State in the Interest of B.D.L.

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

16-243

STATE OF LOUISIANA

IN THE INTEREST OF

B.D.L.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
TWELTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF AVOYELLES, NO. 2013-J-8531-B
HONORABLE WILLIAM J. BENNETT, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********
ELIZABETH A. PICKETT

JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Elizabeth A. Pickett, Shannon J. Gremillion, and Phyllis M.
Keaty, Judges.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

D.P.B.
675 Government Street
Marksville, Louisiana 71351
BIOLOGICAL FATHER OF B.D.L.

Donna DeSoto
Avoyelles Parish CASA
Post Office Box 687
Marksville, Louisiana 71351
COURT APPOINTED SPECIAL ADVOCATE FOR:
B.D.L.

Judith Gremillion, CWSIV
Avoyelles Parish Department of Children and Family Services
607 Tunica Drive
Marksville, Louisiana 71351

Benjamin D. James
Attorney at Law
Post Office Box 544
Marksville, Louisiana 71351
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT (BIOLOGICAL MOTHER OF B.D.L.):
K.B.

Guy R. Lain
Bureau of General Counsel
Department of Children and Family Services
1648 Carter Street
Vidalia, Louisiana 71373
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
STATE OF LOUISIANA, DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND
FAMILY SERVICES

Maria A. Losavio
Attorney at Law
Post Office Box 12420
Alexandria, Louisiana 71315-2420
COUNSEL FOR INTERVENORS:
J.J. and B.J.

Henry Howard Lemoine, Jr.
Attorney at Law
607 Main Street
Pineville, Louisiana 71360
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT (BIOLOGICAL MOTHER OF B.D.L.):
K.B.

Harold A. Murry
Attorney at Law
610 Murray Street
Alexandria, Louisiana 71301-8021
COUNSEL FOR INTERVENORS:
J.J. and B.J.

Cory P. Roy
Brandon J. Scott
Benjamin D. James
ROY & SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW
107 North Washington Street
Marksville, Louisiana 71351
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT (BIOLOGICAL MOTHER OF B.D.L.):
K.B.

Renee Y. Roy, Assistant District Attorney
Attorney at Law
Post Office Box 501
Mansura, Louisiana 7135
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
STATE OF LOUISIANA, DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND
FAMILY SERVICES

Mahogany M. Watkins
Attorney at Law
620 Murray Street
Alexandria, Louisiana 71301
COUNSEL FOR THE MINOR, B.D.L.

PICKETT, Judge.

This court issued a rule ordering Appellant, K.B., the biological mother of

the minor, B.D.L., to show cause, by brief only, why her appeal should not be

dismissed as untimely. For the reasons that follow, we dismiss the appeal.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This matter began when B.D.L., who was nearly two weeks old1 at the time,

was taken into custody by the State of Louisiana on June 3, 2013, after the

Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) in Avoyelles Parish was

notified that the child’s meconium tested positive for amphetamine, methadone,

and benzodiazepines at birth. The instanter order was issued on June 3, 2013, and

the continued custody hearing was held on June 5, 2013. B.D.L. was placed with

Intervenors, J.J. and B.J., upon B.D.L.’s release from the hospital after being born.

B.D.L. was adjudicated a child in need of care on September 4, 2013. The

goal of the case plan had been reunification, until a June 11, 2014 case review

hearing where DCFS recommended a primary goal of adoption. On October 15,

2014, DCFS filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of the biological

mother, K.B.; the biological father, D.P.B.; and the legal father, B.L.

On August 5, 2015, J.J. and B.J. filed a petition for intervention seeking to

maintain custody of B.D.L. and to adopt him if allowed. On August 18, 2015, J.J.

and B.J. filed a petition for protection from abuse pursuant to La.Ch.Code art. 158.

On September 9, 2015, a hearing was held to address: (1) case plan review;

(2) a petition for protection from abuse filed by J.J. and B.J. on behalf of B.D.L.; (3)

petition for intervention filed by J.J. and B.J.; and (4) motion for mental evaluation

pursuant to La.Ch.Code art. 654 filed by J.J. and B.J. on behalf of B.D.L. At the

1
B.D.L. was born on May 21, 2013.

hearing, DCFS changed its position on the primary goal being adoption and instead

recommended reunification. The trial court took the matter under advisement and

rendered reasons for ruling on October 22, 2015. In those reasons for ruling, the

trial court indicated that: (1) it would not order termination of parental rights

because of the efforts made by K.B. to establish a relationship with B.D.L.; (2) it

would dismiss the petition for protection from abuse based on its belief that K.B.

did not commit any intentional act of abuse and its belief that B.D.L. was not in

any danger in the presence of K.B.; (3) in the best interests of the child, custody of

B.D.L. would be granted to J.J. and B.J., and no visitation issues would be

addressed; and (4) the motion for mental evaluation of B.D.L. would be dismissed

as moot. A written judgment reflecting these rulings was signed on October 27,

2015. Notice of judgment issued the same day. All of the relevant proceedings

were held in the Juvenile Court for the Twelfth Judicial District Court in the Parish

of Avoyelles.

K.B. filed a motion and order for appeal on November 25, 2015, seeking an

appeal from the October 27, 2015 judgment. The order of appeal was signed on

December 1, 2015. When the record was lodged in this court, a rule to show cause

was issued to K.B. to show cause, by brief only, why the appeal of the judgment

granting custody of B.D.L. to J.J. and B.J. should not be dismissed as untimely.

See La.Ch.Code art. 332.

