State of Louisiana v. R.H. - Parental Rights Termination Appeal
Summary
The Louisiana Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court judgment revoking parental rights in the case of State of Louisiana in the Interest of R.H. The appellate court found that the trial court properly proceeded with the termination of parental rights trial in the parent's absence. The appeal stemmed from a judgment terminating parental rights due to cruelty to a juvenile charges.
What changed
The Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, affirmed a trial court's decision to terminate the parental rights of R.H. in the case docketed as No. 2025-CA-0663. The appellate court specifically addressed whether the trial court erred by proceeding with the termination trial in the appellant's absence. The court found that La. Ch.C. art. 1033 permitted the trial to proceed when the parent, despite being properly served and notified, failed to appear for the hearing.
This decision has implications for legal professionals and courts involved in child welfare cases, particularly concerning the procedures for terminating parental rights when a parent is absent. Compliance officers should note that failure to appear for a properly noticed hearing can result in the continuation of proceedings and potential termination of rights. While this is an appellate affirmation, it reinforces the binding nature of trial court judgments under such circumstances. No specific compliance deadline or penalty information is detailed in this appellate opinion, as it reviews a prior judgment.
What to do next
- Review court procedures for parental rights termination hearings to ensure compliance with notice and appearance requirements.
- Advise clients facing potential termination of parental rights on the critical importance of attending all scheduled court hearings.
Source document (simplified)
Jump To
Top Caption Disposition [Lead Opinion
by Chief Judge Roland L. Belsome](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10806075/state-of-louisiana-in-the-interest-of-rh-v/about:blank#o1)
Support FLP
CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.
Please become a member today.
March 9, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note
State of Louisiana in the Interest of R.H. v. .
Louisiana Court of Appeal
- Citations: None known
- Docket Number: 2025-CA-0663
- Judges: Chief Judge Roland L. Belsome; Judge Dale N. Atkins; Judge Dennis Bagneris; pro tempore
Disposition: Affirmed
Disposition
Affirmed
Lead Opinion
by Chief Judge Roland L. Belsome
STATE OF LOUISIANA IN * NO. 2025-CA-0663
THE INTEREST OF R.H.
*
COURT OF APPEAL
*
FOURTH CIRCUIT
*
STATE OF LOUISIANA
APPEAL FROM
JUVENILE COURT ORLEANS PARISH
NO. 2025-105-14-TR, SECTION “E”
HONORABLE Desiree Cook-Calvin, JUDGE
Chief Judge Roland L. Belsome
(Court composed of Chief Judge Roland L. Belsome, Judge Dale N. Atkins, Judge
Dennis Bagneris, pro tempore)
Michael Idoyaga
Attorney at Law
700 Camp Street
New Orleans, LA 70130
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT
Jules A. Fontana, III
Department of Children and Family Services
Bureau of General Counsel
1450 Poydras Street, Suite 1600
New Orleans, LA 70112
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE
AFFIRMED
March 9, 2026
Appellant, RH,1 appeals the trial court judgment that revoked his parental
RLB
DNA rights. The sole issue is whether it was proper for the trial to proceed in his
DRB
absence. For reasons that follow, we hold that it was proper and we affirm the trial
court judgment.
Facts
RH has three minor children, all of whom have the same initials as his. RH
pled guilty to three counts of cruelty to a juvenile under La. R.S. 14:93. The
mother of the three children was also incarcerated on the same charges for beating
one of the children with a baseball bat. The children were placed in the care of
Department of Children and Family Services twice in two and a half years for the
same reason. This was the second time.
At all times relevant to the appeal, RH was represented by competent and
diligent counsel.
On April 15, 2025, the State filed a petition to terminate the parents’ rights
based on La. Ch.C. arts. 1015 (3), (4), (5), and (6). RH participated in the answer
hearing through televised electronic means. During that hearing, the court set a
trial date of June 17, 2025. RH was also served with the notice of the petition to
1 Because this opinion affects the rights of minors and the parental rights of their father, we
substitute the initials of the parent and his children to protect their privacy.
1
terminate his parental rights and trial date of June 17, 2025. RH did not appear for
that trial, so the court proceeded to trial against the mother only. Her parental
rights were terminated. RH’s trial was re-set for July 7, 2025. Again, RH did not
appear. The court proceeded to trial as permitted by La. Ch.C. art. 1033, which
provides that:
If it appears from the record that the parent has been served in
accordance with Article 1021 or 1022 or has been located and notified
in accordance with Article 1020 and the parent fails to appear at the
hearing, then the hearing shall be held in the parent's absence and the
petitioner shall be required to establish prima facie proof of the
allegations contained in the petition.
At the conclusion of trial, judgement was rendered terminating RH’s
parental rights. RH contests the judgment alleging that he did not appear because
he was not served with the petition.
Service was attempted unsuccessfully on RH prior to trial. RH’s counsel
was aware of the trial date and attempted to notify RH by telephone. When RH’s
counsel called him, RH hung up the phone without speaking. The record is clear
that RH was served in April for the trial date scheduled in June. It is equally clear
that his counsel was aware and prepared for the second trial date. We find no error
with the trial court’s decision to move forward to trial.
Conclusion and decree
The trial court provided RH with adequate notice of both trials and gave him
the opportunity to be heard in his case. For reasons not shown on the record, RH
failed to participate in any effort to prevent the termination of his parental rights.
RH does not contest the factual or legal findings of the trial court. Therefore, we
affirm the judgment of the trial court.
AFFIRMED
2
Related changes
Source
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get Government alerts
Weekly digest. AI-summarized, no noise.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when Louisiana Court of Appeal publishes new changes.