Opinion
NUMBER 2018 CJ 0267
06-01-2018
STATE OF LOUISIANA IN THE INTEREST OF M.O.B., M.D.B., AND M.C.L.
Kristine Russell Melody Bridgewater Thibodaux, LA Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee, State of Louisiana Vanessa Zeringue Marcia Arceneaux Houma, LA Counsel for Children/Appellees, M.O.B., M.D.B., and M.C.L. Andrea C. Stentz Thibodaux, LA Counsel for Father/Appellant, Y. L. Greg G. Stahlneker, Jr. Thibodaux, LA Counsel for Mother/Appellee, C. B. Linda Mitchell Thibodaux, LA Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee, Department of Children and Family Services
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION Appealed from the Seventeenth Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of Lafourche State of Louisiana
Docket Number 13205 Honorable Christopher J. Boudreaux, Judge Presiding Kristine Russell
Melody Bridgewater
Thibodaux, LA Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee,
State of Louisiana Vanessa Zeringue
Marcia Arceneaux
Houma, LA Counsel for Children/Appellees,
M.O.B., M.D.B., and M.C.L. Andrea C. Stentz
Thibodaux, LA Counsel for Father/Appellant,
Y. L. Greg G. Stahlneker, Jr.
Thibodaux, LA Counsel for Mother/Appellee,
C. B. Linda Mitchell
Thibodaux, LA Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee,
Department of Children and Family
Services BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C.J., MCDONALD, AND CHUTZ, JJ. WHIPPLE, C.J.
In this proceeding to involuntarily terminate parental rights, the father of the minor children appeals from a judgment of the trial court terminating his parental rights and certifying the minor children as free and eligible for adoption. For the reasons that follow, we dismiss the appeal as abandoned.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The initials of the children and parents are used herein to protect their identity in accordance with Uniform Rules - Courts of Appeal, Rules 5-1 and 5-2.
M.O.B., M.D.B, and M.C.L., the minor children of C.B. and Y.L., were ordered to be taken into the custody of the State of Louisiana, Department of Children and Family Services ("DCFS") on January 15, 2016, based on reports of neglect/dependency, neglect/lack of supervision, and sexual abuse/unspecified sexual abuse. Following a continued custody hearing, the trial court ordered that the minor children were to remain in the custody of DCFS, and they were subsequently adjudicated as children in need of care.
According to the affidavit offered by DCFS in support of its request for instanter order, DCFS received a report that the parents were allowing a registered sex offender to reside in the home with the children and two of the children disclosed that he had sexually abused them.
The parents entered into a stipulation that the children were in need of care without admitting to the allegations at the adjudication hearing.
Although the case plan goal for the children was initially reunification with the parents, citing the parents' failure to complete their case plan objectives, DCFS recommended that the trial court accept the case plan goal of adoption, which DCFS concluded was in the best interest of the children. At a disposition hearing on May 3, 2016, the trial court found that continued custody of the children was necessary for the children's safety and protection on the basis that C.B. had not complied with her case plan objectives and that Y.L. was recently incarcerated. The trial court, however, did not accept the recommended case plan goal of adoption, and instead, allowed the parents additional time to work towards the case plan goal of reunification.
Prior to the next case review hearing, DCFS again recommended a case plan goal of adoption for the minor children on the basis that Y.L. was not motivated to comply or participate with any aspects of his case plan and reunification risk assessment results indicated that reunifying the children with Y.L. was a "Very High" risk. DCFS further reported that although C.B. had made an effort to achieve some of her case plan goals, she had received eleven negative drug screen results in less than a two-month time span resulting in a reunification risk assessment of "Moderate" risk. At the conclusion of the August 3, 2016 case review hearing, the trial court ordered that the children's visitation with Y.L. be suspended pending the completion of an investigation of complaints against the father and approved the case plan goal of adoption as recommended by DCFS.
On June 16, 2017, after the children had been in care for approximately a year and a half, DCFS filed a petition to terminate parental rights against C.B., as the mother of M.O.B., M.D.B, and M.C.L., and Y.L., the alleged biological father of M.O.B. and M.D.B., and the legal and biological father of M.C.L. Citing the parents' misconduct toward the children, abandonment of the children, and despite attempted interventions, no reasonable expectation of significant improvement in the parents condition or conduct, DCFS sought termination of their parental rights on the grounds set forth in LSA-Ch.C. art. 1015(4), (5), and (6).
DCFS requested that a curator ad hoc be appointed to represent the interest of any unknown biological father.
In response to the filing of the petition to terminate parental rights, C.B. voluntarily consented to a judgment of termination in accordance with the provisions of LSA-Ch.C. art. 1025.2, and on July 20, 2017, a judgment was signed terminating her parental rights to the minor children.
Children's Code article 1025.2 provides as follows:
The parent whose rights are sought to be terminated may stipulate that the grounds alleged in the petition are true provided that all of the following occur:
(1) He personally appears before the court. A parent who resides either in another parish or in another state may personally appear before the court exercising juvenile court jurisdiction in his place of residence.
(2) The court fully informs him of his rights and the consequences of such a stipulation.
(3) The parent knowingly and voluntarily consents to the judgment.
As to Y.L.'s parental rights, however, the matter proceeded to trial on October 17, 2017. At the conclusion of trial, the trial court granted the petition finding that DCFS established by clear and convincing evidence that Y.L.'s parental rights to the minor children should be terminated pursuant to LSA-Ch.C. art. 1015(5) and (6). On October 31, 2017, the trial court signed a judgment terminating Y.L.'s parental rights to the minor children and certifying the children as free and eligible for adoption.
Y.L. then filed the instant appeal from the judgment of the trial court terminating his parental rights. After the appeal was lodged, on March 15, 2018, counsel for Y.L. filed a motion for an extension of time within which to file his appellate brief. On March 19, 2018, the motion was granted by this court and his briefing delay was extended to April 11, 2018. When no brief was filed with this court by April 18, 2018, a notice of abandonment of appeal was issued in accordance with Uniform Rules - Courts of Appeal, Rule 5-3, providing that the appeal shall be dismissed if appellant's brief was not filed on or before April 28, 2018.
Uniform Rules - Courts of Appeal, Rule 5-3 sets forth the procedures in cases designated for expedited handling, and provides, in part, as follows:
(2) In such civil cases, if an appellant does not file a brief within the time prescribed by this rule or any extension thereof granted by the court as provided by this rule or Rule 2-12.8, a notice shall be mailed by the clerk to counsel for the appellant, or to the appellant if not represented, that the appeal shall be dismissed 10 days thereafter unless a brief is filed in the meantime. If an appellant does not file a brief within 10 days after such notice is mailed, the appeal shall be dismissed as abandoned. Provided, however, that irrespective of the time limit provided in this rule for the appellee to file a brief, the appellee's brief shall be filed within 15 days from the due date shown on the notice of abandonment. [Emphasis added.]--------
As of April 28, 2018, an appellate brief had not been filed with this court. Thus, in accordance with the Uniform Rules - Courts of Appeal, Rule 5-3(c)(2), we are constrained to dismiss this appeal as abandoned, and the judgment of the trial court stands.
APPEAL DISMISSED.