STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST CIRCUIT
2023 CJ 0655
STATE OF LOUISIANA IN THE INTEREST OF A.B. AND E. B.
JUDGMENT RENDERED: JAN 1 9 2M
Appealed from the City Court of Denham Springs Parish of Livingston • State of Louisiana Docket Number J- 12050- 1 • Juvenile Division
The Honorable Jerry L. Denton, Jr. • Presiding Judge
Jane Hogan COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT Rebecca D. Lee MINORS' FATHER— R.B. Louisiana Public Defender Board,
Child in Need ofCare Appellate Project Livingston, Louisiana
Alice Montestruc COUNSEL FOR APPELLEES Mental Health Advocacy Service (MHAS), MINOR CHILDREN— A.B. and E. B. Child Advocacy Program Livingston, Louisiana
Laura G. Slocum COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE Livingston, Louisiana The Louisiana Department of Children and Family Services DCFS)
Scott M. Perrilloux COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE
District Attorney The State of Louisiana Brad J. Cascio Assistant District Attorney Livingston, Louisiana
1 BEFORE: WELCH, HOLDRIDGE9, LANIER, WOLFE, AND RESTER, JJ.
The Honorable Guy Holdridge, retired, is serving as judge pro tempore by special appointment of the Louisiana Supreme Court.
J4.,• 1 WELCH, J.
The father of two minor children appeals a judgment that terminated his
parental rights and freed his two minor children for adoption.' For the following
reasons, we vacate and remand.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
R.B. is the biological father of A.B. ( born February 26, 2017) and E.B. ( born
March 2, 2020). On March 30, 2021, R.B. and the children' s mother ( B. B.) were
arrested for possession of heroin and drug paraphernalia while the children were in
the car with them. As a result, the State took A.B. and E.B. into custody by instanter
order and placed them in the care of their paternal grandmother ( R.B.' s mother is
referenced herein as " the grandmother" ).3 The city court adjudicated the children in
need of care on May 13, 2021, pursuant to stipulations by the parents without
admissions to the supporting allegations.
The Louisiana Department of Children and Family Services (" DCFS")
developed a case plan approved by the city court and finalized on April 29, 2021,
that set forth the basic requirements for each parent to achieve the goal of reunifying
the children with them. The April 29, 2021 case plan required that R.B. and the
children' s mother submit to a substance abuse assessment and follow all
recommendations; maintain legal employment; resolve pending criminal matters;
submit to random drug screens; participate in couple' s counseling; maintain safe and
stable housing; regularly visit with case workers; pay $ 100 monthly toward the cost
2 The same January 12, 2023 judgment terminated the mother' s ( B.B.) parental rights; however, the mother has not appealed. The judgment is final as it relates to the termination of the mother' s parental rights. See State in Interest of B.B.M., 2021- 1359 ( La. App. I" Cir. 6/ 16122), 2022 WL 2168939, * 2 n. 7 ( unpublished), writ denied, 2022- 01023 ( La. 917122), 345 So. 3d 431.
The affidavit submitted in support of the instanter order represented that the parents had extensive history" with DCFS, which dated back to 2008. In 2017, DCFS intervened in this matter, and the mother voluntarily surrendered her parental rights to an older child, after A.B. tested positive for opiates at birth.
N of the children' s care; and maintain regular contact with the children according to a
visitation plan.
In advance of a scheduled review hearing of the April 29, 2021 case plan,
DCFS reported to the city court that neither parent had started or completed any of
the case plan goals, and that the parents had not demonstrated behavioral changes to
achieve a stable and substance -free lifestyle. DCFS informed the city court that,
according to the grandmother, the parents overdosed on heroin at their home on
August 18, 2021, causing them to be evicted and homeless. After the October 14,
2021 review hearing, the city court ordered that the children remain in state custody
with the goal of reunification. The city court ordered the parents to comply with the
requirements of the updated case plan, finalized on September 1, 2021, which
included the same parental requirements.
On November 29, 2021, the children were placed together in a certified foster
home because their grandmother expressed to DCFS that she was unable to care for
4 the children long term. Prior to the next review hearing, both parents were again
arrested and incarcerated. DCFS reported that neither parent had completed the case
plan, although R.B. did make one $ 200 payment to the grandmother for the
children' s care.' DCFS recommended that the permanency goal for the children be
changed from reunification with the parents to adoption. After the March 10, 2022
review hearing, the city court ordered that the children remain in state custody in
their current foster home placement and changed the case plan goal from
reunification to adoption.
