State of Louisiana in the Interest of K.J

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST CIRCUIT

2026 CJ 0070

STATE OF LOUISIANA
IN THE INTEREST OF K.J.

JUDGMENT RENDERED:
JUL 2 3 2026

Appealed from the Juvenile Court in and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge
Parish of East Baton Rouge • State of Louisiana
Docket Number 116469 • Section B

The Honorable Gail Grover, Presiding Judge

J. S., in proper person APPELLANT
Baton Rouge, Louisiana INTERVENOR — Matemal
Grandmother, J. S.

Jane Hogan COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE—
Hammmond, Louisiana Mother, J. S.

Ryan Dahlquist COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE—
Baton Rouge, Louisiana Father, D.J.

Courtney Skidmore COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE
Baton Rouge, Louisiana Child, K.J.

Hillar Moore COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE—

Joy Reeves State of Louisiana
Baton Rouge, Louisiana

BEFORE: MILLER, EDWARDS, AND FIELDS, JJ.

EDWARDS, J.

The maternal grandmother and legal custodian of a child adjudicated to be in

need of care pursuant to Louisiana Children' s Code article 606( A)(3) seeks review

of the juvenile court' s September 26, 2025 amended custody order. For the

following reasons, we affirm=,

On January 11, 2022, the Juvenile Court in and for the Parish of East Baton

Rouge (" the juvenile court") signed an instanter order, finding there was reason to

believe 9 -year- old K.J. was a child in need of care in accordance with Louisiana

Children' s Code article 606. The instanter order provided that K.J. be placed in the

custody of the Louisiana Department of Children and Family Services (" DCFS")

pending the timely filing of a child in need of care (" CINC") petition and

adjudication.

A DCFS employee, Ms. Smith, executed an affidavit in support of the

instanter order. Therein, Ms. Smith alleged that DCFS received a report of

neglect/ dependency on January 10, 2022, and that K.J. was currently in the custody

and care of her grandmother (" Appellant"). Ms. Smith reported that DCFS was

notified that Appellant was recently placed on a 72 -hour involuntary psychiatric hold

for "being irate and non-cooperative during a medical exam[,]" leaving K.J. without

a legal caretaker. At the time, there was no other known caretaker for K.J.

The juvenile court held a continued custody hearing on January 13, 2022. At

the hearing, the juvenile court noted that the whereabouts of both of K.J.' s parents

were unknown and appointed the Public Defender Indigent Parent Program as

curator to represent the absentee parents.' After an evidentiary hearing, the juvenile

Ill It was later discovered that K.J.' s father (" D.J.") was in the custody of Caddo Parish Prison.
Sometime thereafter, D.J. was released, and DCFS was unable to locate him. At the adjudication
hearing held on March 29, 2022, the juvenile court found that the curator for D.J. provided due

2

court found reasonable grounds to believe that K.J. is a child in need of care in

accordance with Louisiana Children' s Code article 606( A)(3) and should remain in

the continued custody of DCFS.

A CINC petition was filed on January 25, 2022. Therein, DCFS alleged that

K.J. was a child in need of care pursuant to Louisiana Children' s Code article

606( A)(2) and ( 3). At an appearance hearing on February 15, 2022, the juvenile

court ordered DCFS to assess Appellant' s home for potential placement. On March

29, 2022, Appellant filed a motion for intervention in the CINC proceedings.

Appellant alleged that she is the maternal grandmother of K.J. and had been the

primary caregiver for K.J. for the past four years. Appellant acknowledged that she

was placed under an involuntary psychiatric hold but noted she was no longer under

the hold and was " willing and able" to provide K.J. with a " permanent, loving

home." The juvenile court granted Appellant' s motion for intervention following a

hearing on May 10, 2022.

