State in the Interest of K.R., K.R., M.R.

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: March 7, 2012
• Docket: JAC-0011-1376
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

11-1376

STATE IN THE INTEREST OF K.R., K.R., M.R.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF VERMILION, NO. 2009 JU 252 HONORABLE DURWOOD CONQUE, DISTRICT JUDGE

OSWALD A. DECUIR JUDGE

Court composed of John D. Saunders, Oswald A. Decuir, and Marc T. Amy, Judges.

AFFIRMED AND MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED.

Annette Roach Fifteenth Judicial District Public Defenders Office P. O. Box 3622 Lafayette, LA 70502 (337) 436-2900 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT: T. M.A. Diane E. Cote Attorney at Law 825 Kaliste Saloom Road Brandwine I, Suite 218 Lafayette, LA 70508 (337) 262-5913 COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE: State of Louisiana, Department of Children and Family Services

Nicole M. Guidry Attorney at Law Two South Magdalen Square Abbeville, LA 70510 (337) 740-8885 COUNSEL FOR APPELLEES: K. R. K. R. M. R. DECUIR, Judge.

Counsel for T.M.A. filed a brief alleging there are no non-frivolous issues to

be raised on appeal and a motion to withdraw as counsel of record in this

termination of parental rights case.

FACTS

The facts before us are unfortunate and sadly far too common. T.M.A. has a

substance abuse problem and has essentially abandoned K.R., K.R., and M.R. to

the care of the state. With T.M.A. having made no substantial progress in her case

plan, the State filed to terminate her parental rights and make the children available

for adoption. The trial judge granted the State’s request after previously

terminating the parental rights of the father. This appeal ensued.

Initially, this court believing the appeal to be untimely, directed T.M.A. to

show cause, by brief only, why the appeal should not be dismissed. Counsel for

T.M.A. complied with our request and showed that the trial court improperly found

the children available for adoption in the proceeding terminating the father’s

parental rights. T.M.A.’s rights had not been terminated at the time, and she was

not given notice of the hearing. Accordingly, the rule to show cause was recalled

and the appeal allowed to proceed.

Counsel for T.M.A., counsel for the children, and the State all request that

we conduct an Anders type review of the record and grant T.M.A. counsel’s

request to withdraw should our review warrant it.

DISCUSSION

Counsel directs our attention to State ex rel. D.A.G., 05-1806 (La.App. 1 Cir.

5/5/06), 935 So.2d 216, wherein, the court orders the appointment of new counsel

and the filing of an Anders brief in a case involving termination of parental rights. In addition, counsel references an unpublished opinion of this court which grants

similar relief without comment. We are persuaded by the arguments of counsel

and the court in State ex rel. D.A.G, that the filing of a brief and motion to

withdraw in conformity with the requirements of Anders and its progeny best

protect the interests of the parents, children, State, and the court in cases involving

the termination of parental rights.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

A parent’s right to the care, custody, and management of his or her children

is a “fundamental liberty interest warranting great deference and vigilant protection

under the law.” State ex rel. Q.P., 94-609, p. 4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/2/94), 649 So.2d

512, 515. The evidentiary standard governing termination cases requires the State

to present proof by clear and convincing evidence of each element of the specific

grounds for termination as specified in La.Ch.Code art. 1015 before a court may

proceed with terminating a parental relationship. State ex rel. D.H., 06-1041

(La.App. 3 Cir. 3/7/07), 953 So.2d 992, writ denied, 07-673 (La. 4/27/07), 955

So.2d 698. An appellate court must review the record for manifest error in

determining whether the lower court properly applied the clear and convincing

evidentiary standard. State in the Interest of J.K., 97-336 (La.App. 3 Cir.

10/29/97), 702 So.2d 1154.

Counsel for T.M.A. filed a brief assigning no errors and including a motion

to withdraw. Counsel=s motion was referred to the merits. T.M.A. has filed no pro

se briefs in this court. We have thoroughly reviewed the record and are convinced

that the evidence supports the findings of the trial court.

2 DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Counsel for T.M.A.’s request to withdraw is granted.