State in the Interest of I.B.W.

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: July 23, 2014
• Docket: JAC-0014-0682
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

JAC 14-681 consolidated with JAC 14-682

STATE IN THE INTEREST OF G.E.K. & C.E.S.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE THIRTY-FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF GRANT, NO. J-2674 C/W J-2737 HONORABLE W. PEYTON CUNNINGHAM, JR., DISTRICT JUDGE

JAMES T. GENOVESE JUDGE

Court composed of John D. Saunders, James T. Genovese, and John E. Conery, Judges.

RULE TO SHOW CAUSE RECALLED.

Robert L. Kennedy Attorney at Law 352 2nd Street Colfax, LA 71417 (318) 627-3255 COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE: B. H. W. (father)

Thomas Gardiner Wilson Attorney at Law 420 Kings Drive Pineville, LA 71360 (318) 640-4810 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT: A. V. (mother) James Patrick Lemoine District Attorney, 35th Judicial District Court Post Office Box 309 Colfax, LA 71417-0309 (318) 627-3205 COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE: State of Louisiana

Guy Richard Lain Attorney at Law 1648 Carter Street Vidalia, LA 71373 (318) 336-8611 COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE: State of Louisiana, Department of Children & Family Services

Renée Paula Cote Attorney at Law Post Office Box 1189 Natchitoches, LA 71458-1189 (318) 352-7220 COUNSEL FOR APPELLEES: G. E. K. (child) C. E. S. (child) I. W. (child)

Joseph P. Beck, III Attorney At Law 5529 Monroe Highway Ball, LA 71405 (318) 640-9202 COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE: S. K. (father)

Jessica Firment Attorney at Law 2805 Dawkins Street Alexandria, LA 71301-4707 (318) 272-2720 COUNSEL FOR INTERVENORS-APPELLEES: J. V. (intervenor) H. V. (intervenor)

Carolyn O. Hines Attorney at Law Post Office Box 12325 Alexandria, LA 71315 (318) 442-3251 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT: A. V. (mother) GENOVESE, Judge.

This court, on its own motion, issued a rule for the appellant, A.V., to show

cause, by brief only, why the appeal in this matter, bearing the district court docket

number J-2674, should not be dismissed for lack of an order of appeal bearing that

docket number. The appellant has filed a response to this court‟s rule to show

cause. For the reasons given below, we maintain this appeal.

The instant juvenile proceedings were first initiated by the State as to two of

the appellant‟s minor children, G.E.K. and C.E.S. These proceedings were

assigned the district court docket number of J-2674. Subsequently, the State

initiated another action with regard to appellant‟s third minor child, I.W. This

matter was assigned the district court docket number of J-2737. These two actions

were consolidated by the district court.

The trial court entered an appealable judgment bearing both docket numbers.

However, when the appellant filed her motion and order of appeal, she only

referenced the docket number J-2737, even though the motion and order mention

the initials of all three children. Lacking a proper order of appeal bearing docket

number J-2674, this court issued the subject rule to show cause under consideration

herein.

In response to this court‟s rule, the appellant has filed a brief pointing out

that an amended motion and order of appeal was filed in the trial court and that the

amended order, bearing docket number J-2674, has now been granted by the trial

court. This court has stated, “it is important to recognize that appeals are favored

and should be maintained when possible. „Appeals are favored in the law and

should be maintained unless a legal ground for dismissal is clearly shown. An

appeal is not to be dismissed for a mere technicality. Unless the ground urged for

dismissal is free from doubt, the appeal should not be dismissed.‟ Stadtlander v. Ryan’s Family Steakhouses, Inc., 34,384, p. 2 (La.App. 2 Cir. 4/4/01), 794 So.2d

881, 885, writ denied, 01-1327 (La. 6/22/01), 794 So.2d 790 (citations omitted).”

Louisiana Bd. of Massage Therapy v. Fontenot, 2004-1525, p. 5 (La.App. 3 Cir.

5/4/05), 901 So.2d 1232, 1235-36. We find that the appellant‟s intention was clear

even though the initial order of appeal was not. The original motion and order of

appeal mentioned that the appellant wanted to appeal the trial court‟s ruling as to

all three of her children, even though only one of the docket numbers appeared on

the motion and order of appeal. Therefore, in the interest of justice and for good

cause shown, we hereby maintain the appeal and recall this court‟s rule to show

cause issued on June 25, 2014.

THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. Rule 2-16.3 Uniform Rules, Court of Appeal.