without further court review is affirmed All costs of this appeal are assessed to the parents EF and IF AFFIRMED 15 STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2010 CJ 1185 STATE OF LOUISIANA IN THE INTEREST OF E JR F HUGHES J concurring I agree with the result reached by the trial court but I object to a requirement that the parents explain how the injuries occurred Parenting classes drug testing anger management future safeguards etc are all proper elements of a case plan In my opinion confess is not medical evidence is sufficient to justify the result The
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
