State ex rel. J.C.

• Decision Date: 03 June 2016
• Docket Number: No. 2016 CW 0138.,2016 CW 0138.
• Citation: 196 So.3d 102
• Parties: STATE of Louisiana in the Interest of J.C. and J.C.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

196 So.3d 102

STATE of Louisiana in the Interest of J.C. and J.C.

No. 2016 CW 0138.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

June 3, 2016.

Joseph L. Waitz, Jr., District Attorney, Ellen D. Doskey, Assistant District Attorney, Houma, LA, for Plaintiff–Appellant, State of Louisiana.

Jessica Duet, Houma, LA, for Defendant–Appellee, B.C. (the mother).

Allie LeBlanc, Houma, LA, for Defendants–Appellees, J.S. and J.W. (the fathers).

Lekeisha M. McKarry, Houma, LA, for Defendants–Appellees, J.C. and J.C. (the minor children).

Before PETTIGREW, HIGGINBOTHAM, and CRAIN, JJ.

HIGGINBOTHAM

, J.

In this child in need of care adjudication, the State of Louisiana, through the Department of Children and Family Services for Terrebonne Parish (“DCFS”), seeks review of a district court judgment ordering that custody of a three-year-old boy (“J.C.”) and a two-year-old girl (“J.C.”) was to remain with the minor children's mother (“B.C.”)¹

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On July 18, 2015, DCFS received a report of alleged neglect and lack of supervision concerning the boy and the girl, who were in the custody of their mother, B.C.² At that time, custody of both of the children had only recently been returned to B.C. pursuant to a final adjudication of a previous children in need of care case. The previous adjudication began after B.C. tested positive for drugs while giving birth to the girl, her youngest child, in November, 2013, which triggered the children being placed in DCFS's temporary custody pursuant to a case plan for reunification with B.C. B.C. was eventually awarded custody of her children after successfully completing the case plan, and the case was closed by order of the Thirty–Second Judicial District Court in a judgment dated June 15, 2015, where DCFS was relieved of custody and supervision of the children.³ No appeal was taken from that judgment.

The report of alleged neglect and lack of supervision received by DCFS on July 18, 2015, stemmed from a stranger finding the boy playing alone in a field while wearing a soiled diaper, one shoe, and a t-shirt. After receiving the report, DCFS initiated a new investigation, but did not file a petition for state custody of the children. Instead, DCFS implemented a temporary safety plan by instanter order of the district court on September 24, 2015, because B.C. refused to voluntarily comply with a safety plan. On September 28, 2015, the district court signed a judgment ordering B.C. to comply with an outlined five-point safety plan that was deemed necessary for the protection of her minor children's health and safety while remaining in B.C.'s custody.⁴

Thereafter, a Safety Plan Review Hearing was held on November 6, 2015. At the hearing, DCFS informed the court, through the testimony of a caseworker assigned to B.C.'s case, that B.C. was not cooperating with DCFS and had not accomplished the court-ordered safety plan. DCFS requested that the children be declared to be in need of care so that they could be taken into DCFS's custody. The caseworker testified that she was unable to determine whether the children were safe due to B.C.'s noncompliance and lack of communication. B.C. stated that she attempted to communicate with her caseworker and comply with the safety plan, but explained that her work schedule interfered with her ability to meet with her caseworker and to make progress in the safety plan. B.C. denied that her children were at risk, in danger, or in need of care, testifying that her children were always supervised and had food, clothing, and shelter.

During the hearing, the district court ordered that B.C. undergo a drug test, which was negative. After listening to the testimony of the caseworker and B.C., along with argument from counsel representing DCFS, the children, and B.C., the district court ruled that custody would remain with B.C. because there was no evidence that the children were at risk. The district court ordered another review hearing to take place within thirty days, admonished B.C. to cooperate with DCFS or risk losing custody of her children, and added new requirements that B.C. contact her caseworker each week by 3:30 p.m. every Friday and that B.C. undergo a full panel drug screen. Counsel for DCFS and counsel for the children objected to the district court's ruling, but DCFS did not seek appellate review at that time. After the hearing, DCFS filed a petition alleging that the children were in need of care due to B.C.'s lack of supervision.

