State of Louisiana in the Interest of A.N

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: March 3, 2026
• Docket: 2025 CJ 0995
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL IRST CIRCUIT

STATE OF LOUISIANA IN THE INTEREST OF A. N.

HAR 0 3 202 Judgment Rendered:

J ON APPEAL FROM THE JUVENILE COURT, DIVISION B EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH, STATE OF LOUISIANA DOCKET NUMBER 118, 161

Aidan C. Reynolds Attorney for Defendant -Appellant Baton Rouge, Louisiana A. N. ( Mother)

Hillar C. Moore, III Attorneys for Plaintiff -Appellee District Attorney State of Louisiana

Harry Landry Assistant District Attorney Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Kimberly Avery Attorneys for Appellee Gabrielle McKarry Louisiana Department of Children Baton Rouge, Louisiana and Family Services

John J. Mason Attorney for Defendant -Appellee Barry S. Ranshi J. N. ( Father) Kenner, Louisiana

Courtney Skidmore Attorney for Minor Child, A. N. Baton Rouge, Louisiana

BEFORE: MCCLENDO , C. J., GREENE, and STROMBERG, 33. GREENE, J.

In this child in need of care proceeding, a mother appeals a judgment of

disposition ordering that her then one -year-old daughter remain in the custody of the

State of Louisiana, Department of Child and Family Services ( DCFS), until her

eighteenth birthday. After review, we affirm.

J. N, the father, and A. N, the mother, married in 2018. 1 F. N., their first child,

was born on August 11, 2019. D. N., their second child, was born on March 30, 2022.

Approximately eight weeks later, on May 27, 2022, D. N. died, and an East Baton Rouge

Parish Coroner later determined that his death was a homicide due to blunt force

injuries to his head. The father and mother were arrested, and, on March 8, 2023, a

grand jury indicted them on charges of second degree murder and cruelty to a juvenile.

See State v. Noehl, 2024- 01224 ( La. 6/ 27/ 25), 413 So. 3d 360.

On April 13, 2023, the mother gave birth to the couple's third child, also with

14th, the initials A. N. The next day, April DCFS received a report of

Neglect/ Dependency" concerning A. N. and opened an investigation. Based on the

pending criminal charges against the parents for D. N. s unexplained death, DCFS

determined the parents' continued custody of A. N. was not in her best interest and

sought temporary custody of A. N. On April 14th, the juvenile court issued a verbal

order placing A. N. in DCFSs custody; on April 15th, DCFS placed A. N. with foster

parents; and, on April 17th, the juvenile court signed an instanter order placing A. N. in

DCFS' s provisional custody pending further proceedings. The juvenile court also

appointed the Child Advocacy Program to represent A. N. in the proceedings; appointed

the local Court Appointed Special Advocates program to assign a volunteer to advocate

for AX; referred the parents to the Indigent Parent Program for representation;

ordered DCFS to provide its investigation report to the District Attorney' s Office; and

scheduled a Continued Custody Hearing, which after a continuance, was held on April

I To protect the identity of the minor children in this child in need of care proceeding, we use initials to reference the parents and minor children. Uniform Rules — Courts of Appeal, Rules 5- 1 and 5- 2. Because the mother and the couple's third child share the same initials, " A. N.," we will refer to the parents as " father" and " mother" and to the third child as " A. N."

2 28, 2023. At that hearing, evidence was introduced and the juvenile court determined

there were reasonable grounds to believe A. N. was a child in need of care and that

continued custody with DCFS was in her best interest. The juvenile court ordered the

assistant district attorney to file a petition within thirty days. At some point, the

parents began bi- monthly supervised visitation with F. N. and A. N. at the DCFS office.

On May 2, 2023, the State flied a petition seeking to have A. N. adjudicated a

child in need of care under La. Ch. C. arts. 603, 606( A)( 2), and 606( A)( 5). On

September 21, 2023, the juvenile court held an adjudication hearing, determined A. N.

was a child in need of care under La. Ch. C. art. 606( A)( 5), and assigned the matter

for a disposition hearing, which was held on January 9, 2024. At the disposition

hearing, the juvenile court ordered that A. N. remain in DCFS' s custody until her

eighteenth birthday, approved DCFSs October 16, 2023 case plan as in A.N.' s best interest, and advised the parents of their obligation to cooperate with DCFS and to

comply with the case plan. The juvenile court also advised the parents that DCFS

could file a petition for termination of their parental rights upon several bases, including

their failure to make significant measurable progress toward achieving case plan goals

or to correct the conditions requiring the child to be in need of care. On March 18,

2024, the juvenile court signed a judgment of disposition memorializing its ruling.

The mother appeals the adverse judgment. In a single assignment of error,

she contends the juvenile court clearly erred in adjudicating A. N. as a child in need of

care under La. Ch. C. art. 606( A)( 5), because there is no evidence in the record that

the mother committed any criminal conduct against A. N. or any other child. Under La.

Ch. C. art. 330( 6), the mother's appeal of the judgment of disposition includes all errors

assigned concerning the adjudication and disposition. State in Interest ofAs., 2019-

0248 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 9/ 4/ 19), 285 So. 3d 1129, 1134.

