State ex rel. of P.T.
159 So. 3d 1184
La. Ct. App.2015Background
- P.T., born 2009, was adjudicated a child in need of care; DCFS obtained temporary custody and later parental rights of both parents were terminated (2013).
- Paternal grandmother S.R. and maternal grandparents R.T. and G.T. each intervened; P.T. was placed with R.T. and G.T. in Feb. 2012 while S.R. had alternating-week visitation.
- DCFS recommended adoption; R.T. and G.T. petitioned to adopt P.T.; S.R. opposed and sought custody/visitation.
- Trial court denied R.T. and G.T.’s petition for adoption (finding adoption not in child’s best interest), awarded joint custody to R.T./G.T. and S.R., granted co-domiciliary status to all parties, and terminated DCFS jurisdiction.
- On appeal the court affirmed denial of adoption, affirmed joint custody and termination of DCFS, but reversed co-domiciliary designation and rendered R.T. and G.T. domiciliary grandparents.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a rebuttable presumption in favor of adoption applied | R.T./G.T.: Art.1255 presumption applies to favor adoption by grandparents | S.R.: This is an agency adoption so Art.1255 presumption does not apply | Court: Presumption in Art.1255 inapplicable to agency adoptions; no legal error in not applying it |
| Who bears burden to prove adoption is in child’s best interest | R.T./G.T.: Trial court should have applied presumption and shifted burden to S.R. | S.R.: Adoptive parents bear burden to prove adoption is best for child | Court: Adoptive parents (R.T./G.T.) bear burden of proof per In re J.M.P.; trial court did not err in its allocation and finding |
| Whether adoption was in child’s best interest given competing relationships | R.T./G.T.: They provide stable home and CASA recommended adoption; adoption maintains stability | S.R.: Adoption would sever her established relationship and was not shown to harm child’s interest | Court: All grandparents are fit and each has close psychological bond; terminating other relatives’ ties via adoption would be detrimental; denial of adoption affirmed |
| Whether joint custody to both sets of grandparents was appropriate | R.T./G.T.: Joint custody acceptable if structured; they sought custody if adoption denied | S.R.: Joint custody preserves P.T.’s relationship with maternal grandparents | Court: Joint custody was within trial court’s discretion and served child’s best interest; affirmed |
| Whether co-domiciliary designation was lawful | R.T./G.T.: Co-domiciliary status inappropriate; law requires naming a domiciliary parent absent good cause | S.R.: Court’s co-domiciliary choice promoted shared decision-making | Court: Reversed — co-domiciliary status improper here; rendered R.T. and G.T. domiciliary grandparents |
| Whether DCFS jurisdiction should be terminated | R.T./G.T.: Appealed termination of DCFS jurisdiction as premature if adoption denied | State/S.R.: No continuing concerns; DCFS should be released | Court: Termination proper because child no longer in need of care; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J.M.P., 528 So.2d 1002 (La. 1988) (assigns burden of both production and persuasion on adoptive parents regarding best interest)
- McCormic v. Rider, 27 So.3d 277 (La. 2010) (trial court discretion and best-interest standard in custody determinations)
- In re Billeaud, 600 So.2d 863 (La.App. 3 Cir.) (best-interest standard applies across adoption contexts)
- In re G.E.T., 529 So.2d 524 (La.App. 1 Cir.) (discussion of best-interest considerations in adoption)
- Barberousse v. Barberousse, 556 So.2d 930 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1990) (each custody case depends on its particular facts)
- Bagents v. Bagents, 419 So.2d 460 (La. 1982) (trial court has great discretion in custody matters)
- Evans v. Lungrin, 708 So.2d 731 (La. 1998) (best interest of the child is primary inquiry in custody disputes)