The State of Louisiana in the Interest Of: C.D.W. v. T.R.W.

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

17-1008

STATE OF LOUISIANA
IN THE INTEREST OF C.D.W.

VERSUS

T.R.W.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OFCALCASIEU, NO. 30015
HONORABLE LILYNN A. CUTRER, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

SHANNON J. GREMILLION
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Shannon J. Gremillion, Phyllis M. Keaty, and D. Kent Savoie,
Judges.

APPEAL DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

Shane K. Hinch
The Larry Roach Law Firm
2917 Ryan Street
Lake Charles, Louisiana 70629
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEES:
The State of Louisiana, J.B., and M.B. (as the legal custodians of
C.D.W.)

LaKetha W. Holmes
Holmes Family Law Group, LLC
112 N. Steward Street
DeRidder, Louisiana 70634
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
T.R.W. (biological mother of C.D.W.)

Walter M. Sanchez
The Sanchez Law Firm, LLC
1200 Ryan Street
Lake Charles, Louisiana 70601
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEES:
The State of Louisiana and the minor child, C.D.W.

GREMILLION, Judge.

This court issued a rule ordering Appellant, T.R.W.1 (the biological mother

of the minor child, C.D.W.), to show cause, by brief only, why her appeal should

not be dismissed for having been taken from a judgment lacking proper decretal

language. See State in the Interest of J.C., 16-138 (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/3/16), 196

So.3d 102. For the reasons set forth below, we dismiss the appeal without

prejudice and remand the matter to the trial court for further proceedings consistent

with this opinion.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

C.D.W. was taken into State custody at the time of his birth, July 25, 2009,

because he was born with controlled substances in his system. T.R.W. is his birth

mother. Other than a brief period when he resided with his maternal grandmother,

C.D.W. has been with the same family, J.B. and M.B., since his birth. J.B. and

M.B. were awarded sole custody of C.D.W. in December of 2015. On February 1,

2017, the State of Louisiana filed a petition for termination of T.R.W.’s parental

rights. A trial was held on June 28, 2017, and the trial court took the matter under

advisement. On July 17, 2017, the trial court issued written reasons for judgment

wherein it found “that [J.B. and M.B.] carried their burden of proof to terminate

the parental rights of T.R.W. to C.D.W.” The written reasons for judgment

indicated that the trial court “will” terminate the parental rights of T.R.W. and

certify C.D.W. for adoption. The written reasons also indicated that custody of

C.D.W. was given to J.B. and M.B. pursuant to La.Ch.Code art. 1037(D).

1
Pursuant to Uniform Rules―Courts of Appeal, Rules 5‒1 and 5‒2, the initials of the
parties are used to ensure confidentiality and to protect the identity of the minor child involved in
these proceeding.

On July 17, 2017, the same day written reasons were assigned, the trial court

signed a judgment which stated:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED
that the Written Reasons for Judgment rendered on this date shall be
made a judgment of the Court.

Appellant filed a notice of appeal of that judgment on July 24, 2017, and an

order of appeal was signed. The court issued a notice of appeal on July 31, 2017.

When the record was lodged in this court, a rule was issued ordering Appellant to

show cause why her appeal should not be dismissed as having been taken from a

judgment that lacked proper decretal language.

DISCUSSION

In Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University & Agricultural &

Mechanical College v. Mid City Holdings, L.L.C., 14-506, pp. 2-3 (La.App. 4 Cir.

10/15/14), 151 So.3d 908, 910, the court stated:

We cannot determine the merits of an appeal unless our
jurisdiction is properly invoked by a valid final judgment. See
Input/Output Marine Sys., Inc. v. Wilson Greatbatch, Tech., Inc., 10-
477, p. 12 (La.App. 5 Cir. 10/29/10); 52 So.3d 909, 915. “A judgment
is the determination of the rights of the parties in an action and may
award any relief to which the parties are entitled.” La. C.C.P. art.
1841. “A valid judgment must be precise, definite and certain. . . .
The decree alone indicates the decision. . . . The result decreed must
be spelled out in lucid, unmistakable language. . . . . The quality of
definiteness is essential to a proper judgment. Input/Output Marine,
10-477, pp. 12-13; 52 So.3d at 915-16 (citations omitted).

. . . “The specific relief granted should be determinable from the
judgment without reference to an extrinsic source such as pleadings or
reasons for judgment.” Input/Output Marine, 10-477, p. 13; 52 So.3d
at 916.

It is well settled that “[a]ppeals are taken from judgments, not reasons for

judgment.” State in the Interest of J.C., 196 So.3d at 106. The judgment in this

case merely references the written reasons and states that they “shall be made a

judgment of the Court.” From the judgment itself, it cannot be ascertained what

2

specific relief was granted by the court. Thus, this judgment “does not contain all

of the necessary decretal language to meet the requirements of a final judgment.”

Dietz v. Dietz, 13-186, p. 8 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/6/13), 128 So.3d 1215, 1220.

T.R.W. argues that “[t]he trial court was clear in its rendering that” J.B. and

M.B. were given custody of C.D.W. and that such “judgment was deemed final”

because the court terminated the parental rights of T.R.W. and certified C.D.W. for

adoption. T.R.W. argues that the written reasons in this case included a final

judgment. However, we note that the written reasons for judgment in this case

cannot be considered as a final judgment due to the absence of formal decretal

language because the written reasons indicate that the court “will terminate the

parental rights of [T.R.W.] to [C.D.W.] and certify him for adoption” rather than

the trial court actually ordering these things in the written reasons. (Emphasis

added.) See Barlow v. Barlow, 13-1092, p. 4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/23/13), 161 So.3d

24.

Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed. When a final judgment is

rendered with the proper decretal language, Appellant, T.R.W., may file a new

appeal with this court. See Smith v. State, Dep’t of Transp. & Dev., 15-962

(La.App. 4 Cir. 2/17/16), 186 So.3d 1180.

DECREE

For all the reasons given, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider the merits

of the appeal because it was taken from a judgment that lacks proper decretal

language. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed without prejudice, and the matter

is remanded to the trial court with instructions that it sign a judgment containing

proper decretal language no later than December 21, 2017.

APPEAL DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. REMANDED WITH
INSTRUCTIONS.

3