On June 8, 2022, DCFS filed a petition to terminate the parents' parental rights
and certify the children for adoption. DCFS alleged two grounds for the termination
4 The children were placed with the grandmother from the date of removal, March 30, 2021, through November 28, 2021.
DCFS reported that the payment went directly to the grandmother because she was not a certified caregiver,
3 of R.B.' s parental rights. First, DCFS alleged that R.B.' s parental rights should be
terminated pursuant to La. Ch. Code art. 1015( 5)( b), 6 for failing " to provide
significant contributions to the child[ ren]' s care and support for any period of six
consecutive months" ( one of the " abandonment" grounds for termination). Second,
DCFS alleged that R.B.' s parental rights should be terminated pursuant to La. Ch.
Code art. 1015( 6), for his failure to substantially comply with the case plan and there
being " no reasonable expectation of significant improvement" in R.B.' s condition
or conduct in the near future (the " substantial compliance with the case plan" ground
for termination).'
The termination of parental rights hearing was held on December 1, 2022. At
the hearing, R.B. testified. R.B. described his opioid addiction, which began after he
sustained injuries while in the military. R.B. testified that he was sober from 2011
until 2015 or 2016, when he sustained injuries in a car accident that led him to
resume taking opioids to manage his pain. R.B. acknowledged that he has been
incarcerated three times in relation to the possession of heroin charge that led to the
children being taken into state custody on March 30, 2021. R.B. indicated that his
criminal charges were resolved with a final guilty plea to possession of drug
paraphernalia, with credit for time served. R.B. confirmed that while incarcerated,
he had been in contact with DCFS and received copies of the case plans.
6 This matter was decided under the prior version of La. Ch. Code art. 1015, before its amendment by 2023 La. Acts No. 271, § 1 ( eff. June 9, 2023).
The petition alleged that the mother' s ( B. B.) parental rights should be terminated based on three grounds: ( 1) abandonment under La. Ch. Code art. 1015( 5)( b) ( failure to provide significant contributions to the children' s care and support for any period of six consecutive months); ( 2) significant contact under La. Ch. Code art. lot 5( 5)( c) ( failure to maintain significant contact with the children for any period of six consecutive months); and ( 3) substantial case plan compliance under La. Ch. Code art. 101 5( 6) ( failure to substantially comply with the case plan and there being no reasonable expectation of significant improvement in the parent' s condition or conduct). Since the mother has not appealed the city court' s January 12, 2023 judgment, we will not detail the testimony adduced at the hearing on which the city court based its decision to terminate the mother' s parental rights to the children.
0 R.B. testified that he has always worked on his sobriety, and had particularly
done so in 2022, motivated by his love for his children. R.B. explained that after his
release from jail on June 13, 2022, he entered a residential detox treatment program
at The Grove, which he completed on August S, 2022. Immediately thereafter, R.B.
entered the church -based sober living program, Life House, located in St. James
Parish. While at Life House, R.B. voluntarily participated in and successfully
completed an intensive outpatient addiction treatment program, while also taking
part in individual and group therapy sessions. R.B. testified that he submitted to
routine random drug screens as part of the Life House program and had not failed
any drug tests.
R.B. confirmed that he intended to complete the year- long Life House
program, which generally did not allow men to have children live with them. R.B.
explained that if custody was returned to him, he would continue making progress
toward his sobriety and working, relying on the grandmother or a daycare provider
to babysit the children. R.B. stated that he had a good relationship with the children' s
foster parents and that he had visited with the children as allowed by the case plan.
During the visits, R.B. testified that he provided the children with snacks and gifts,
including balls, sidewalk chalk, and a learning tablet.
R.B. also participates in Life House' s job training program. R.B. testified that
through his employment with Life House Staffing, he is able to work full-time at a
scaffolding company. From his earnings, R.B. pays Life House $ 840 per month " to
stay there," leaving approximately $ 440 from which he pays set rates for
transportation and other living expenses. R.B. stated that Life House provides him
with breakfast and dinner, but he is responsible for buying clothes and toiletries and
paying his cell phone bill with his $ 440 monthly income. R.B. testified that his
monthly income was frequently much less during the months he had to attend court,
as he is charged $ 30 plus $ 6 per mile for transportation. R.B. added that after six
k months with Life House' s job program, he would be allowed to obtain employment
directly from other employers, which he believed would enable him to earn more
money.
