STATE OF LOUISIANA IN THE INTEREST OF AND v. << (2024)

Writ application denied.

I agree with the majority's decision to deny this writ application, as “permanent termination of the legal relationship existing between natural parents and the child is one of the most drastic actions the State can take against its citizens” and “[t]he potential loss to the parent is grievous, perhaps more so than the loss of personal freedom caused by incarceration.” State of Louisiana in the Interest of J.A., et al., 99-2905, p. 9 (La. 1/12/00), 752 So. 2d 806, 811 (internal citation omitted). However, I write separately to echo the concerns of both Judge Holdridge and Justice McCallum ¹ that our system, intended to honor and adhere to the best interests of children (as found in the Louisiana Children's Code and relevant appellate procedural rules) is in dire need of revision to its time tables for consideration, as evidenced by the nonextant facts before us. As Judge Holdridge and Justice McCallum aptly note, our statutes pertaining to the alleged “expedited” nature of these types of proceedings are wholly inadequate and do not serve the best interests of those children who are in dire need of legal protection.

I would grant the writ, reverse the court of appeal, and reinstate the trial court's judgment. Although I disagree with the disposition of the majority of this Court, and the court of appeal, I agree with Judge Holdridge that the Louisiana Children's Code and attendant appellate rules for matters dealing with the best interest of a child are ripe for reform. Judge Holdridge noted that “as is demonstrated in this case, even with the [court of appeal's] compliance with the rules providing for expeditious treatment of child in need of care cases, the inherent delays result in untimely decisions.”

Even when acting with an expedited schedule pursuant to current law and under existing appellate rules, the best interest of a child is ultimately not protected because of the lengthy delays in resolving these types of cases. This case was anything but expeditious. We are apparently dealing with facts that are not only cold, but no longer extant. This creates the real possibility of rendering any outcome now moot or near meaningless. The legislature is clearly capable of resolving such delays, e.g. La. R.S. 18:1409 (providing for expedited scheduling for election suits.). The best interest of a child should be of paramount concern. The legislature needs to revisit the current inadequacies of the laws pertaining to expedited scheduling, especially as regards appellate review, of child in need of care cases. Our children deserve better.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Although Justice McCallum and I disagree on the ultimate result of this case in this Court, we are in agreement as to the serious concerns as expressed by Judge Holdridge regarding the lack of appropriate expedited provisions for matters such as these.

Crichton, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons. Crain, J., would grant. McCallum, J., would grant and assigns reasons.