Opinion
22-C-366
08-17-2022
ANN RUTH BAEHR v. STACI LYN MANGERCHINE AND RAYLAN KAINE MELANCON IN RE ANN RUTH BAEHR
APPLYING FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA, DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE COMMISSIONER PATRICIA M. JOYCE, NUMBER 811-196
Panel composed of Judges Marc E. Johnson, John J. Molaison, Jr., and June B. Darensburg
WRIT GRANTED IN PART; JUDGMENTS STAYED; APPLICATION TRANSFERRED TO JUVENILE COURT
The instant application, which pertains to rulings on child custody made by a district court, asserts that the proper venue for this matter remains in juvenile court, which rendered the last custody order. The application presents a myriad of procedural and factual questions that we cannot resolve on the face of the petition, as filed. However, the application also contains several allegations about a child's future care which, if true, are cause for concern. Expedited consideration has been requested, given the gravity of the rulings.
The relator, who is the child's great aunt, had previously been granted provisional custody by the Jefferson Parish Juvenile Court on December 14, 2020, with the mother's consent. That judgment, which is included in the writ application, provides in relevant part that the order would remain in effect "pending further orders." While a juvenile court can exercise continuing jurisdiction in custody matters as per La. Ch. C. art. 309, in order to do so the case must meet certain criteria.
Jurisdiction is the legal power and authority of a court to hear and determine an action or proceeding involving the legal relations of the parties, and to grant the relief to which they are entitled. La. C.C.P. art. 1. The jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter of an action or proceeding cannot be conferred by consent of the parties; a judgment rendered by a court which has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action or proceeding is void. La. C.C.P. art. 3. On the showing made, we cannot determine whether the instant case falls under the juvenile court's exclusive purview which, if established, would mean that all of the district court rulings complained of may be moot.
We are mindful that pleadings must be reasonably construed so as to afford litigants their day in court, to arrive at the truth and to avoid a miscarriage of justice. Pennebaker v. Jefferson Par., 383 So.2d 484, 486 (La. Ct. App. 1980), citing Hero Lands Company v. Texaco, Inc., 310 So.2d 93 (La. 1975). An appellate court shall render any judgment which is just, legal, and proper upon the record on appeal. La. C.C.P. art. 2164. Pursuant to La. Code Civ. P. art. 2164, courts of appeal have the power to remand a case for the introduction of additional evidence if grave injustice might result from failure to do so. Cottonport Bank v. Garrett, 012-0688 (La.App. 1st Cir. 12/21/12), 111 So.3d 431, 436, writ denied, 13-0165 (La. 3/1/13), 108 So.3d 1182. Such a remand is warranted only when the new evidence is likely to affect the outcome of the case. Id. Whether a particular case is remanded is a matter over which the court has much discretion and is governed by the particular facts and circumstances of each case. Id.
In this case, we find that a remand to ensure that the proper venue for the issues raised is a benefit to all concerned parties, and also serves the interest of judicial efficiency. Accordingly, all district court rulings in this matter are temporarily stayed, pending further orders of this Court. We transfer this application to the Jefferson Parish Juvenile Court, Division "A," for a determination within 72 hours of this disposition on the issue of whether it has exclusive continuing jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to any of the grounds provided by La. Ch. C. art. 309. The writ application will then be supplemented by the relator with the juvenile court's ruling by Monday, August 22, 2022 at noon for this court's consideration.
JJM
JBD
JOHNSON, J., CONCURS WITH REASONS
I agree that the Juvenile Court is best equipped to determine whether it can exercise its exclusive jurisdiction of this matter pursuant to La. Ch. C. art. 309. See Medus v. Medus, 379 So.2d 21 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1979), writ denied, 381 So.2d 1235 (La. 1980). But, on its face, the December 14, 2020 judgment granting the voluntary transfer of custody of the minor child to Relator does not specifically reserve the rights of the child's absentee parents pursuant to La. Ch. C. art. 1517. Therefore, I find Respondent's pending action to annul the judgment pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 2004 in the district court is also supported by jurisprudence. See Pollock v. Talco Midstream Assets, Ltd., 44,629 (La.App. 2 Cir. 9/23/09), 22 So.3d 1033, 1037-38. However, Respondent could also pursue his nullity action in the Juvenile Court. Id. Thus, I find the December 7, 2020 judgment null and void and, unless Relator or the Juvenile Court is able to supplement the record with additional evidence to support the Juvenile Court's exercise of exclusive jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to La. Ch. C. art. 309 within three days of this disposition, I would deny the writ.
MEJ