DISCUSSION

Pursuant to La.Ch.Code art. 332, “[e]xcept as otherwise provided within a

particular Title of this Code, appeals shall be taken within fifteen days from the

mailing of notice of the judgment.” The delay for applying for a new trial is three

days, exclusive of holidays, from the mailing of notice of judgment. La.Ch.Code

2

art. 332. It has been held that La.Code Civ.P. art. 2123, which provides the delay

for taking a suspensive appeal, “does not apply to appeals taken from judgments

under the Children’s Code.” State in the Interest of K.B., 30,358, p. 2 (La.App. 2

Cir. 8/21/97), 698 So.2d 761, 762. This shortened delay for taking a suspensive

appeal is “consistent with the statutory scheme of expediency.” State in the

Interest of S.K., 15-457, p. (La.App. 5 Cir. 7/29/15), ___ So.3d ___, ___.

In the instant matter, the written judgment was signed and notice of

judgment was sent on October 27, 2015. K.B. did not move for a new trial. K.B.’s

motion for appeal, however, was filed on November 25, 2015,2 after the delays had

expired for applying for a new trial or an appeal. See La.Ch.Code art. 332.

“The courts of appeal have consistently held that an appeal not timely filed

in juvenile matters shall be dismissed.” State ex rel. C.P., 00-2703, p. 2 (La.

1/17/01), 777 So.2d 470, 471. “[W]hen no other party has filed for an appeal,”

the party seeking the appeal “is not entitled to have [their] time for appeal

extended.” Id. at 472.

Courts have discussed the nature of juvenile proceedings: “[i]t is settled that

juvenile proceedings are not purely civil matters but are [s]ui generis.” In re Rome,

316 So.2d 759, 760 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1975). Earlier cases interpreted that to mean

that “[t]he prescriptions set forth in the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Code

of Practice pertain to appeals in criminal and civil cases respectively and cannot by

inference or implication be extended to appeals from the Juvenile Court in cases

concerning the general welfare of children. Such cases are not to be classed as

2
Fifteen days from October 27, 2005, was November 11, 2015.

3

civil or criminal--indeed, they are sui generis.” In Re Diaz, 211 La. 1015, 1017, 31

So.2d 195, 196 (1947). 3

“Where procedures are not provided in [the Children’s Code] . . . the court

shall proceed in accordance with . . . the Code of Civil Procedure.” La.Ch.Code art.

104. K.B. argues, in brief, that La.Ch.Code art. 332 is inapplicable since the

October 27, 2015 judgment awarded custody of B.D.L. to J.J. and B.J., adjudged

B.D.L. to no longer be a child in need of care, and divested the State of Louisiana

of any custody and/or responsibility concerning B.D.L. K.B. argues that La.Code

Civ.P. art. 3943 is applicable instead. Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article

3943 provides that “[a]n appeal from a judgment awarding custody . . . can be

taken only within the delay provided in Article 3942[,]” which is “thirty days from

the applicable date provided in Article 2087(A).” In this case since no motion for

new trial was made, the delay for appeal, if La.Code Civ.P. art. 3943 is applicable,

would be thirty days from “[t]he expiration of the delay for applying for a new

trial.” La.Code Civ.P. 2087(A). According to K.B. this “is not a typical

adjudication or disposition within a child in need of care proceeding; rather, the

district court granted J.J. and B.J. request for custody of the minor child.”

(Emphasis in original.)

While this may not be a “typical adjudication or disposition,” it is clear that

this matter is a child in need of care proceeding and that the Children’s Code has

its own delay for an appeal from a judgment rendered in a juvenile proceeding. It is

also important to note that there is no specific provision in the Children’s Code that

provides for a different time delay for a judgment awarding custody to a non-

3
In Re Diaz was decided when there was no statute setting forth a prescriptive period for
the perfection of appeals in juvenile proceedings. In Re Rome, 316 So.2d 759.

4

parent and finding the child to no longer be a child in need of care other than the

delay set forth in La.Ch.Code art. 332. See State ex rel. E.A., 02-996 (La.App. 3

Cir. 10/2/02), 827 So.2d 594. As in Interest of C.C. v. E.C.C., 01-1364, p. 11

(La.App. 3 Cir. 3/20/02), 813 So.2d 576, 583, this court “reject[s] the argument

that somehow this proceeding was converted by the trial judge into a civil

proceeding . . . . The record reveals that this was a juvenile case from the

beginning to the end and that everyone so understood.” In Interest of C.C., the

juvenile court trial judge rendered a judgment of disposition that terminated the

custody of the State and gave the biological father of the children custody. This

court held that “[t]he adjudication was conducted strictly under the auspices of the

Children’s Code. It was not conducted, as the mother would have us believe, as a

hybrid juvenile and civil proceeding. The nature of the proceeding was clear from

the beginning.” Id. at 582-583. Such is the case here.

Accordingly, we find that La.Code Civ.P. art. 3492, which sets forth the

delay for an appeal from a judgment awarding custody, is inapplicable in child in

need of care proceedings. K.B.’s motion for appeal was not timely filed.

This court, in Seaman v. Seaman, 10-1295, p. 6 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/15/10),

54 So.3d 756, 760, pointed out that: “[N]either the trial court nor the appellate

court has the authority to extend the delays for seeking an appeal since the

timeliness of an appeal is a jurisdictional issue.” This court dismissed an appeal in

a case in which the state, as appellee, did not oppose an extension of time within

which to file an appeal where the attorney for the mother (whose parental rights

had been terminated) had withdrawn as counsel before proceeding with the appeal.

State in the Interest of E.A., 2002-996 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/2/02), 827 So.2d 594,

5

Therefore, the delay that K.B. had to perfect her appeal in this matter cannot be

extended by this court. Her appeal must be dismissed.

DECREE

We dismiss K.B.’s appeal as untimely since it was not taken within the

fifteen-day delay provided by La.Ch.Code art. 332.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

6