State of Louisiana In The Interest of C. J.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2006 CJ 1441 STATE OF LOUISIANA IN THE INTEREST OF C J Judgment Rendered II On February 14 2007 Twenty First Judicial District Court In and For the Parish of Livingston Appeal from the State of Louisiana Docket No J 10223 Honorable M Douglas Hughes Judge Presiding Scott PelTilloux Counsel for District Attorney Livingston LA State of Louisiana Theresa A Beckler Counsel for Appellee Covington LA Appellee State of Louisiana of Social Services Department Kerry Carpenter Counsel for Appellee Public Defenders Office Minor Child Livingston J C LA Cassandra Butler Independence LA Counsel for C W Appellants Grandmother and M B Great Grandfather BEFORE PARRO GUIDRY AND McCLENDON JJ McCLENDON J the maternal In this matter C W and M B the minor child grandfather of denying their motion of l For the care J C to vacate the judgment reasons the appeal that follow we comi juvenile adjudicating dismiss the and grandmother C J s great judgment child in need a appeal FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY proceedings in this The when Louisiana OCS Services mother the through continued State J C was based on in custody of the State of of allegations neglect by December 2 on 2004 the the child Following celiified foster home for continued grounds November 29 2004 a placed custody hearing reasonable J in the on Department of Social Services Office of Community or RJ initiated placing C instanter order issued an were matter juvenile s a comi found custody with OCS including but not limited to possession of schedule II dlUgS and paraphernalia and admitted to using cocaine R J stated that her mother C W was an alcoholic and could not provide care RJ was arrested for J C for RJ did not provide relatives that could provide Thereafter on care December 30 the agency with any other for the child 2004 the State through attOlney filed its petition requesting that C J be adjudicated of 2 The care petition alleged investigated and validated 1 The 21 st November 16 Louisiana Children s original jurisdiction Code article 63lA A child in need of care filed OCS received for the parishes A1iicle 604 ofthe Louisiana Children of care and the parents of such child Accordingly the juvenile comi throughout these proceedings 2 2004 original juvenile jurisdiction See LSA Ch C mi 302 the comi with exclusive on child in need report of neglect of the child by his mother Judicial Distlict Court has its district provides a that a the district over we any child Code also alleged to be in need will refer to the district comi provides proceeding shall be commenced by petition the district attomey Any other person authorized by the comi file a petition if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the child may is a child in need of care by 2 within s as 3 RJ The 24 2004 for petition and child being was The juvenile counsel State in need of 2 to J November The OSC that her mother C W With depression father admitted s on paraphernalia also asserted that C W admitted at the without after comi to drinking to CJ regard having little is s contact an every father with the admitting to the of the allegations the mother questioning who stipulated RJ adjudication hearing was that petition 5 represented by following the introduction of the investigation repOli by the and accepted the Louisiana Children a 2005 care stipulation of R J additionally adjudication and found II substance and reported medication for February C J 3 on her alTest drug abuse and 4 On the petition The petition asserted that C the s possession of a Schedule further alleged that RJ alcoholic day to RJ petition refelTed s rendered judgment adjudicating Code article 606 sets forth the child in need of care found including C J grounds that the child is a a a on factual basis for child in need of which a victim of neglect child can be LSA Ch C art 606A 2 4 the 5 1 September 20 2005 C J s father J voluntarily surrendered custody Louisiana Depmiment of Social Services for placement and adoption On Article 647 ofthe Children s Code permits such a stipulation and provides as of C J to follows approval of the petitioner and the department if a child is in the custody depmiment a parent whose child is the subject of pending proceedings may with or without admitting the allegations ofthe With the of the petition stipulate that provided A according to Aliicle 606 that 1 the child is in need of care prehearing conference has been convened in accordance with Aliicle 646 1 2 The parent personally appears before the The court 3 fully informs the parent court of his rights as required by Article 625 fully informs the parent of the consequences of such a stipulation including the parent s responsibility to comply with the case 4 plan and The comi correct the conditions 5 The parent requiting knowingly judgment 3 the child to be in and voluntarily care consents to the 6 The comi fmiher found the care parents Judgment the be the to signed was that Thereafter on as October 25 2005 2005 things she to do at including continued to a random February minutes of the