Regarding his financial contributions to the children' s care and support, R.B.
testified that he had not contributed " as much as I' d ... like." R.B. testified that while
he was incarcerated, he had no income and was unable to pay contributions towards
his children' s care. R.B. testified that when his children were placed with their
grandmother, he tried to give her money, but she always refused to accept his
payments. R.B. confirmed that only one $ 200 payment was made to and accepted
by the grandmother. R.B. explained that he had " cash in [his] pocket" at every visit
and would offer to pay the contributions, but DCFS would not accept cash payments,
instead requiring him to pay via money orders. R.B. stated that he had difficulty
obtaining money orders. R.B. testified that he now had " money set aside in a bank
account right now...." R.S. testified that he would make all back -payments for the
financial contributions required under the case plan for his children' s care and
support.
Samantha Cascio, the DCFS caseworker assigned to this matter, also testified
at the hearing. Ms, Cascio indicated that R.B. was currently in compliance with his
case plan and had been in compliance since July 2022. Ms. Cascio stated that DCFS
was requesting termination of R.B.' s parental rights on the grounds of abandonment
based on R.B.' s failure to provide financial contributions for a period of six
consecutive months. She stated that the children ---who were two and almost five
years of age on the date of the hearing— had been in state custody for twenty-one
months. Ms. Cascio testified that R.B. was assessed parental contributions in the
amount of $ 100 per month, but that he had made only one payment of $200 on
October 25, 2021. Ms. Cascio confirmed that R.B. began living at Life House in
August 2022, and that children were not allowed to live there. Ms. Cascio also
C1 confirmed that R.B, visited with his children as allowed, stating that the children
were always excited to see R.B. and " enjoy visiting with him." Although she
acknowledged that R.B. had begun to work the case plans, Ms. Cascio stated DCFS' s
position was that termination of R.B.' s parental rights was in the best interests of the
children.
The Court Appointed Special Advocates (" CASA") worker assigned to the
case, Christina Green, similarly acknowledged that R.B. had made progress
regarding the case plan. However, she noted that R.B. had previously been unable
to maintain his sobriety for longer than six months. Ms. Green agreed with DCFS
that it was in the children' s best interests for parental rights to be terminated due to
R.B.' s inability to maintain sobriety, lack of adequate housing for the children, and
lack of a support system beyond the grandmother. Ms. Green recognized that R.B.
loved his children and was making progress on the case plans, but recommended
adoption for the children.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the city court took the matter under
advisement. The city court thereafter issued written reasons, finding that DCFS
proved a ground for terminating R.B.' s parental rights, specifically, that R.B.
abandoned his children under La. Ch. Code art. 1015( 5)( b), for failing to provide
significant contributions to the children' s care for a period of six consecutive
months, prior to the single $ 200 payment, and again thereafter. The city court further
found that the termination of R.B.' s parental rights would be in the best interests of
the children. In accordance with those reasons, the city court signed a judgment on
January 12, 2023, terminating R.B.' s parental rights and freeing, the children for
adoptions R.B. now appeals.'
As previously noted, the mother (B.B.) has not appealed; therefore, the termination of her parental rights is not at issue herein.
9 R.B. tiled a motion for appeal and designation of record on January 26, 2023. The city court signed an order of appeal on January 31, 2023.
7 LAW AND DISCUSSION
Termination of the legal relationship between natural parents and children is
one of the most drastic actions the State can take against its citizens. State in
Interest of A.L.D., 2018- 1271 ( La. 1/ 30/ 19), 263 So. 3d 860, 863. The interests of
the parents and children must be balanced; however, the paramount consideration is
the best interest of the children. State in Interest of C.F., 2017- 1054 ( La. 12/ 6/ 17),
235 So. 3d 1066, 1075. Thus, rather than simply protecting parental rights, our
judicial system must protect the rights of children to thrive and survive in a safe,
secure environment and to be reared by someone capable of caring for them. Id. To
protect children whose parents are unwilling or unable to provide safety and care
adequate to meet their physical, emotional, and mental health needs, the Louisiana
Children' s Code provides a judicial process for terminating the parents' rights and
responsibilities and certifying the children for adoption. La. Ch. Code art. 1001.
