In the Interest of Ka.L., A.L., Kl.L., and Ky.L.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOU SIANA COURT OF APPEAL 1 I FIRS GIRCUI 2013 CJ 0731 IN IINTEREST OF K A K AND KY HE LL AU L L Judgment Rendered EP 1 6 2 J1 APPEALED FROM THE JUDlC1AL DISTR COURT SECOND TWENTY CT IN AND FOR THE PARISH OF ST I AMMANY ATE ST OF LOUISIANA DOCKET NUMBER 8733JJ HONORABLE WILLIAM J BURRIS JUDGF n J i x Randall A Fish Attorney for Plaintiff Appellant I Lacombe Louisiana L J Father Amanda A Trosclair Attorney for Plaintiff 2Appellant Assistant Public Defender L K Mother Covington Louisiana Sandra B I errell Attorney for Appellee Covington Louisiana Louisiana Department of Children And Fatnily Se vices BEFORE PET7 McDONALD AND McCLENDON JJ IGREW c J c C McDONALD J This is an appeal of a judginent that approved the change of a case plan for L year K a seven child living in a certified non foster home fi old relative om reunification to adoption J the fiather and K t mother bolh appealed L L e the judgment asser that the trial court abused its discretion in adopting a ing permanency plan placing K with non foster parents when her L relative maternal grandparents were available and had ardianship over her fourteen year old brother After a thorough review we affirm The Department of Children and Family Services DCFS took four minor children K A K and K an infant into custody pursuant to LL AU L L Y an instanter order issued on lanuary 1 S 2012 after K was discovered L Y wrapped in a towel and lying outside on the back porch of the home crying The affidavit in support of the instanter order reported that KL had given birth at home alone on January 16 2012 and placed the child on the porch without seeking medical attention K was found the next day and was hospitalized in a NICU L Y where he was treated for low temperature and seizure activity and tested posiYive for amphetamines The parents had a history of drug use and a tumultuous relationship and KL had a history of inental health issues The home was in disarray and the three children had head lice KL was arrested for child desertion and second degree cruelry to ajuvenile On January 25 2012 the trial court signed an order of continued custody finding that the children were in need of care and that contulued custody was necessary for their safety and protection J was ordered to submit to a drug L screen and KL was ordered to complete a psychological assessment DCFS Pursuant to the Unifo Rules of Appeal Rules 5 and 5 the initials of the m Courts a 1 2 parties will be used to protect and maintain the privacy of the minor children involved in this proceeding placed the three older children with their paternal grandparents and K was L Y placed in a certified foster home After a hearing on April 10 2012 all four children were adjudicated in need of care and by trial court judgment dated April 18 2012 the children were maintained in their placements with a goal of reunification After a six case month review hearing the trial court continued the placement plan in the custody of DCFS with a goal ofreunification At the twelve permanency hearing the trial court determined that J month L and KL had made inadequate progress toward alleviating or mitigating the causes necessitating placement of the children in foster care and that reunification was impossible Nine months after the children were removed from the parents home the paternal grandparents had determined they couLd not provide a long home term for the three oldest children At the time of the permanency hearing K who L A was nearly 18 had been living with a paternal great A had been living aunt U L with the maternal grandparents for seveeal weeks and KL had been residing in L a certified non foster home for two months relarive The trial court approved the case plan providing for the two older children L A K and A to have an alternative permanent living arrangement K L U L A with the paternal aunt and A with the maternal grandparents and a great L U change of goal foi KL and K from reunification to adoption J and K L L Y L L separately appealed the change of case plan for K from reunification to L adoption Louisiana Children sCode article 702 provides in pertinent part C The court shall determine the pennanent plan foc the child that is most appropriate and in the best interest of the child in accordance with the following priorities of placement 1 Return the child to the legal custody of the parents within a specified time period consistent with the child age and need for a s safe and permanent home In arder for reunification to remain as the 3 permanent plan for the child the parent must be complying with the case plan and making significant measurable pro toward ress its achieving goals and correcting the conditions requiring the child to be in care 2 Adoption 3 Placement with a legal guardian 4 Placement in the legal custody ofa relative who is willing and able to offer a safe wholesome and stable home for the child 5 Placement in the least restrictive most family alternative like pernlanent living arrangement The depariment shall document in the s child case plan and its report fo the court the compelling reason for recommending this plan over the preceding higher priority alternati ves Louisiana Children Code article 681 provides in pertinent part s A In a case in which a child has been adjudicated to be in need of care the child health and safety shall be the paramount concern and s the court may do any of the following 1 Place the child in the custody of a parent or such other suitable person on such terms and conditions as deemed in the best interest of the child including but not limited to the issuance of a protective order pursuant to Article 618 2 Place the child in the custody of a private or public institution or agency 3 Commit a child found to be mentally ill to a public or private institution for the mentally ill 4 Grant guardianship of the child to a nonparent 5 Make such other disposition or combination of the above dispositions as the court deems to be in the best interest of the child Louisiana Children sCode article 683 provides in pertinent part A The court shall impose the least restrictive disposition of the alternatives enumerated in Article 681 which the court finds is consistent with the circumstances of the case the health and safety of the child and the best interest ofsociety B The court shall place the child in the custody of a relative unless the court has made a specific finding that such placement is not in the best interest of the child The court shall give specitic written reasons for its findings which shall be made a part of the record of the proceeding 4 The health safety and best interest of the child shall be the paramount concern in a11 child in need of care proceedings La Ch art 601 State ex rel C B 1539 L 08 La 7 986 So 62 64 08 17 2d It is well that an appellate cow cannot set aside a juvenile court settled s findings of fact in the absence of manifest error or unless those tindings are clearly wrong In re A 00 La 6 764 So 47 61 F J 0948 00 30 2d The maternal grandparents initially told DCFS they did not want to be considered for long term placement and due to the maternal grandfather s criminal record DCFS did not certify the maternal grandparents as an adoptive placement Also after picking up A and K for a visit the maternal L U L grandfathcr had become engaged in an argument with K while driving in the L A car that resulted in his throwing a soft drink can at her and telling her he could punch her The DCFS case manager Dawn Hamilton testified that there had been concern from the beginning about placing the girls with the maternal grandfather as hc secmed more controlling toward girls s L K foster mother T testifed that K talked about staying with C L her foster family and never expressed a desice to live with A L U She also testified that KI told her that she thought A hated her that he had broken L L U her arm on two separate occasions and that she did not want to be around him he I trial court noted that this was a tough case and that the children were caught in a difficult situation The trial court stated that while the children loved each other the glue that had kept the tamily together had bcen the oldest daughtet K and ihat for her not to be in the same placement as K and L A L L U A was a problem However the trial judge pointed out that the case had been going on for a year and was at a point of permanency and A had only been L U residing with his maternal grandparents for a few weeks The record reflects that 5 L U A appeared to be happiest residing with his maternal grandparents and had anger issues resulting from his tumultuous childhood L K appeared to be thriving in the foster home where she had lived for the previous two months The trial court determined that the change of case plan goal from reunification to adoption for K was the most appropriate least restrictive L setting under the circumstances After a thorough review of the record we cannot coilclude that this finding is manifestly erroneous or clearly weong Therefore for the foregoing reasons the trial court judgment is affirmed Costs are assessed against J and KL L AFFIRMED 6
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.