comi reflect that thiliy a m and M B on February and the but on appeal April This was 23 court 2006 No purpose of Febluary 6 by 7 23 We note that 2006 September juvenile luling On throughout The record contains an a Motion and was were counsel for C W advised C W of of hair and 2006 at 1 00 p m one was at the present was not court on comi to September s 28 care a a list of urinalysis usual hour of nine on behalf of C W appealed by hearing C W and devolutively appeal April sign made However the due to lack of adjudication set for present with her screen convened these child in need of counsel from the Public Defender filed The motions jurisdiction appeal for the limited judgment regarding 2006 the 6 2006 8 2006 remanded the the ordering or Motion and Order for a 4 2006 C W and M B moved to on signed adjudication denied their motions without any orally granted by the juvenile comi 7 comi drug 23 comi denial of the motion to vacate the The and M B comi The denial of the motion for consideration MB rendered and Neither the which time C W after which the to the court was CW the minutes of the representations The matter was following appealed was to with foster 14 2005 April disposition J C remain with OCS November 23 was on Custodial sic of Minor Child According attorney of Also Judgment of Adjudication and also Order to Vacate Consideration on J C and in the best interest of the child 14 2005 judgment a custody of disposition judgment hearing April on disposition hearing decreeing appropriate most of placement cun ent judgment proceedings CJ was was the signed represented Office order for the motion to vacate but not for the motion for consideration 4 denying the request for consideration as custodian and denying vacate the order this comi maintained the and order for the comi comi the facts do 2006 not show of the signing a show support the comi judgment reflecting September of enol a cause Appellants filed their motion on s cured was 28 2006 CW denying the motion or following However the defect of prematurity assignment erred in 2006 appeal stating signed a judgment In their sole juvenile to appeal prior lulings of Febluary 23 once On November 9 adjudication the motion to and M B adjudication to vacate the finding that the child allege that was the where either abused or neglected DISCUSSION Louisiana Children A Code miicle 667 s On motion of the child shall be vacated and a new contradictOlY hearing the The parent the an adjudication ordered if after finds that by fraud adjudication was 2 The comi making the 3 the adjudication hearing court adjudication to justify vacating sufficient l or provides obtained or mistake adjudication lacked jurisdiction previously discoverable by due diligence requires vacating the adjudication in the interest of justice A motion based upon this ground must be brought within one year of the adjudication B New evidence not In the interest of adjudication prior to justice disposition In their motion to vacate the the petition well as in this matter listed with the grandmother true it failed to show that MB argue that the need of care J C juvenile the comi may adjudication C numerous C W but that was a comi W and M B problems even proceedings 5 an alleged that with C J s mother if all the child in need of lacked vacate care jurisdiction allegations as were Thus C W and over these child in However must before addressing first determine whether this the court arguments of C W and M B has jurisdiction Article 330 of the Children s to review the matter Code provides may be taken from any final judgment of comi and shall be to the appropriate comi of appeal A An appeal B delinquency proceedings pursuant In we to a Title VIII proceedings pursuant to Title VI and families in need of services proceedings pursuant to Title VII an appeal may be taken only after a judgment of disposition child in need of care The appeal shall include all 8 adjudication and disposition Pursuant to this miicle of A disposition disposition an assigned concelning the errors appeal may be taken judgment denying motions is and this comi lacks Accordingly this appeal to jurisdiction must be only after not consider the a a judgment judgment of matter appealed dismissed CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons denying the motion comi Costs dismissed are to the appeal of the judgment of the juvenile vacate against C assessed the judgment of adjudication is W and M B APPEAL DISMISSED 8 The source miicle of LSA Ch C Procedure which provided as mi 330 was Aliicle 97 of the Code of Juvenile follows delinquent in need of supervision or in need of care an appeal may be taken only from a judgment of disposition and shall be to the appropriate court of appeal In cases in which a child is appeal shall include adjudication and disposition The While after no a we all errors enacting Aliicle 330 to be of 6 a assigned conceming the legislature chose to use the phrase a judgment of disposition we find the disposition rather than from change the application of the codal provision judgment intent to note that in adjudicated

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.