Louisiana Children' s Code article 1015 enumerates the grounds for the
involuntary termination of parental rights. The State must prove the elements of at
least one of the statutory grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence.
See La. Ch. Code art. 1035( A); State in Interest of C. F., 235 So. 3d at 1072. That
is, the State must prove that the existence of the ground for termination is highly
probable or much more probable than its nonexistence— more than proof by a
preponderance of the evidence, but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In re
L.M.M., Jr., 2017- 1988 ( La. 6/ 27/ 18), 319 So. 3d 231, 244 n. 13.
If the court finds that the State has met its burden of proving one of the
grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence, the court must then
determine whether termination is in the best interests of the children. La. Ch. Code
art. 1039; State in Interest of A.L.D., 263 So. 3d at 863. To summarize, involuntary
termination of parental rights is a two-pronged inquiry. First, the State must prove
by clear and convincing evidence the existence of at least one of the eight statutory grounds for termination under La. Ch. Code art. 1015. Second, after the ground for
termination is found, the court must determine whether the termination is in the
child' s best interests. La. Ch. Code art. 1039; State ex rel. L.B. v. G.B.B., 2002-
1715 ( La. 12/ 4/ 02), 831 So. 2d 918, 922.
These factually -intense determinations are reviewed on appeal under the
manifest error standard. State ex rel. H.A.B., 2010- 1111 ( La. 10/ 19/ 10), 49 So. 3d
345, 368; State in Interest of A.D., 2020- 1298 ( La. App. 1St Cir. 6/ 4/ 21), 327 So. 3d
1032, 1034. The issue to be resolved by the reviewing court is not whether the trier
of fact was right or wrong, but whether the factfinder' s conclusion was a reasonable
one. Zito v. Advanced Emergency Medical Services, Inc., 2011- 2382 (La. 518112),
89 So.3d 372, 375 ( citing Stobart v. State, Dep' t of Transp. and Dev., 617 So. 2d
8801 882 ( La. 1993)). If the factual findings are reasonable in light of the record
reviewed in its entirety, a reviewing court may not reverse even though convinced
that had it been sitting as the trier of fact, it would have weighed the evidence
differently. Zito, 89 So. 3d at 375 ( citing Stobart, 617 So.2d at 882- 83).
In this case, the city court found that DCFS proved grounds for terminating
R.B.' s parental rights under La. Ch. Code art. 1015( 5)( b). The city court held that
DCFS has met the requisite burden of proof to establish the existence of
abandonment and warrant termination of parental rights under Article 1015( 5)( b)."
Louisiana Children' s Code article 1015( 5)( b) 10 provides for termination on the basis
of:
5) Abandonment of the child[ ren] by placing [ them] in the physical custody of a nonparent, or the [ custody of the or by otherwise leaving [them] under circumstances state],
demonstrating an intention to permanently avoid parental responsibility by any of the following:
10 After its amendment by 2023 La. Acts No. 271, § 1 ( eff. June 9, 2023), this ground is now set forth in La. Ch. Code art. 1015( 4)( b).
0 b) As of the time the petition is filed, the parent has failed to provide significant contributions to the child[ ren]' s care and support for any period of six consecutive months.
To prove abandonment on the basis of failing to provide significant
contributions to the children' s care and support, DCFS need not prove that the parent
voluntarily placed the children in state custody. State ex rel. A.T.W., 2009- 2274
La. App. Pt Cir. 3126110), 2010 WL 1170262, * 2 ( unpublished). Rather,
abandonment may be proven by establishing that the parent left the children under
circumstances demonstrating an intention to permanently avoid parental
responsibility by failing to provide significant contributions to the children' s care
and support for any consecutive six-month period. Id.
Although termination of parental rights requires a two -prong inquiry, we find
it unnecessary in this case to address the first prong, regarding the statutory grounds
for termination under La. Ch. Code art. 1015( 5)( b), given our finding on the second
prong. See, e.g., State in Int. of T.M.P., 2013- 1006 ( La. App. 4" Cir. 10123113),
126 So. 3d 741, 756- 57. We agree that DCFS proved a statutory ground for
terminating R.B.' s parental rights under La. Ch. Code art. 1015( 5)( b) for
abandonment on the basis of failing to provide significant contributions to the
children' s care and support for any period of six consecutive months by clear and
convincing evidence. However, proof of a statutory ground for termination of
parental rights under La. Ch. Code art. 1015 does not give rise to a presumption that
termination is in the child' s best interests. State in Int. of T.M.P., 126 So. 3d at 757-
58. On the second prong, we find manifest error in the city court' s factual finding
that terminating R.B.' s parental rights at this juncture is in the children' s best
interests.
