State of Louisiana in the interest of S.J., S.J., S.L.

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST CIRCUIT

NO. 2024 CJ 1141

STATE OF LOUISIANA IN THE INTEREST OF S. J., S. J., S. L.

Judgment Rendered:
FEB 2 125

On Appeal from the
22nd Judicial District Court
In and for the Parish of Washington
State of Louisiana
Trial Court No. J- 23- 69

The Honorable Scott Gardner, Judge Presiding

Rebecca Henderson Attorney for Plaintiffs -Appellees,
Mandeville, LA S. J., S. J., and S. L. (Minor Children)

Kimberly E. DeBrock Attorney for Appellee,
Covington, LA The Louisiana Department of Children and
Family Services

Jane C. Hogan Attorneys for Appellant,
Hammond, LA K.L. (Minors' Mother)
and-

Sarabeth T. Bradley
Covington, LA

Linda S. Stadler Attorney for Appellee,
Slidell, LA E.L. (Minors' Father)

J. Collin Sims Attorneys for Appellee,
District Attorney The State of Louisiana
Harold Bartholomew, Jr.
Assistant District Attorney
Covington, LA

BEFORE: THERIOT, RESTER, AND EDWARDS, JJ.

HESTER, J.

In this child in need of care proceeding, the mother, K.L., appeals a judgment

awarding guardianship of her three eldest children, S. J., S. J., and S. L., to their

maternal grandparents and ordering visitation to be at the children' s request and the

caretaker' s discretion. For the following reasons, we affirm the portion of the

judgment awarding guardianship to the minors' maternal grandparents, vacate the

portion of the judgment ordering visitation to be at the children' s request and the

caretaker' s discretion, and remand the matter to the juvenile court to set specific

visitation periods, if any, for K.L.

On July 17, 2023, the Louisiana Department of Children and Family Services

DCFS) received a report of neglect involving three minor children: S. J., S. J., and

S. L. As a result of the report, DCFS conducted an investigation and concluded that

the children would be at an unreasonable risk of harm if left in the care and control

of the parents. On August 10, 2023, the juvenile court signed an instanter order

finding emergency removal necessary and removing S. J., S. J., and S. L. from the

home of K.L. and S. L.' s father, E.L. 1 The children were placed in the home of their

maternal grandparents, S. P. and K.P.

On August 15, 2023, the State filed a child in need of care petition alleging
that the children were in need of care " as a result of neglect, abuse[,] or abandonment

and that the [ children' s] physical and emotional health is threatened." K.L.

stipulated that the children were in need of care without admitting the allegations in
the petition.

On August 29, 2024, a permanency hearing occurred. During the hearing,
K.L. stipulated to DCFS' s report dated August 14, 2024, in which DCFS

1 The biological father of S. J. and S. J. is deceased.
2

recommended that guardianship of S. J., S. J., and S. L. be granted to the maternal

grandparents. At the hearing, DCFS also recommended that the court order that " the

mother is allowed to have at least two hours of visitation per week at the

grandmother' s supervision[.]" Counsel for the children and counsel for the maternal

grandparents stipulated to DCFS' s recommendation of guardianship to the maternal

grandparents but objected to DCFS' s recommendation of two-hour weekly
supervised visitation for K.L. After the hearing, the juvenile court signed the

permanency hearing order, finding that guardianship was in the best interest of the

children and granting guardianship of S. J., S. J., and S. L. to the maternal

grandparents. a The juvenile court further ordered that " visitation between [K.L] and

the children... shall be at the children' s request and at the caretaker' s discretion." It

is from this order that K.L. appeals, contending that the juvenile court erred by
leaving visitation to the sole discretion of the guardians.

DISCUSSION

The purpose of guardianship is to provide a permanent placement for children

when neither reunification with a parent nor adoption has been found to be in their

best interest; to encourage stability and permanence in the lives of children who have

been adjudicated to be in need of care and have been removed from the custody of
their parent; and to increase the opportunities for the prompt permanent placement

of children, especially with relatives, without ongoing supervision by DCFS. La.

Ch. C. art. 718( A);
State in Interest of M.N., 2023- 0174 (La. App. 1 st Cir. 6/ 23/ 23),
370 So. 3d 744, 748, writ denied, 2023- 00947 ( La. 9/ 6/ 23), 369 So. 3d 1269. It is

intended to ensure that the fundamental needs of children are met and the

constitutional rights of all parties are recognized and enforced. La. Ch. C. art.

718( B); State in Interest of M.N., 370 So.3d at 748.

2 At the time of the hearing, E.L., the biological father of S. L., was incarcerated. He was
represented at the hearing and through his attorney, "[ s] tipulated without admission" to the
recommendation presented by DCFS.
3

Louisiana Children' s Code article 723( B) provides that the " guardianship

order shall address the frequency and nature of visitation or contact between the

child and his parent, as necessary to ensure the health, safety, and best interest of the

child." Herein, the district court ordered visitation between K.L. and the children to

be at the children' s request and at the caretaker' s discretion. While the juvenile court

gave well -considered reasons for doing so, Article 723( B) requires that the

guardianship order address the frequency and nature of the visitation between the

children and the parent. Leaving visitation up to the discretion of the children and

the caretaker does not comply with the mandate of the article. See State in Interest

of N.L., 54, 429 ( La. App. 2d Cir. 3/ 30/ 22), 335 So. 3d 1018, 1025. Accordingly, we

remand this matter to the juvenile court to set specific visitation periods, if any,' for

K.L.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the portion of the juvenile court' s judgment

awarding guardianship of S. J., S. J., and S. L. to the maternal grandparents, S. P. and

K.P., is affirmed.
We vacate the portion of the juvenile court' s judgment ordering

visitation to be at the children' s request and the caretaker' s discretion. We remand

this matter to the juvenile court to set specific visitation periods, if any, for K.L.

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

3 The 2011 Comment to La. Ch. C. art. 723 provides in part, "[ t] he court' s authority to limit
frequency of visitation includes the authority to forbid contact with the parent altogether. If there
is proof by clear and convincing evidence that parental contact would cause substantial harm to
the child, contact can be constitutionally eliminated."
11