The juvenile court held an adjudication hearing as to K.J.' s mother (" J. S.")

on March 29, 2022. Counsel -for J. S. stipulated that K.J. should be adjudicated in

need of care based upon Article 606( A)(3). The juvenile court rendered judgment

in accordance with J. S.' s stipulation and adjudicated K.J. as a child in need of care

in accordance with Article 606( A)(3). The juvenile court ordered K.J. to remain in

the custody of DCFS pending further proceedings.

The juvenile court held. a disposition hearing on April 26, 2022. At the

conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court ordered that: ( 1) K.J. be removed from

DCFS custody and placed in the legal and physical custody of Appellant for a period

of not more than four years or until further order of the juvenile court; ( 2) J. S. be

granted visitation " as considered reasonable by [ Appellant]"; ( 3) the February 9,

and diligent services to locate him and ordered that counsel' s curator appointment be converted to
counsel on behalf of D. J.

3

2022 case plan be approved2; and ( 4) the family remain in protective supervision of

DCFS for 90 days.' In addition, the juvenile court set the matter for a review hearing

to allow the court to continue to receive medical and mental health updates from

Appellant' s treating physician. The juvenile court signed a custody order in

accordance with its oral rulings at the disposition hearing on May 4, 2022. An

amended custody order was signed on October 4, 2022 (" the 2022 custody order"),

to account for supervised visitation awarded to the child' s father, D.J., after his

4
disposition hearing.

Approximately three years later, J. S. filed a letter into the record of the CINC

proceedings requesting that custody of K.J. be returned to her. Therein, J. S. alleged

that she completed all provisions of the case plan and that Appellant was not

allowing visitation. The juvenile court set a hearing for April 17, 2025, at which

time the juvenile court ordered Appellant and J. S. to submit to a drug screening and

ordered DCFS to assess J. S.' s home.

The juvenile court held. a. hearing to consider modification of the judgment of

disposition on August 5, 2025, and September 12, 2025 ( collectively " the 2025

hearing"). On August 5, 2025, J. S. testified extensively regarding her battle with

addiction and the steps she has taken to better her life. The juvenile court then

recessed until September 12, 2025. When the parties returned to court on September

12, 2025, counsel for J. S. advised the court that the parties agreed to a modification

of the 2022 custody order whereby J. S. would have unsupervised visitation every

2 The February 9, 2022 case plan does not appear in the record before us.

3 The juvenile court terminated protective supervision by DCFS on August 23, 2022.

An adjudication and disposition hearing as to D.J. was held on May 10, 2022. The juvenile court
adjudicated K.J. as a child in need of care in accordance with Louisiana Children' s Code article
606(A)(3) as to D.J. as well. Thereafter, counsel for D.J. waived dispositional delays, and the
juvenile court ordered that: ( 1)K.J. be removed from DCFS custody and placed in the legal and
physical custody of Appellant for a period of not more than four years or until further order of the
court; (2) D.J. be granted supervised visitation; and ( 3) the February 9, 2022 case plan be approved.

4

other weekend, with K.J. retaining the option to refuse visits. The 2022 custody

order was also extended to the end of the 2025- 2026 school year, and counsel for

Appellant clarified that custody would remain with Appellant during this time. The

juvenile court advised that it would require Appellant to submit to a psychological

evaluation. The juvenile court signed a judgment memorializing these rulings on

September 26, 2025 (" the 2025 judgment").

On September 25, 2025, Appellant filed a " Notice of Intent to Seek

The juvenile court
Supervisory Writ of Review" regarding the 2025 judgment.

signed an order granting Appellant an appeal on September 30, 2025. 5 On appeal,
Appellant assigns the following errors to the juvenile court' s ruling: ( 1) it

erroneously placed the burden of proof for a custody modification on Appellant; ( 2)

it erroneously found the modification of custody would be in the best interest of the

child; ( 3) it violated due process by accepting the parties' stipulation without

considering testimony of K.J. and Appellant; (4) it committed legal error by ordering

Appellant to undergo a psychological evaluation; ( 5) it lacked jurisdiction to reopen

the custody proceedings in the CINC case; and ( 6) it erroneously converted

Appellant' s notice of intent to seek supervisory review to a motion for appeal.

