State ex rel. C.M., 141 So. 3d 921

OJJ appeals parts of a December 11, 2013 juvenile court judgment.
The court ordered OJJ to notify C.M.’s mother of all appointments and allow her to accompany him to every visit.
The court also ordered presence at appointments of the dietician, nurse, doctor, and counselor.
C.M. is a delinquent placed in secure custody; he has FSGS diagnosed January 26, 2013.
Hearing showed the nephrologist emphasized accompaniment and ongoing support for treatment and diet; OJJ facility has medical staff and dietitian
The appellate issue is whether the juvenile court exceeded statutory authority by dictating services to be provided by OJJ and allocating funds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the juvenile court exceed authority by ordering mother’s notice and accompaniment?	OJJ argues custody authority lies with the department.	Citing La. RS 15:901 D and La. Ch.C. art. 908, court may not dictate services.	Yes; court exceeded authority and vacated that portion.
Did the court exceed authority by mandating presence of multiple professionals at all appointments?	OJJ contends funds and resources are for the department to allocate.	Court cannot require department to expend resources for specific personnel at every visit.	Yes; court exceeded authority and vacated that portion.

State in the Interest of T.A., 801 So.2d 351 (La. 2001) (department has plenary power over care and expenditures; court cannot dictate resources)
State in the Interest of V.N., 712 So.2d 954 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1998) (court must allocate limited resources via state/agency, not juvenile court)
State in the Interest of J.S.A., 119 So.3d 710 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2013) (juvenile court exceeded authority by ordering services to be provided at department’s expense)
State in the Interest of J.H., 706 So.2d 561 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1998) (after custody awarded, court cannot order services (e.g., transportation, therapy) at department’s expense)