After the statutory ground for termination under La. Ch. Code art. 1015 is
found, the court must determine whether termination is in the child' s best interests.
State in Int. of C. A.C., 2011- 1315 ( La. App. 4th Cir. 211112), 85 So. 3d 142, 147,
10 writ denied, 2012- 0388 ( La. 317112), 83 So -3d 1048. The law poses the best interest
determination as a separate consideration and envisions examination of any special
conditions or exceptional circumstances that may exist. State in Interest of D.G. v.
Danny G., 30, 196 ( La. App. 2nd Cir. 10129/ 97), 702 So. 2d 43, 45. In this matter, the
record before us contains facts that support a finding that the city court manifestly erred on the best interest determination.
Based on the record before us, we cannot reasonably conclude from the facts
presented therein that R.B. has ever demonstrated an intention to permanently avoid
parental responsibility. See State ex rel. A.T.W., 2010 WL 1170262 at * 2. It is clear
that at the time the case plan was first presented to him in April 2021, R.B. was
indigent and could not afford to pay the $ 100 monthly contribution or make
significant, measurable progress" towards his case plan due to his drug addiction
and incarceration.
The record shows that R.B. has made progress, albeit only since July 2022, in
completing the requirements of his case plan. Recent compliance with a case plan
can support a finding that it is in the best interests of the children not to terminate a
parent' s rights. See State ex rel. A.C.H., 2002- 1014 ( La. App. 3rd Cir, 2/ 12/ 03), 846
So. 2d 791, 796- 97, writ denied, 2003- 0566 (La. 3114/ 03), 839 So. 2d 50. Indeed, Ms.
Cascio, the DCFS caseworker, testified that since July 2022, R.B. has been in
compliance with his case plan. R.B. regularly visits his children in accordance with
the case plan and foster care guidelines. During these visits, R.B. has provided the
children with snacks and gifts, including balls, sidewalk chalk, and a learning tablet.
Ms. Cascio testified that R.B.' s children were always excited to see him, hug him,
and play with him during visits. Ms. Green, the CASA worker, testified that R.B.
loves his children dearly[,] and he' s doing a wonderful job[.]"
There is no dispute that R.B. has shown a willingness by his behavior to
overcome his substance abuse problems, in compliance with his case plan. R.B. is
11 now sober, having completed a residential detox treatment program and currently
living in a church -based sober living program, where he successfully completed an
intensive outpatient addiction treatment program. R.B. testified that he intends to
complete a year- long stay at his sober living program and continue making progress
toward his sobriety.
R.B. is also currently employed through his sober living program, with the
option for future employment with other employers. R.B. indicated that after he
completed his sober living program, the money he has made from working could be used as a " down payment" on a residence. R.B. further testified that he now had a
bank account and could make all back -payments for the financial contributions
required under the case plan for his children' s care and support.
Louisiana Children' s Code article 1015( 5) does not impose a strict timeframe
with regards to " significant improvement in the parent' s condition or conduct," nor
do alleged violations of Article 1015 create presumptions in favor of the State. State
ex rel. S. L.W., 2006- 1560 ( La. App. 4" Cir. 4118107), 958 So. 2d 53, 57, writ denied,
2007- 0933 ( La. 611107), 957 So. 2d 183. Rather, the focus of an involuntary
termination proceeding is not whether the parent should be deprived of custody, but
whether it would be in the best interest of the child for all legal relations with the
parent to be terminated. La. Ch. Code art. 1001. Thus, the fundamental purpose of
involuntary termination proceedings is to provide the greatest possible protection to
a child whose parent is unwilling or unable to provide adequate care for his physical,
emotional, and mental health needs and adequate rearing by providing an
expeditious judicial process for the termination of all parental rights and
responsibilities and to achieve permanency and stability for the child. See State ex
rel. S. L.W., 958 So.2d at 57- 58. But, because the permanent termination of the legal
relationship existing between natural parents and the child is one of the most drastic
12 actions the State can take against its citizens, the courts must proceed with extreme
care and caution. State ex rel. J.A., 99- 2905 ( La. 1112100), 752 So.2d 806, 811.