We note that the father is not a party to this appeal — he unexpectedly passed

away on May 22, 2025. State v. Noehl, 413 So. 3d at 364.

3 DISCUSSION

Under La. Ch. C. art. 606( A)( 5), a child may be adjudicated in need of care if

the State proves that the conduct of the parent, either as principal or accessory,

constitutes a crime against the child or against any other child. Subsection ( A)( 5)

provides an intermediate ground that allows the State to step in and protect a child

who may be at a substantial risk of being abused or neglected without having suffered

actual abuse himself. State ex rel. K.B., 32, 350 ( La. App. 2 Cir. 5/ 5/ 99), 737 So. 2d

150, 153. A crime against the child, as referenced in La. Ch. C. art. 606(A)( 5), includes

the commission of homicide and cruelty to juveniles, as provided by federal or state

statute. La. Ch. C. art. 603( 12)( a) and ( o). Louisiana law provides that second degree

murder and cruelty to juveniles are crimes. See La. R. S. 14: 30. 1( A)( 1) and ( 2); La.

R. S. 14: 93( A)( 1) and 14: 93. 2. 3( A)( 1). Further, Louisiana law defines a " principal" as

a person concerned in a crime's commission, whether present or absent, and whether

he directly commits the act constituting the offense, aids and abets in its commission,

or directly or indirectly counsels or procures another to commit the crime. See La. R. S.

14: 24. And, Louisiana law defines an " accessory after the fact" as a person who, after

the commission of a felony, shall harbor, conceal, or aid the offender, knowing or

having reasonable ground to believe that he has committed the felony and with the intent that he avoid punishment. See La. R. S. 14: 25.

In a child in need of care proceeding, the State must prove the allegations of

the petition by a preponderance of the evidence. La. Ch. C. art. 665. It is not the

State's duty to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, by clear and convincing

evidence, or to disprove every hypothesis of innocence. State ex rel. L. B., 2008- 1539

La. 7/ 17/ 08), 986 So. 2d 62, 64. The juvenile court is vested with vast discretion in

child in need of care cases. State in Interest of A. M., 2024- 1255 ( La. App. 1 Cir.

5/ 30/ 25), 417 So. 3d 909, 913. The juvenile court is in a better position to evaluate

the best interest of a child because of its superior opportunity to observe the parties

and witnesses who testified at trial. Id. On review, an appellate court will not disturb

a trial court's decision absent an abuse of discretion. See Id.; State in Interest of CK,

2016- 0305 ( La. App. I Cir. 9/ 1/ 16), 2016 WL 4586039, * 3. Further, an appellate court

19 may not set aside a juvenile court's factual findings unless they are manifestly

erroneous or clearly wrong. State in Interest of A. M., 417 So. 3d at 913; State in

Interest of CRJ, 2022- 0544 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 11/ 17/ 22), 356 So. 3d 1080, 1088.

Herein, the State presented testimonial and documentary evidence in support

of its child in need of care petition at the September 21, 2023 adjudication hearing.

The State' s witnesses were Rashika Dotson, a DCFS supervisor; Lt. Marcus Sylvester,

an East Baton Rouge Parish Sheriffs officer; and Dr. Yen Van Vo, an East Baton Rouge

Parish Deputy Coroner. The State' s documentary evidence included DCFS case plans

as to A. N. and F. N., psychological evaluations of the parents, Dr. Vo' s forensic

pathology report as to D. N., an East Baton Rouge Parish Coroner's report, and a copy

of the East Baton Rouge Parish grand jury indictment charging the parents with crimes

against D. N.

Rashika Dotson, the DCFS supervisor, testified that she investigated the

circumstances surrounding D. N.' s death. After DCFS received a report on May 24,

2022 of a hospitalized infant with unexplained head injuries and rib fractures, Ms.

Dotson went to the hospital where she saw D. N. and spoke to medical staff, D. N.' s

parents, FX, and D. N.' s paternal uncle and aunt. She learned that D. N. had a skull

fracture, no brain activity, multiple rib fractures that appeared fourteen to twenty- eight

days old, and also was on a ventilator. She also learned that the parents were D. N.' s

only caretakers, he had not been in anyone' s else care, and the parents had no

explanation for his injuries. Based on this information, DCFS sought and was granted

custody of both D. N. and F. N. by a juvenile court judge on May 26, 2022. As earlier

27m. noted, D. N. died on May DCFS placed F. N. in the custody of his paternal uncle

and aunt.

Lt. Sylvester, who worked in the East Baton Rouge Parish Sheriffs Office

Homicide Division, testified that, on May 24, 2022, after learning that D. N.' s injuries

were life threatening, he went to the hospital and interviewed the parents. The mother

stated that, earlier that day, she was asleep at the family home when D. N. " went into

some type of distress." She also stated D. N. had no prior falls or injuries. According

to Lt. Sylvester, the father, who was supervising F. N. and D. N., saw D. N. " kind of had

9 a little reflux" and then he stopped breathing. 2 The father woke the mother, performed

CPR on D. N., and they called 911. The father also told Lt. Sylvester that D. N. slid out

of a rocker about two weeks earlier. He also stated that he and the mother were the

only ones caring for D. N. since his birth, no other people were coming in and out of

the home, D. N. had had no babysitters, and had not gone to a daycare facility.

