Opinion
2016 CJ 0329
09-16-2016
STATE OF LOUISIANA IN THE INTEREST OF [ADJ]
Sherry Ann Powell Laura G. Slocum Baton Rouge, Louisiana Counsel for Petitioner-Appellant State of Louisiana Department of Children and Family Services Jack Harrison Baton Rouge, Louisiana Counsel for Ad Hoc Curator East Baton Rouge Office of the Public Defender
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION ON APPEAL FROM THE JUVENILE COURT
NUMBER 11900, DIVISION "B", PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE
STATE OF LOUISIANA HONORABLE PAMELA TAYLOR JOHNSON, JUDGE Sherry Ann Powell
Laura G. Slocum
Baton Rouge, Louisiana Counsel for Petitioner-Appellant
State of Louisiana
Department of Children and Family
Services Jack Harrison
Baton Rouge, Louisiana Counsel for Ad Hoc Curator
East Baton Rouge
Office of the Public Defender BEFORE: HIGGINBOTHAM, THERIOT, AND CHUTZ, JJ.
Disposition: AFFIRMED.
CHUTZ, J.
Petitioner-appellant, the State of Louisiana, Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) appeals a judgment ordering it to pay the fee and costs to curator-appellee, the East Baton Rouge Parish, Office of the District Public Defender (EBRP-ODPD) for services it rendered pursuant to an appointment by the juvenile court to serve as a curator for the absentee parents of the minor child, ADJ. We affirm.
On August 4, 2015, DCFS petitioned the court for the appointment of an ad hoc curator to locate ADJ's mother and the man she represented was the child's father with the intent of pursuing the termination of their parental rights. On August 5, 2015, the juvenile court appointed an assistant public defender with EBRP-ODPD to serve as curator for the absentee parents. In November 2015, EBRP-ODPD filed a motion for the fee and costs, itemizing total expenses in the amount of $406.68, incurred as a result of its curatorship. On November 30, 2015, the juvenile court signed an order, directing DCFS to pay $406.68 to EBRP-ODPD. DCFS suspensively appealed.
As it did before the juvenile court, in this appeal DCFS maintains that under the law, the Louisiana Legislature allocated the financial responsibility of the ad hoc curator appointment in these termination of parental rights proceedings to EBRP-ODPD. In so contending, DCFS relies on House Bill 1 of the 2015 Regular Legislative Session (HB 1). See Act 16 of the 2015 Regular Legislative Session, entitled "Appropriations," which provides for the ordinary operating expenses of state government for Fiscal Year 2015-2016. According to DCFS, under the provisions of HB 1, the Louisiana Public Defender Board was provided with $979,680.00 with which to finance the Indigent Parent Representation Fund. Underscoring its conviction that the Louisiana Legislature intended that EBRP-ODPD incur the fee and costs of the curatorship of ADJ's absentee parents, DCFS points to additional language in HB 1, which states that the Louisiana Public Defender Board is responsible and budgeted for providing legal representation to indigent persons including accepting curatorship appointments for absentee parents in termination of parental rights proceedings. As the latest legislative expression, DCFS asserts that EBRP-ODPD should incur the $406.68 fee and costs of the curatorship appointment.
In granting EBRP-ODPD the requested fee and costs, the juvenile court relied on the plain language of La. Ch.C. art. 1023C, enacted by La. Acts 1991, No. 235, § 10, which stated, "The fee and costs of the curator ad hoc shall be paid by the petitioner, any law to the contrary notwithstanding." Given the plain, unambiguous language of Subsection C of Article 1023, the juvenile court found that, despite the language contained in HB 1, as the petitioner who had requested appointment, DCFS was mandated to pay the fee and costs of the curator.
After DCFS appealed to this court, on June 5, 2016, the Louisiana Legislature repealed La. Ch.C. art. 1023C. See La. Acts 2016, No. 407, § 3. The parties have not briefed or argued the issue of the applicability of Acts 2016, No. 407, § 3 before this court.
La. U.R.C.A. Rule 1-3 provides that courts of appeal will review only issues which were submitted to the trial court and which are contained in specifications or assignments of error, unless the interest of justice clearly requires otherwise. While we may tend to believe that La. Acts 2016, No. 407, § 3 is a substantive modification and, therefore, not entitled to retroactive application, see Adams v. City of Baton Rouge , 95-2515 (La. App. 1st Cir. 4/30/96), 673 So.2d 624, 631-33, writs denied, 96-1491, 96-1492 (La. 9/20/96), 679 So.2d 439 (substantive laws apply prospectively only; procedural and interpretive laws apply both prospectively and retroactively, unless there is a legislative expression to the contrary), we do not think the interests of justice "clearly require" that we review the issue. We turn now to the briefed arguments addressing the law in effect on the date the petitioner requested the petition, the date the juvenile court ordered the appointment, and the date that DCFS was ordered to pay the fee and costs of EBRP-ODPD's curatorship of ADJ's absentee parents.
Legislation is the solemn expression of the will of the legislature. La. C.C. art. 2. The determination of the legislature's will must start with the language of the statute itself. Milbert v. Answering Bureau , Inc., 2013-0022 (La. 6/28/13), 120 So.3d 678, 684. The words used must be interpreted as they are generally understood. La. C.C. art. 11. When the words of a statute are clear and unambiguous, and the application of the law does not lead to absurd consequences, the statute should be applied as written and no further effort should be made to determine the legislature's intent. La. C.C. art. 9; La. R.S. 1:4; Milbert , 120 So.3d at 684.
HB 1 is a "law to the contrary" of the provisions of former Subsection C of Article 1023, which mandated the fee and costs of the curator ad hoc shall be paid by the petitioner. Because the application of the provisions of Article 1023C did not lead to an absurd consequence, we find the juvenile court correctly applied them as written. Accordingly, there is no error in the order directing DCFS to pay $406.68 to EBRP-ODPD.
DECREE
For these reasons, we affirm the juvenile court's order. Appeal costs in the amount of $404.40 are assessed against petitioner-appellant, the State of Louisiana, Department of Children and Family Services.
AFFIRMED.
See generally La. Ch.C. art. 1015 (setting forth grounds for the involuntary termination of parental rights). See also La. Ch.C. art. 1023A (stating that if the parent against whom a termination of parental rights proceeding is instituted cannot be served in accordance with either La. Ch.C. art. 1021 or art. 1022, the court shall appoint an attorney at law as curator ad hoc for the parent).