R.B. no longer has any obstacles such as incarceration, substance abuse, or
unemployment that would hinder his compliance with his case plan, or prevent the
formulation of additional case plans to give him added time to comply. R.B.' s
current compliance with his case plan furthers the goal of reunification with his
children and does not result in the children remaining in the State' s custody for an
indefinite period of time. R.B.' s recent behavior shows a reasonable expectation of
significant improvement in his condition in the near future. While the prolonged
proceedings in this case are problematic, terminating R.B.' s parental rights and
certifying the children for adoption at this time is not in the children' s best interests.
After a careful review of the record, we find that the city court was manifestly
erroneous in granting DCFS' s termination petition as to R.B. at this time. See e.g.,
State in Int. of M.W., 23- 4 ( La. App. 5" Cir. 5123123), 366 So. 3d 769, 775 ( The
trial court' s finding that termination of the father' s parental rights was not in the
child' s best interest was not manifestly erroneous, even though at the time of trial,
the child had been in the custody of DCFS for 22 months, and the father had not
made any substantial progress toward completion of his case plans. The father had
shown an interest in being a part of child' s life and had visited child.); State ex rel.
A. C.H., 846 So. 2d at 798 ( Termination of a mother' s parental rights was not in the
best interest of her children. Even though she failed to comply with her case plan in
the past, her recent behavior indicated reasonable expectation of improvement; the
supervisor at the shelter in which the mother was living testified that she believed
the mother had a sincere desire and willingness to change, and the mother had begun
to comply with case plan six weeks prior to trial.); State ex rel. A.T., 2006- 0501
La. 7/ 6/ 06), 936 So. 2d 79, 86 ( Although the mother initially failed to pay her
support obligation for eleven months, thereafter, she maintained a steady stream of
13 jobs and paid child support through garnishments of $66 per month per child. The
mother attended all visitations with the children except one, passed all drug screens,
and attended a spousal abuse program.).
DECREE
Based on the foregoing, we vacate the portions of the city court' s January 12,
2023 judgment that terminated the parental rights of R.B. and certified his minor
children, A.B. and E. B., for adoption. We remand this matter for all necessary
proceedings consistent with this opinion. All costs of this appeal, in the amount of
37$. 00, are assessed to the Louisiana Department of Children and Family Services
DCFS").
VACATED; REMANDED.
14 STATE OF LOUISIANA STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF FIRST CIRCUIT
A.B. AND E. B. 2023 CJ 0655
Holdridge, J., assigning additional reasons.
I agree with the majority opinion. I write further to acknowledge that the
current procedures in the Louisiana Children' s Code and the court of appeal rules
did not protect the best interest of the minor children in this case. A judgment was
rendered on January 12, 2023, terminating R.B.' s parental rights. Over a year later,
this court is rendering its opinion. At oral argument, this court was informed that
the facts of this case have changed. According to counsel for the Department of
Children and Family Services, the children are in the physical custody of R.B.' s
mother. The Department of Children and Family Services would like to do a
guardianship arrangement under La. Ch.C. arts. 718, et seq. with R.B.' s mother and
to close its file in this case. In reality, the appellate delay is the only obstacle to this
child in need of care case being closed in the best interest of the minor children.
Furthermore, this court is having to draft an opinion based on facts that no longer
exist. Both the legislature and this court should enact laws and rules to ensure that
appeals of child in need of care cases are completed within thirty days' and that the
court is promptly notified of any changes involving the children, the parents, or their
placement.' Appeals should not be a barrier from protecting the best interests of
minor children in child in need of care cases.
1 For example, the legislature has expedited appeals in election suits in the interest ofthe electorate. See La. R.S. 18: 1409.
2 The Louisiana Children' s Code provides in several articles in the Child in Need of Care title Title VI) that any persons directly affected may appeal the findings or orders of the court with case review hearings and permanency hearings. La. Ch.C. arts. 700, 710( D). Because parties are advised to appeal unfavorable findings or orders, they are subject to Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure articles and appellate court rules. See La. C. C. P. arts. 2081- 2168; Uniform Rules — Courts of Appeal, Rules 5- 1- 5- 3; Local Rules of the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Rule 9. However, as is demonstrated in this case, even with this court' s compliance with the rules providing for expeditious treatment of child in need of care cases, the inherent delays result in untimely decisions.