JURISDICTION

A threshold issue in any case is whether this court' s appellate jurisdiction is

properly invoked by a valid final judgment. State in Interest of I.K., 2018- 0406

La. App. I Cir. 9/ 21/ 18), 257 So. 3d 694, 696. In this case, Appellant raises two

separate jurisdictional arguments: ( 1) the judgment Appellant seeks to review is

interlocutory in nature and therefore the juvenile court erred in converting her notice

of intent for supervisory review to a motion for appeal; and (2) the juvenile court did

not have jurisdiction over custody proceedings in the CINC case.

This order contains a handwritten note that states: " This matter is being treated as an appeal, due
to the ruling on September 12, 2025 [J being a final judgment."

5

The Louisiana Children' s Code gives the right to appeal from a judgment of

disposition. See La. Ch.C. art. 330( B). By implication, the Children' s Code also

gives the right to appellate review of a modification of judgment of disposition as

demanded by La. Const. art. V, § 10, which grants courts of appeal jurisdiction in

all matters appealed from family and juvenile courts. Interest of A.H., 2018- 0389

La. App. I Cir. 12/ 21/ 18), 2018 WL 6718582, * 1 ( unpublished). Herein, the 2025

judgment— the judgment from which Appellant seeks relief—was the result of a

hearing scheduled in response to J. S.' s letter to the court seeking a return of custody

of K.J. A request for change of custody, such as the one the juvenile court received

from J. S., is a request for change of disposition. See State in Interest of H.W.,

2013- 0231 ( La. App. I Cir. 7/ 25/ 13), 121 So. 3d 1200, 1203, writ denied, 2013- 2217

La. 10/ 11/ 13), 123 So. 3d 1229.

Although the juvenile court did not modify custody, it did modify its

disposition, namely the 2022 custody order, by giving J.S. visitation rights every

other weekend. Therefore, the 2025 judgment is a judgment granting a motion to

modify disposition. Thus, the juvenile court correctly considered Appellant' s notice

of intent to be a motion for appeal, and this court has jurisdiction over the appeal of

the 2025 judgment.

Further, the juvenile court has continuing jurisdiction over CINC proceedings

and has exclusive authority to modify any custody determination rendered, including

the consideration of visitation rights. See La. Ch.C. art. 309( A)( 1); Int. of H.W.,

121 So. 3d at 1203. Nevertheless, a court exercising juvenile jurisdiction no longer

exercises such jurisdiction upon: ( 1) declination of jurisdiction; ( 2) transfer of the

proceeding; ( 3) expiration or satisfaction of an informal adjustment agreement; ( 4)

expiration or satisfaction of an informal family services plan agreement; ( 5)

expiration, satisfaction, or vacation of a juvenile disposition or adult sentence; or (6)

dismissal of the proceeding. The record does not reflect any of these conditions.

Co

Therefore, we find the court retained jurisdiction over this CINC case and had the

See La. Ch.C. art. 309.
authority to modify the judgment of disposition.

Accordingly, we find no merit to this assignment of error.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

In this case, Appellant assigns three errors to 2025 judgment. First, she

contends the juvenile court erroneously placed the burden of proof for the custody

modification on Appellant. Second, she asserts the juvenile court accepted the

parties' stipulation without her clear, knowing, and voluntary consent. Third,

Appellant contends that her due process rights were violated because the juvenile

court accepted the stipulation. before hearing testimony from her and/ or K.J.

Yfodiflication ofDisposition

A judgment of disposition may be modified if the court finds that the

conditions and circumstances justify the modification. La. Ch.C. art. 716. The

burden of proving justification for modification of a custody disposition of a child

earlier found in need of care is on the party who seeks to modify the disposition of

custody. State in Interest of S. G., 95- 2063 ( La. App. I Cir. 3/ 25/ 96), 676 So. 2d

109, 111.

