STATE OF LOUISIANA IN THE INTEREST OF S.C., M.C., K.C., AND A.C.
FROM THE SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF ST.
MARTIN, NO. 15-18146 HONORABLE CURTIS SIGUR, DISTRICT JUDGE
Marie Johnson Counsel for Appellant: N.D. (mother)
Shentell Brown Attorney at Law Counsel for Appellee: B.C.
Bofill Duhé District Attorney W. Claire Howington
Assistant District Attorney Sixteenth Judicial District
Counsel for Appellee: State of Louisiana
"Bobby" Odinet Assistant District Attorney Counsel
for Appellee: State of Louisiana
Charlotte Bordenave Barry L. LaCour Mental Health Advocacy
Service Child Advocacy Program Counsel for Appellees: S.C.
(child) M.C. (child) K.C. (child) A.C. (child)
composed of John D. Saunders, Phyllis M. Keaty, and John E.
PHYLLIS M. KEATY JUDGE
mother, N.D.,  appeals the trial court's judgment
ordering S.C., M.C., K.C., and A.C to remain in foster care.
For the following reasons, we affirm.
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
the biological mother and B.C. is the biological father of
four children: S.C., born on January 6, 2011; M.C., born on
May 27, 2012; K.C., born on May 28, 2013; and A.C., born on
March 8, 2015. On October 26, 2015, the State of Louisiana,
Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) received a
report that N.D. and B.C. were not adequately supervising the
children. The children were placed in the temporary custody
of the DCFS pursuant to an Oral Instanter Order on October
27, 2015, and a confirmed written Instanter Order dated
October 28, 2015. At the time of their removal from their
parents' custody, the children were the following ages:
four years old; three years old; two years old; and seven and
one-half months, respectively. Following an adjudication
hearing on March 8, 2016 and April 6, 2016, the trial court
determined they were children in need of care. A disposition
hearing was held on April 25, 2016, and the parties
stipulated to the continued custody of the children with the
State. Following the hearing, the trial court signed the
11, 2016, N.D. filed the instant appeal from the April 25,
2016 judgment. On appeal and in her sole assignment of error,
N.D. contends the trial court erred in granting judgment in
favor of the State, adjudicating S.C., M.C., K.C., and A.C.
as children in need of care. B.C. has not appealed.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
review the juvenile court's findings of fact under the
manifest error standard of review[.]" State ex rel.
J.Y.M., 09-1335, p. 5 (La.App. 3 Cir. 8/4/10), 45 So.3d
1128, 1132. In State ex rel. D.H., 04-2105, pp. 7-8
(La.App. 1 Cir. 2/11/05), 906 So.2d 554, 560, the first
[I]t is important that the appellate court not substitute its
own opinion when it is the juvenile court that is in the
unique position to see and hear the witnesses as they
testify. [In re A.J.F., 00-948 (La. 6/30/00), 764
So.2d 47.] Where there is conflicting testimony, reasonable
evaluations of credibility and reasonable inferences of fact
should not be disturbed upon review, even when the appellate
court may feel that its own evaluations and inferences are as
reasonable as those of the juvenile court. Id.;
see Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La.1989). If the
juvenile court's findings are reasonable in light of the
record reviewed in its entirety, the appellate court may not
reverse, even though convinced that had it been sitting as
the trier of fact, it would have weighed the evidence
differently. Id.; see Pinsonneault v. Merchants
& Farmers Bank & Trust Co., 2001-2217 (La.
4/3/02), 816 So.2d 270.
In order to reverse a fact finder's determination of
fact, an appellate court must review the record in its
entirety and (1) find that a reasonable factual basis does
not exist for the finding, and if such a basis does exist,
(2) further determine that the record establishes that the
fact finder is clearly wrong or manifestly erroneous. See
Stobart v. State, through DOTD, 617 So.2d 880 (La.1993).
If there are two permissible views of the evidence, the fact
finder's choice between them cannot be manifestly
erroneous or clearly wrong. Id.
sole assignment of error, N.D. contends the trial court erred
in granting judgment in favor of the State, adjudicating the
minor children in need of care. Louisiana Children's Code
Article 606 sets forth the grounds on which a child can be
found in need of care providing, in pertinent part:
A. Allegations that a child is in need of care must assert
one or more of the following grounds:
(1) The child is the victim of abuse perpetrated, aided, or
tolerated by the parent or caretaker, by a person who
maintains an interpersonal dating or engagement relationship
with the parent or caretaker, or by a person living in the
same residence with the parent or caretaker as a spouse
whether married or not, and his welfare is seriously
endangered if he is left within the custody or control of
that parent or caretaker.
(2) The child is a victim of neglect.
. . . .
B. A child whose parent is unable to provide basic support,
supervision, treatment, or services due to inadequate
financial resources shall not, for that reason alone, be