Following D. N.' s death on May 27, 2022, hospital personnel told Lt. Sylvester that DA's

injuries were not accidental and an autopsy confirmed these findings. After

unsuccessfully attempting to talk to the parents again, Lt. Sylvester arrested them on

June 1, 2022, at which time they invoked their constitutional right to counsel and right

against self-incrimination. During his testimony, Lt. Sylvester admitted that he had no

direct evidence that either parent intentionally caused D. N.' s injuries.

Dr. Yen Van Vo, the East Baton Rouge Parish Deputy Coroner and a forensic

pathology expert, conducted the autopsy of D. N. on May 31, 2022. She discovered

that D. N. sustained head injuries, including swelling and bleeding in his scalp and brain,

a large fracture in the right side of his skull, bleeding along his spinal cord and in both

eyes, a bruised back, and fractured ribs. Most of D. N.' s injuries appeared to have been

sustained within a few days before his death, but his rib fractures were beyond two

weeks old, and certain cranial hemorrhages and skull fractures were at varying stages

of healing. Dr. Vo opined that the pattern of D. N.' s injuries was consistent with an

inflicted" event, rather than an accidental event, and that his death was a homicide

caused by blunt force injuries to his head. She stated that D. N.' s injuries were unlikely

caused by a fall from a rocker, his back and rib injuries were unlikely caused by the

father's or EMrs resuscitation efforts, and his rib injuries were very unlikely to have

occurred during his birth. She admitted that, although a single skull fracture could

result from an older child dropping D. N. onto a concrete floor, such could not have

caused the degree of injuries sustained by D. N. She admitted she did not know who

inflicted D. N.' s injuries.

2 Devon Relle with Children' s Hospital Pediatric Intensive Care Unit in New Orleans reported D. N.' s injuries to the East Baton Rouge Parish Coroner's Office on May 27, 2022. According to Devon, the father stated that, on May 24th, he was feeding D. N. when D. N. began to "gurgle and turn blue."

1.1 At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court ruled that the State had

carried its burden of proving A. N. was a child in need of care under La. Ch. C. art.

606( A)( 5). The juvenile court noted Lt. Sylvester's testimony that the parents were

D. N.' s sole caretakers and knew of no other injuries to him and Dr. Vo' s conclusion

that D. N.' s death was a homicide. The court also noted the different healing stages

of D. N.' s multiple injuries were inconsistent with the possibility that a one- time fall

caused those injuries. The court noted that the parents had been criminally indicted

for D. N.' s death but pointed out that the subject adjudication hearing was not a

criminal matter where the State' s burden was beyond a reasonable doubt. The juvenile

court then concluded that the State proved by a preponderance of the evidence that

A. N. was a child in need of care.

The paramount concern in all child in need of care proceedings is the health,

welfare, safety, and best interest of the child. See La. Ch. C. art. 601; State ex rel.

L. B., 986 So. 2d at 64; State in Interest ofA.S., 285 So. 3d at 1134. We first note that

the State did not have to prove the parents' conduct caused actual harm to AX,

because La. Ch. C. art. 606( A)( 5) allows the State to step in and protect a child who

See may be at risk because her parent committed a crime " against any other child."

State ex rel. K.B., 737 So. 2d at 153. Further, the State did not have to prove that

either parent inflicted D. N.' s injuries, because La. Ch. C. art. 606( A)( 5) allows the State

to step in and protect a child who may be at risk because her parent was a " principal

or [ an] accessory" to a crime committed against any other child. See La. R. S. 14: 24

and 14: 25. Thus, based on the parents' failure to give a reasonable explanation for

D. N.' s fatal injuries, and the undisputed evidence that they were his only caretakers

during his eight weeks of life, we conclude the juvenile court did not abuse its

discretion in finding, and had a reasonable factual basis to determine, that A.N. was a

child in need of care under La. Ch. C. art. 606( A)( 5), based on the State' s proof by a

preponderance of the evidence that each parent was either a principal or an accessory

to D. N.' s murder.3 See State ex rel. L. B., 986 So. 2d at 64 ( although the evidence did

Assertions 3 In her brief, the mother asserts that the murder charge against her has been dismissed. made in appellate briefs are not part of the appellate record and are not evidence. R. Cyr v. 5t. Cyr,

7 not prove that either parent physically abused their child, the evidence did prove the

child' s injuries were non- accidental, resulted from traumas occurring on separate

occasions, and more likely than not did not occur in the manner claimed by the

mother).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the March 18, 2024 judgment of

disposition ordering that A. N. remain in the custody of the State of Louisiana,

Department of Child and Family Services, until her eighteenth birthday. We assess

costs of this appeal to the mother, A. N.

AFFIRMED.

2016- 0896 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 2/ 21/ 17), 215 So. 3d 283, 286, n. l., writ denied, 2017- 0511 ( La. 3/ 31/ 17), 217 So. 3d 357.

N