State In Interest Of G.H.
265 So. 3d 960
La. Ct. App.2019Background
- G.H., born June 30, 2016, tested positive for opiates; DCFS obtained temporary custody and filed a Child in Need of Care petition; DCFS recommended adoption.
- F.M. and E.D. (appellants) became G.H.'s foster parents on July 25, 2016 and later sought to adopt him; courtroom visitation rights were previously ordered for them.
- The paternal grandmother, C.V. (appellee), intervened and obtained visitation in October 2017, and DCFS sought placement with the grandmother in 2018.
- On May 1, 2018 the juvenile court changed G.H.’s placement from the foster parents to the grandmother and denied appellants’ second motion to intervene; appellants did not timely appeal that order.
- Appellants filed a third motion to intervene on May 21, 2018 (raising visitation enforcement and alleging a major change of circumstances); the court denied it on May 22, 2018, granted custody to the grandmother, and clarified visitation for appellants.
- Appellants appealed the May 22, 2018 denial; the grandmother moved to dismiss the appeal as untimely and for lack of standing. The appellate court denied dismissal and affirmed the denial of intervention, remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness / Motion to Dismiss | Appellants: appeal is from May 22 denial of third motion to intervene and is timely. | C.V.: appeal untimely because appellants failed to timely seek review of May 1 order; third motion was actually an untimely new-trial attempt. | Appeal from May 22 denial was timely; third motion was a distinct motion, so appeal delay began from May 25 mailing and notice of appeal (June 4) was timely. |
| Standing to Intervene as former foster parents | Appellants: as interested persons (former foster parents who intend to adopt), they may intervene under La. Ch.C. art. 697 to protect child’s best interests and enforce visitation. | C.V.: appellants lost foster-parent rights when placement changed May 1 and thus lacked standing to intervene or appeal custody change. | Court concluded appellants lacked standing as foster parents after May 1; juvenile court may still allow intervention under art. 697 for good cause, but appellants did not show good cause. |
| Abuse of discretion in denying intervention / effect on permanency | Appellants: intervention necessary to address visitation enforcement, bonding, and best interests. | C.V. and DCFS: intervention would delay permanency plan; child was thriving with grandmother and siblings; trial court has discretion. | Denial affirmed: no abuse of discretion; allowing intervention would impede permanency and child was doing well in grandmother’s home. |
| Reviewability of custody change and surrender for adoption | Appellants: court lacked authority to permit surrender to grandparents where termination petition was pending; they contest May 1 placement change. | C.V.: appellants not directly affected and failed to timely appeal May 1 order, so lack standing to challenge custody/surrender here. | Appellate majority declined to address custody/surrender merits because appellants lacked standing to pursue review of those rulings and failed to timely appeal the May 1 order. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. C.P. v. 777 So.2d 470 (La. 2000) (statutory scheme requires expeditious resolution of child status and permanency issues)
- State in the Interest of M.L. v. 611 So.2d 658 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1992) (foster parents’ participatory rights in case review hearings are limited and court has discretion to permit intervention)
- State in the Interest of Jennifer W. v. 485 So.2d 504 (La. 1986) (juvenile court has ultimate authority over child placement)
- State in the Interest of Sapia v. 397 So.2d 469 (La. 1981) (principles governing juvenile court control over child placement)
- State In Re L.C.B. v. 805 So.2d 159 (La. 2002) (discussion of DCFS placement authority and court oversight)