State in the Interest of I.B.W.

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

JAC 14-681 consolidated with JAC 14-682

STATE IN THE INTEREST OF G.E.K. & C.E.S.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
THIRTY-FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF GRANT, NO. J-2674 C/W J-2737
HONORABLE W. PEYTON CUNNINGHAM, JR., DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

JAMES T. GENOVESE
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of John D. Saunders, James T. Genovese, and John E. Conery,
Judges.

RULE TO SHOW CAUSE RECALLED.

Robert L. Kennedy
Attorney at Law
352 2nd Street
Colfax, LA 71417
(318) 627-3255
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
B. H. W. (father)

Thomas Gardiner Wilson
Attorney at Law
420 Kings Drive
Pineville, LA 71360
(318) 640-4810
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT:
A. V. (mother)

James Patrick Lemoine
District Attorney, 35th Judicial District Court
Post Office Box 309
Colfax, LA 71417-0309
(318) 627-3205
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana

Guy Richard Lain
Attorney at Law
1648 Carter Street
Vidalia, LA 71373
(318) 336-8611
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana, Department of Children & Family Services

Renée Paula Cote
Attorney at Law
Post Office Box 1189
Natchitoches, LA 71458-1189
(318) 352-7220
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEES:
G. E. K. (child)
C. E. S. (child)
I. W. (child)

Joseph P. Beck, III
Attorney At Law
5529 Monroe Highway
Ball, LA 71405
(318) 640-9202
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
S. K. (father)

Jessica Firment
Attorney at Law
2805 Dawkins Street
Alexandria, LA 71301-4707
(318) 272-2720
COUNSEL FOR INTERVENORS-APPELLEES:
J. V. (intervenor)
H. V. (intervenor)

Carolyn O. Hines
Attorney at Law
Post Office Box 12325
Alexandria, LA 71315
(318) 442-3251
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT:
A. V. (mother)

GENOVESE, Judge.

This court, on its own motion, issued a rule for the appellant, A.V., to show

cause, by brief only, why the appeal in this matter, bearing the district court docket

number J-2674, should not be dismissed for lack of an order of appeal bearing that

docket number. The appellant has filed a response to this court‟s rule to show

cause. For the reasons given below, we maintain this appeal.

The instant juvenile proceedings were first initiated by the State as to two of

the appellant‟s minor children, G.E.K. and C.E.S. These proceedings were

assigned the district court docket number of J-2674. Subsequently, the State

initiated another action with regard to appellant‟s third minor child, I.W. This

matter was assigned the district court docket number of J-2737. These two actions

were consolidated by the district court.

The trial court entered an appealable judgment bearing both docket numbers.

However, when the appellant filed her motion and order of appeal, she only

referenced the docket number J-2737, even though the motion and order mention

the initials of all three children. Lacking a proper order of appeal bearing docket

number J-2674, this court issued the subject rule to show cause under consideration

herein.

In response to this court‟s rule, the appellant has filed a brief pointing out

that an amended motion and order of appeal was filed in the trial court and that the

amended order, bearing docket number J-2674, has now been granted by the trial

court. This court has stated, “it is important to recognize that appeals are favored

and should be maintained when possible. „Appeals are favored in the law and

should be maintained unless a legal ground for dismissal is clearly shown. An

appeal is not to be dismissed for a mere technicality. Unless the ground urged for

dismissal is free from doubt, the appeal should not be dismissed.‟ Stadtlander v.

Ryan’s Family Steakhouses, Inc., 34,384, p. 2 (La.App. 2 Cir. 4/4/01), 794 So.2d

881, 885, writ denied, 01-1327 (La. 6/22/01), 794 So.2d 790 (citations omitted).”

Louisiana Bd. of Massage Therapy v. Fontenot, 2004-1525, p. 5 (La.App. 3 Cir.

5/4/05), 901 So.2d 1232, 1235-36. We find that the appellant‟s intention was clear

even though the initial order of appeal was not. The original motion and order of

appeal mentioned that the appellant wanted to appeal the trial court‟s ruling as to

all three of her children, even though only one of the docket numbers appeared on

the motion and order of appeal. Therefore, in the interest of justice and for good

cause shown, we hereby maintain the appeal and recall this court‟s rule to show

cause issued on June 25, 2014.

RULE TO SHOW CAUSE RECALLED.

THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION.
Rule 2-16.3 Uniform Rules, Court of Appeal.

2