Background
Louisiana’s Department of Children and Family Services received reports that J.S., while allegedly intoxicated, struck his partner A.P. during a domestic dispute witnessed by their nine-year-old child, M.S. The reports also described recurring fighting and substance-abuse concerns in the home. M.S. entered state custody in August 2024 and was placed with his maternal grandmother.
The juvenile court initially maintained reunification as the permanency goal. At a November 2025 review hearing, evidence showed that J.S. had complied with several parts of his case plan but had completed only six classes of a nine-month domestic-violence intervention program, had finished five of 32 required journal entries, and had uncertain future housing. After M.S. had spent 15 months in state custody, the court changed the permanency plan to guardianship concurrent with reunification. J.S. appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the juvenile court was not manifestly erroneous in adding guardianship as a concurrent permanency goal. Reunification remained available, but J.S.’s cooperation with portions of the case plan did not by itself establish the significant, measurable progress required to keep reunification as the sole goal. Given the severity of the domestic violence, the court found that six intervention classes were insufficient to demonstrate a reasonable expectation of reformation, particularly because J.S. did not begin the program until a year after the underlying incident. His uncertain housing also supported the juvenile court’s decision.
The court declined to consider J.S.’s challenge to a potential guardianship placement with relatives in Las Vegas because the juvenile court had not yet awarded guardianship or approved that placement, making the issue premature. Judge Stromberg concurred in the result but wrote separately that later permanency judgments may have superseded the appealed judgment and rendered the appeal moot.
Key Takeaways
- A parent’s cooperation with a case plan does not necessarily establish the significant, measurable progress needed to retain reunification as the sole permanency goal.
- A juvenile court may pursue guardianship concurrently with reunification when the child’s health, welfare, safety, and need for permanence support that course.
- An appellate challenge to a proposed guardian or placement is premature when the juvenile court has not yet awarded guardianship or approved the placement.
Why It Matters
The decision emphasizes that permanency planning focuses on whether a parent has meaningfully corrected the conditions that led to removal, not merely whether the parent has participated in required services. It also confirms that adding guardianship as a concurrent goal does not foreclose continued efforts toward reunification.
The separate concurrence highlights a recurring appellate issue in child-welfare cases: because permanency orders are reviewed and replaced frequently, an appeal from an earlier order may become moot before the appellate court decides it.