It is well settled that an appellate court cannot set aside a juvenile court' s

findings of fact in the absence of manifest error or in the clearest case of abuse of

the court' s great discretion. State in Interest of A.S., 2019- 0248 ( La. App. I Cir.

9/ 4/ 19), 285 So. 3d 1129, 1140. The two-part manifest error test considers: ( 1)

whether there is a reasonable factual basis in the record for the finding of the court;

and ( 2) whether the record further establishes that the finding is not manifestly

erroneous. If a reasonable factual basis exists, an appellate court may set aside a

trial court' s factual finding only if, after reviewing the record in its entirety, it

determines the trial court' s finding was clearly wrong. Moreover, where factual

findings are based on determinations regarding the credibility of witnesses, the trier

7

of fact' s findings demand great deference and are virtually never manifestly

erroneous or clearly wrong. Even though an appellate court may feel that its own

evaluations and inferences are more reasonable than the factfinder' s, reasonable

evaluations of credibility and reasonable inferences of fact should not be disturbed

upon review where conflict exists in the testimony. Int. of A.S., 285 So. 3d at 1140.

In this case, the parties entered a stipulation that was read into the record at

the September 12, 2025 hearing. The parties agreed to a modification of the 2022

custody order whereby J. S. would have unsupervised visitation every other

weekend, with K.J. retaining the option to refuse visits. In addition, the 2022 custody

order, which was originally set to expire on April 26, 2026, was extended to the end

of the 2025- 2026 school year ( so as not to create a disruption of K.J.' s schedule

during the school year). Counsel for Appellant clarified on the record that custody

would remain with Appellant. during this time.

The juvenile court accepted the parties' stipulation and noted on the record

that based on the evidence presented in August, it appeared that J. S. did a lot of work

on herself. The juvenile court also stated that more frequent visitation with J. S. prior

to the expiration of the 2022 custody order would be in the best interest of the child

so that the bond between mother and child has an opportunity to develop. No one

objected to the terms of the stipulation during the 2025 hearing or thereafter.

Nevertheless, Appellant argues the stipulation was entered without clear, knowing,

and voluntary consent from Appellant and without due process.

A stipulation has the effect of a judicial admission or confession, which binds

all parties and the court. See La. C. C. art. 1853; Watkins v. Lake Charles

Memorial Hosp., 2013- 1137 ( La. 3/ 25/ 14), 144 So. 3d 944, 957. Stipulations

between the parties in a specific case are binding on the trial court when not in

derogation of law. Such agreements are the law of the case. Watkins, 114 So. 3d at

H.,

957. Accordingly, we conclude that, since the parties stipulated to the change in
visitation for J. S., the juvenile court did not err in awarding such visitation.

Order jor Psychiatric Evaluation

Lastly, Appellant argues the juvenile court impermissibly ordered her to
undergo a psychological evaluation without evidence placing her mental fitness at

issue or otherwise identifying a factual basis for such an examination. We disagree.

In cases involving the custody of children, the trial court is vested with a vast

amount of discretion. Int. of A.S., 285 So. 3d at 1140. While we acknowledge the

requirement that Appellant submit to a psychological evaluation was not part of the

stipulation of the parties,' the health, welfare, safety, and best interest of the child

are paramount in all CINC proceedings. La. Ch.C. art. 601. Appellant' s mental

health was the catalyst for these CINC proceedings and remains relevant to custody,

especially in light of the fact that K.J. remains in the custody of Appellant.

Accordingly, we find no abuse of the juvenile court' s vast discretion in ordering
Appellant to submit to a psychological evaluation.

DECREE

For the above and foregoing reasons, the September 26, 2025 judgment of the

Juvenile Court in and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge Parish is affirmed. All

costs of this appeal are assessed to Appellant.

AFFIRMED.

6 We note Appellant' s attorney did not object to the psychological evaluation when ordered by the
juvenile court in open court or thereafter.

E