State in the Interest of D.A., D.G., D.G., D.D., and Z.K.

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

JAC 14-517

STATE IN THE INTEREST OF

D.A., Dy.G., De.G., D.D., AND Z.K.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. 201439, DIVISION E
HONORABLE HERMAN C. CLAUSE, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

BILLY HOWARD EZELL
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of John D. Saunders, Billy Howard Ezell, and J. David Painter,
Judges.

REMANDED.

Michael Harson
District Attorney
Fifteenth Judicial District Court
Sharon Michelle M. Breaux
Assistant District Attorney
P. O. Box 3306
Lafayette, LA 70502
(337) 232-5170
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana

Tracey Davenport-McGraw
OCS - Indigent Defender
P. O. Box 931
Rayne, LA 70578
(337) 334-1576
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
T. B.(father of De. G)

Paula Murphy
Acadiana Legal Services
1020 Surrey Street
Lafayette, LA 70501
(337) 237-4320
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
D. A. (child)
Dy. G. (child)
De. G. (child)
D. D. (child)
Z. K. (child)

Jane Hogan
Public Defenders Office
600 Jefferson Street, Suite 902
Lafayette, LA 70501
(337) 232-9345
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT:
L. G. (mother)

LaShonda G. Derouen
425 W. Vermilion Street
Lafayette, LA 70501
(337) 237-4300
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
T. B.(father of De. G)

Casa Coordinator
c/o Casa of Acadiana
1819 W. Pinhook Rd., #103
Lafayette, LA 70508
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
Casa of Acadiana

Katrina Cetnar
CWSII, Brandywine II
825 Kaliste Saloom Road, #104
Lafayette, LA 70508
(337) 262-1555
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana Department of Social Services

EZELL, Judge.

L.G. appeals the decision of the trial court below finding her five children,

D.A., Dy.G., De.G., D.D., and Z.K., to be children in need of care. For the

following reasons, we hereby remand this case for completion of the record.

On February 25, 2012, L.G. gave birth to her second-youngest child, D.D.

Around the same time, the Department of Child and Family Services (DCFS)

received a report that D.D.’s meconium tested positive for marijuana. D.D. was

also born with syphilis. At this time, DCFS opened a Family Services case on L.G.

but did not remove her children. As part of her Family Services plan, L.G. was to

undergo substance abuse treatment, which she failed to do. Although it is

undisputed that L.G. did not comply with her Family Services plan, DCFS never

removed her children and eventually closed L.G.’s 2012 Family Services case plan,

noting that while L.G. was non-compliant, there was no imminent risk to her

children’s safety. After closing the case, DCFS did not have any contact with L.G.

until the instant matter.

Roughly two years later, L.G. gave birth to her youngest child, Z.K. That

child also was born with a positive test for marijuana in her meconium and syphilis.

DCFS sought an instanter order of removal for not just Z.K., but also for L.G.’s

four older children, which was granted by the trial court. The children were

ordered into the custody of the State.

On March 25, 2014, an adjudication hearing and disposition was held for

D.A., Dy.G., De.G., and D.D. The father of Z.K. was not present, and so the

matter as to this child was continued until April 15, 2014, to allow for the

appointment of a curator. On March 25, the trial court found the four oldest

children to be children in need of care and ordered them to remain in State custody.

From that decision, L.G. appeals.

La.Code Civ. Proc. Ann. art. 2164 provides that an “appellate
court shall render any judgment which is just, legal and proper upon
the record on appeal.” It is well settled that an appellate court is
empowered under this article to remand a case to the district court for
the taking of additional evidence where it is necessary to reach a just
decision and to prevent a miscarriage of justice. Vallo v. Gayle Oil
Company, Inc., 94-1238 (La.11/30/94), 646 So.2d 859, 866. Although
a court should always remand a case whenever the nature and extent
of the proceedings dictate such a course, whether or not any particular
case should be remanded is a matter which is vested largely within the
court’s discretion and depends upon the circumstances of the case.
Jones v. LeDay, 373 So.2d 787, 789 (La.App. 3 Cir.1979).

Alex v. Rayne Concrete Serv., 05-1457, 05-2344, 05-2520, p. 23 (La.1/26/07), 951

So.2d 138, 155.

Examination of the record reveals that it does not contain the disposition or

transcript from Z.K.’s adjudication hearing. Because the record lacks the trial

court’s judgment on Z.K., we cannot determine the merits of this matter as to that

child. Therefore, we must pretermit ruling on this appeal because the record

contains no judgment at all for our review as to her. Rather than ruling on the four

oldest children alone, we hereby remand this case for completion of the trial record

so L.G.’s appeal may be properly heard as to all five of her children at once.

For the above reasons, we hereby remand this case to the trial court for the

purpose of completing the record to include the judgment and transcript of the

adjudication as to Z.K. Because counsel for L.G. requested the transcript be placed

in the record, but had that request denied by the trial court, L.G. has no fault in this

omission. Accordingly, costs of this appeal of $480.10 are to be assessed against

the State.

REMANDED.

This opinion is NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICTION. Uniform
Rules—Courts of Appeal. Rule 2–16.3.

2