State of Louisiana in the Interest of M. A.

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COUffT OF APIPEAL FIRST CIR TTIT NO 2413 CJ 0267 STATE OF LOUISIANA 1N THE INTEREST OF M A Judgment Rendered UN 0 2 3 On Appeal from the City Court of Slidell Juvenile Division Parish of St Tammany State of Louisiana Trial Court No 2011 JS 5375 The Honorable 7ames Jim Lamz Judge Presiding Attorney for Appellant Pamela R Gibbs New Loretta Alfonso Orleans Louisiana Kathryn Landry Baton Rouge Louisiana Attorney for Appellee Elisabeth O Carriere Attorneys for Appellee The State of Louisiana R Mustaller McMillan Mary New Orleans Louisiana BEFORE A M GUIDRY CRAIN AND THERIOT JJ CRAIN J In this Child In Need of Care CINC proceeding the mother of the minor child appeals and objects to language in the judgment of the Slidell City Court sitting as a juvenile court referred to as the juvenile court stating that the judgment will remain in effect until the child eighteenth birthday or it is modified s by that court We affirm FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Pursuant to court order the minar child M was removed from the A custody of her mother placed in the custody of the Department of Children and Family Services DCFS and adjudicated a child in need of care Approximately one year later the juvenile court rendered a judgment of disposition terminating s DCFS custody of the child returned custody to M mother and ordered s A s DCFS case closed without further court review After succeeding in having custody returned to her M mother now appeals challenging the following s A language in the judgment This disposition shall remain in effect until the child eighteenth s birthday or is modified by this Court DISCUSSION The sole issue presented is whether the inclusion of the above quoted language unlawfully extended the juvenile court jurisdiction for this CINC s proceeding until the age at which the child reaches majority There is no pending custody action that either arguably impedes the juvenile court jurisdiction or s which asks the juvenile court to exercise jurisdiction Louisiana Children Code article 686 provides that a judgment of s disposition shall remain in force only until a child reaches his eighteenth birthday It may expire earlier by its own terms if it is modified or if it is vacated z sCode article 302 rc Children 4 vid s City courts except where a separate juvexiile court with exclusive original juvenile jurisdiction is esta by l shall have original Ziskled w juvenile jurisdiction for their territcarial iurisdiction This jurisdiction shall be corz wzth at e tb i vrrent f strict cc urt cCoc1z at 3ii9 rp Children iLl tly e er vi t A Excep as prbvided z i 315 a ce exercisin juvenile iicl u jurisdietiarz shall h cr ur over t following xvc ntiz asc ng on ua f e proceedings ancl the ex aut tc modify any custody ti Yitv rlus 2 determination rendered including ihe consideration of visitarion rights 1 Child in need of care proceedings pursuant to Title VI B In exercise of its jurisdiction to determine the custody ofa child under writs of habeas corpus or when custody is incidental to the determination of pending cases a district court may enter an order of custody or modify any prior order of custody rendered by a juvenile court concerning the same child in any proceeding except those enumerated in Paragraph A of this Article Emphasis added These articles all expressly sanction a court exercising juvenile jurisdiction including a city court such as Slidell City Court to exercise continuing jurisdiction over CINC proceedings including the au to modify any custody thority determination rendered as provided in Article 313 excPpt Considering the appl provzsic of the Children Code we find no le ical ns s error in the inclusion of the uom of langua Pn thP signed Judgment The iained e juvenile court correctly denied the mother motion to dismiss the CINC s proceeding and there are presently no grounds far termination of the juvenile I Notably by Acts 1992 Number 705 Section 1 the Legislatare deieted from Article 313A list s of bases fox tennination of a juvenile court jwrisdiction former subpart 7 permanent s placement of the child The 1992 commexit to Artacle 313 explains The deletion of Article 313 pe placement of the luld reflects the fact manen that the eourt ratains jurlsdiction even though a peamanent placennent has been achieved for the ciuld for any disp arising thereafter in connection with the ates placement Thus accord to Article 702 aliheugh a court is relieved of the ng B responsibility fox con periodia judicial reviews when a child acbieves a ucting permanent placement as defined by 4rkncle 643 it does not los t5 jurisdiction 3 s court jurisdiction under ci 3A Acv solemi v Tyler 07 La l3 G t 1942 App 1 Cir 2ungubi j 8shfrdi The Slide City C w a citv cou exercising juvenile jurisdiction l ourt as t pursuant ta Artiole Q2 in CL proeeeding and it a of qne of the 4 4C e hsence Article 313 grounds for termination of its risdictior the staten that its ent dispositional judgment wouid remain in effect until the child eighteenth birthday s unless ar it is modified b this Court was in accordance with law See La Ch r Code art 309A 1 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the juvenile court is affirmed Costs of this appeal are assessed to Loretta Alfonso AFFIRMED Z In her appellate brief appellant cites the case ofState ex rel CF 05 La App 3 1272 Cir 4 928 So 2d 707 writ denied 07 Ta 3 951 So 2d 1083 In Yhat case 0 12 0425 07 2i the Third Cixcuit Court of Appeal determined thaf tkae trial court jurisdiction in the CINC s proceeding terminated upon Yhe chilci in need oi c permanent piacemen4 Thus the trial s re court could not later exercisz jurisdiction th that CP nroceed to rescind a civil ough vC zng custody order concerning the same ehil3 by a judge of the Faz Coart Th case is rendered ily notably different from the one sub judice in that it co a custody acttion with rned pendang courts exercising arguably competing jurisdiction whereas aur analysis is lir to tne accuracy ited of the challenged language in the judgmer R do nat oregarding issues and c te ine rcumstances that may arise in the fuYare tha could res ux another court properly exercising jurisdiction over ilt custody mattecs relaring A to M SFe American Waste Poltution CCo v St Martin ntrol Parish Police Jury 93 La ll627 So 2d 158 161 1348 93 29 62 Also because they have not been properly raised we do not address the constitutional challenges to Articles 309 and 313 See Williams v State Dept of Health and Hospitals 95 0713 La 1 671 So 2d 899 901 setting forth the procedural requirements for an 96 26 02 attack of a statute sconstitutionality 4

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.