Background
N.P. entered Louisiana’s custody after suffering nearly fatal, nonaccidental head trauma, a broken arm, and evidence of older untreated fractures while traveling with her mother, Naydeen Fredrick, and Fredrick’s boyfriend. The juvenile court adjudicated N.P. a child in need of care and placed her with foster parents. Fredrick continued to deny the apparent cause of the injuries and remained involved with the boyfriend despite agreeing to end that relationship.
N.P.’s father, Heriberto Perez, lived in the U.S. Virgin Islands and consistently asked that the child be placed with his mother, Beatris Lopez. Perez completed his case plan and repeatedly traveled to Louisiana or participated remotely, while a Virgin Islands home study formally approved Lopez for permanent placement. Louisiana DCFS nevertheless delayed acting on that recommendation and restricted the family’s contact with N.P. The juvenile court ultimately granted permanent guardianship to the foster parents, left Perez’s visitation to their discretion, and prohibited Fredrick from visiting.
The Court’s Holding
The Second Circuit reversed the portion of the judgment granting permanent guardianship to the foster parents and rendered judgment placing N.P. permanently with Lopez. The court concluded that the record did not support disregarding the completed interstate home study, which found Lopez’s home safe and suitable and affirmatively recommended her as a permanent placement. It criticized DCFS’s delay and its treatment of limited interaction during brief or remote visits as outweighing the approved relative placement.
The court also reversed the provision giving the foster parents complete discretion over Perez’s visitation and rendered supervised visitation for him, with Lopez serving as supervisor. It affirmed the prohibition on Fredrick’s visitation, finding clear and convincing evidence that N.P. could not safely be returned to her within a reasonable time given the abuse, untreated injuries, lack of credibility, and continued relationship with the person apparently responsible for N.P.’s most serious injuries.
Key Takeaways
- A juvenile court may not disregard a favorable interstate home study and an approved relative placement without record-supported reasons tied to the child’s safety and best interests.
- Agency delay and a young child’s bond with foster parents do not, standing alone, justify bypassing a suitable relative who has been approved for permanent placement.
- Visitation restrictions must rest on the evidence; the court preserved the mother’s ban but replaced foster-parent discretion over the father’s contact with court-ordered supervised visitation.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores Louisiana’s preference for safe family placement in child-in-need-of-care proceedings and subjects agency inaction to meaningful appellate review. A foster placement cannot become the default permanent outcome merely because bureaucratic delay allowed the child’s bond with foster parents to deepen.
It also illustrates that appellate courts may render a specific permanency disposition instead of ordering further proceedings when the record already contains a completed, favorable interstate assessment and sufficient evidence to determine the child’s placement and visitation.