265 So. 3d 960
La. Ct. App.2019Background
- G.H., born June 30, 2016, tested positive for opioids; placed in DCFS custody and with foster parents F.M. and E.D. on July 25, 2016. DCFS recommended adoption plan approved July 25, 2017.
- Paternal grandmother C.V. moved to intervene Oct. 2017 and obtained visitation; DCFS sought placement with grandmother in 2018.
- Appellants (former foster parents) filed multiple motions to intervene: first (Feb.–Mar. 2018) denied; second (Apr.–May 2018) denied and juvenile court changed placement to grandmother on May 1, 2018; appellants ceased being foster parents as of that date.
- Appellants filed a third motion to intervene on May 21, 2018 asserting interested-person status under La. Ch.C. art. 697 and alleging problems enforcing court-ordered visitation; juvenile court denied intervention, transferred custody to grandmother, and clarified visitation.
- Appellants timely appealed the May 22, 2018 denial; grandmother moved to dismiss arguing untimeliness and lack of standing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness / motion to dismiss | Appellants: appeal challenges May 22 denial of third motion; third motion raised new visitation issues so appeal is timely from May 25 mailing | C.V.: appeal is untimely because appellants failed to timely seek review of May 1 ruling; third motion is an untimely new-trial attempt | Court: third motion raised distinct issues (visitation enforcement); delay runs from May 25 mailing; appeal timely (notice filed June 4) |
| Nature of third motion (new trial vs distinct) | Appellants: third motion raised major change in status and visitation enforcement, not a new trial request | C.V.: third motion was effectively a late new-trial/motion to reconsider the May 1 ruling | Court: third motion was sufficiently distinct from prior motions and not a motion for new trial |
| Standing to intervene | Appellants: as interested persons (former foster parents intending to adopt), they may intervene under art. 697 to protect child’s best interest and enforce visitation | C.V.: appellants lacked standing because they were no longer foster parents after May 1 and were not directly affected by custody change | Court: appellants lacked statutory rights as foster parents after May 1; while art. 697 permits interested-person intervention, court found appellants lacked standing to intervene as foster parents |
| Denial of intervention / abuse of discretion | Appellants: intervention warranted to protect visitation, bond, best interest | C.V.: intervention would delay permanency and was not in child’s best interest | Court: no abuse of discretion in denying intervention because child had transitioned to grandmother, permanency favored placement with relatives, and intervention would impede permanency plan |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. C.P. v. Juvenile Court, 777 So.2d 470 (La. 2001) (Children's Code requires expeditious resolution of parental status and permanency)
- State in Interest of M.L., 611 So.2d 658 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1992) (foster parents may participate in case review hearings only as authorized and trial court has discretion over interventions)
- State in Interest of Jennifer W., 485 So.2d 504 (La. 1986) (juvenile court has ultimate authority over placement decisions)
- State In Re L.C.B., 805 So.2d 159 (La. 2002) (court’s authority to approve or disapprove DCFS placements based on child’s best interest)