On December 11, 2015, the district court conducted a status hearing to receive an updated report concerning B.C.'s children and B.C.'s progress toward the requirements in the court-ordered safety plan. It was stipulated that the caseworker for DCFS would testify consistently with the contents of the DCFS report, which was submitted at the hearing. In the report, DCFS informed the court that after the last hearing in November, B.C. had tested positive for amphetamines and marijuana. DCFS also reported that the caseworker had observed the children once (rather than weekly) at B.C.'s home, and at that time the home appeared to be adequate. In connection with its recently filed petition, DCFS submitted a report to the district court outlining reasons why the children are at risk and should be taken into DCFS's custody.

Because B.C. denied the allegations, the district court immediately held an adjudication hearing to allow testimony from B.C. to rebut the DCFS caseworker's report and the allegations that her children are in need of care. B.C. explained that the DCFS caseworker had been to her house and had seen that her children were well-cared for and that she had adequate food for them. B.C. testified that it had been months since she had used drugs, and the test results for amphetamine use was due to allergy medicine. B.C. explained that she was working hard to remain drug free and to support her children. She stated that she had missed a meeting with her caseworker after an argument with her boyfriend, who was no longer in her life. She also testified about how she had trouble connecting with her caseworker over the telephone, because she could not leave a message on the caseworker's voicemail. B.C. testified that she was capable of caring for her children and she was willing to continue to cooperate with DCFS and the safety plan that included taking her son to special education classes, starting mental health and substance abuse counseling, and staying in contact with her caseworker more often.

After listening to B.C.'s testimony and considering DCFS's report, as well as hearing argument from all counsel, the district court ruled that there was no evidence that the children were in danger or in need of care. While acknowledging that DCFS cannot properly supervise B.C.'s care of the children when B.C. does not fully cooperate with DCFS's caseworker, the district court recognized that B.C.'s failure to fully comply with the court-ordered safety plan was not evidence that the children are actually in need of care or are in danger. For that reason, the district court ruled that the DCFS case should be closed, DCFS released from supervision, and the children were to remain in the custody of B.C. A judgment was signed on January 11, 2016, decreeing that the children were not in need of care and B.C. was to maintain custody of the children. DCFS appealed.

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Appellate courts have the duty to examine subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte, even when the parties do not raise the issue. Texas Gas Exploration Corp. v. Lafourche Realty Co., Inc., 2011–0520 (La.App. 1st Cir.11/9/11), 79 So.3d 1054, 1059

, writ denied, 2012–0360 (La.4/9/12), 85 So.3d 698. In reasons orally assigned at the end of the adjudication and dispositional hearing on December 11, 2015, the district court ordered that the children were to remain in the custody of their mother, and that “the case be closed.” The minutes from that hearing, reflect that the district court “denied the State's [p]etition to take custody of the children and find them in need of care” and further ordered that “the case be closed.” However, the judgment signed by the district court on January 11, 2016, simply stated that “[t]here is no immediate danger to the children at this time; the children are not in need of care and are to remain in the custody of the mother.” Although it appears from the minutes and oral reasons that the district court intended to dismiss the case, the judgment that was signed did not actually dispose of the case or dismiss DCFS's petition as required by La. Ch. C. art. 666(C) (“[i]f the court finds that the evidence does not warrant an adjudication that either the child is in need of care or the family is in need of services, it shall dismiss the petition. ” [Emphasis added.] ).

This court's appellate jurisdiction extends to “final judgments.” See La. Code Civ. P. art. 2083

. Appeals are taken from judgments, not reasons for judgment. Davis v. Farm Fresh Food Supplier, 2002–1401 (La.App. 1st Cir.3/28/03), 844 So.2d 352, 353–54. A judgment must be precise, definite, and certain. Laird v. St. Tammany Parish Safe Harbor, 2002–0045 (La.App. 1st Cir.12/20/02), 836 So.2d 364, 365. Moreover, a final appealable judgment must name the party in favor of whom the ruling is ordered, the party against whom the ruling is ordered, and the relief that is granted or denied. See

Carter v. Williamson Eye Center, 2001–2016 (La.App. 1st Cir.11/27/02), 837 So.2d 43, 44. These determinations should be evident from the language of the judgment without reference to other documents in the record. Laird, 836 So.2d at 366

. Additionally, a final appealable judgment must contain appropriate decretal language disposing of or dismissing claims in the case. See

Costanza v. Snap–On Tools, 2013–0332 (La.App. 1st Cir.3/5/14), 2014 WL 886021, *4 (unpublished). Because the January 11, 2016 judgment does not contain the appropriate decretal language disposing of or...