State in the Interest of K. L.

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

16-37

STATE IN THE INTEREST OF K.L.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
THIRTY-SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF BEAUREGARD, NO. JC-2008-0006, DIVISION A
HONORABLE J. BYRON HEBERT, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

ULYSSES GENE THIBODEAUX
CHIEF JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux, Chief Judge, Billy Howard Ezell,
and John E. Conery, Judges.

REVERSED AND RENDERED.

Nicholas Pizzolatto, Jr.
Louisiana Department of Children & Family Services
1919 Kirkman Street
Lake Charles, LA 70601
Telephone: (337) 491-2066
COUNSEL FOR OTHER APPELLANT:
State of Louisiana

Franchesca L. Hamilton-Acker
Acadiana Legal Services Corporation
P. O. Box 4823
Lafayette, LA 70502-4823
Telephone: (337) 237-4320
COUNSEL FOR OTHER APPELLEE:
K.L. (child)

THIBODEAUX, Chief Judge.

The State of Louisiana, Department of Children & Family Services

appeals the trial court judgment ordering a permanent plan of alternative

permanent living arrangement (APLA) for a child under the age of sixteen, in

violation of state and federal law. For the following reasons, we reverse the

judgment of the trial court.

I.

ISSUE

The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court committed manifest

error by ordering the permanent plan for K.L. 1 to be changed from “Adoption” to

“APLA,” in violation of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 675(5)(C)(i) and

Louisiana Children’s Code Article 702.

II.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

K.L. came into the custody of the State of Louisiana on February 26,

2009, where she has since remained. K.L.’s parents surrendered their parental

rights on or about July 31, 2008, and her goal thereafter became adoption.

Approximately eighteen months later, K.L’s goal was changed to APLA, or

alternatively, another planned permanent living arrangement (APPLA). 2

1
Pursuant to Uniform Rules—Courts of Appeal, Rules 5-1 and 5-2, the initials of the
parties will be used to protect and maintain the privacy of the minor child involved in this
proceeding.
2
Referred to as APLA in Louisiana and “Another Planned Permanent Living
Arrangement” (APPLA) under federal law.

At a case review hearing held on June 9, 2015, the trial court judge

ordered that the case goal be changed from APLA to adoption. However, on

December 8, 2015, the trial court reversed the order, changing the goal back to

APLA. At the time of the judgment, K.L., born on April 17 2002, was thirteen

years old. It is from this ruling that the Louisiana Department of Children &

Family Services (DCFS) now appeals. 3

III.

LAW AND DISCUSSION

This appeal concerns an error of law which shall be reviewed de novo.

Land v. Vidrine, 10-1342 (La. 3/15/11), 62 So.3d 36.

Louisiana Children’s Code Article 702(C) provides that a court shall

conduct a permanency hearing to “determine the permanent plan for the child that

is most appropriate and in the best interest of the child in accordance with [certain

specified] priorities of placement.” It prioritizes “[p]lacement in the least

restrictive, most family-like alternative permanent living arrangement[,]” but limits

this alternative to children sixteen years of age or older. La.Ch.Code art.

702(C)(5).

The Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 675(5)(C)(i) provides that only a

“child who has attained 16 years of age” may be “placed in another planned

permanent living arrangement,” or, APPLA. This section had been amended by

the Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act in 2014, which

amended section 475(5)(C)(i) of the Social Security Act by raising the age

restriction on APPLA placement from fourteen to sixteen years of age.

3
It is significant to note that although DCFS secured the order changing K.L.’s goal to
APLA, it is also the party appealing that judgment.

2

At the case review hearing held on December 8, 2015, DCFS and the

court were unaware that APLA could not be the permanent goal for a child under

the age of sixteen, despite the earlier federal law prohibiting APLA/APPLA to

children under the age of fourteen. Therefore, because K.L. was thirteen at the

time of the case review hearing, and because both federal and Louisiana law

prohibit APLA/APPLA placement for children under the age of sixteen, DCFS and

the court improperly changed her goal from “Adoption” to “APLA.”

IV.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.

REVERSED AND RENDERED.

THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION.
RULE 2-16.3, UNIFORM RULES—COURTS OF APPEAL.

3