State of Louisiana in the Interest of N.P.

Judgment rendered July 22, 2026. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 2166, La. C.C.P. No. 57,011-JAC COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA ***** STATE OF LOUISIANA IN THE INTEREST OF N.P. ***** Appealed from the Forty-Second Judicial District Court for the Parish of DeSoto, Louisiana Trial Court No. 4983 Honorable Amy Burford McCartney, Judge ***** ROBERT IRVIN THOMPSON, III Counsel for Appellant, Naydeen Fredrick LAW OFFICE OF BRYCE DENNY, LLC Counsel for Appellant, By: Andrew B. Freyer Heriberto Perez PAMELA ROXANNE MOSER Counsel for Appellee, Assistant District Attorney State of Louisiana KIMBERLY S. SMITH Counsel for Appellee, State of Louisiana DCFS ACADIANA LEGAL SERVICES Counsel for Appellee, CORPORATION N.P. By: Jacqueline Chevette Williams ***** Before STONE, THOMPSON, and ROBINSON, JJ. STONE, J. This appeal arises from the Second Judicial District Court, the Honorable Amy McCartney presiding. The court rendered a judgment of permanent guardianship to the foster parents of NP (a Hispanic female born in the U.S. Virgin Islands on October 12, 2022), left visitation of the biological father, Heriberto Perez (“Mr. Perez”), to the discretion of the foster parents, and banned the visitation of the biological mother, Naydeen Fredrick (“Ms. Fredrick”). Mr. Perez and Ms. Fredrick separately appeal that judgment and have filed separate briefs as well. The district attorney and the attorney appointed for NP have also filed briefs. For the reasons stated herein, we reverse in part, affirm in part, and render judgment. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Factual background of removal, CINC1 adjudication Mr. Perez and Ms. Fredrick were residents of the U.S. Virgin Islands (the “Virgin Islands”) when NP was born. They lived together as a couple for roughly a year prior NP’s birth and continued to live together as a family unit for four to five months afterward. Mr. Perez was active in the daily care of NP. In January or February of 2023, the domestic relationship between the couple terminated ― and apparently Ms. Fredrick took NP with her. By April of 2023, Ms. Fredrick had a new boyfriend, Shamol Granville (“Mr. Granville”). According to Mr. Perez, in June or July of 2023, he (Mr. Perez) was arrested pursuant to Ms. Fredrick’s accusations ― as he described ― for property damage, burglary, and domestic violence (all with Ms. Fredrick as the victim). Mr. Perez maintains that these were false 1 Child In Need of Care. accusations, and later the charges were in fact “dismissed with prejudice”2 by the Virgin Islands authorities. However, Ms. Fredrick obtained a Virgin Islands restraining order against Mr. Perez which was still in effect throughout the trial court proceedings herein.3 He was still in jail when Ms. Fredrick absconded to Texas with her new boyfriend, Mr. Granville, and NP in October 2023. Ms. Fredrick alleged that since January 2, 2024, she and NP had been riding with Mr. Granville, a trucker, on his work trips. On January 24, 2024, the three were headed to Baton Rouge from Dallas, Texas, and stopped at a Luv’s truck stop in Desoto Parish. Ms. Fredrick testified that she was inside Luv’s taking a shower while Mr. Granville and 15-month-old NP were left in the truck. She also affirmed that nobody else was in the truck or otherwise had access to NP. According to Mr. Granville, he sat in the front seat of the truck playing on his phone while NP was inside the cabin on the bed. He alleged that he heard NP hit the cabin floor of his 18-wheeler and found her unresponsive. Mr. Granville rushed NP into the store and sought emergency medical attention for her.4 2 This terminology is reflected in an official home study report by Virgin Islands Department of Human Services in evaluating Mr. Perez’s suitability as a caretaker. The report was introduced into evidence and is a part of the record. 3 The restraining order is not in the record of this case but was acknowledged by Mr. Perez and Ms. Fredrick. No further details ― such as the allegations or findings on which the order is based ― are contained in the record. There is no indication that NP is a protected party in the order. On the contrary, there is no reported or alleged child abuse attached to Mr. Perez’s name per the Virgin Islands home study report. 4 On September 16, 2025, Mr. Granville was arrested for second degree cruelty to a juvenile in connection with the incident. NP’s preschool teacher reported that NP is scared of 18-wheelers. 2  At the hospital, NP was determined to have four skull fractures and three brain bleeds ― these injuries were nearly fatal. Additionally, NP suffered a broken arm and bruising around her mouth. Ms. Fredrick admitted that the bruising was from January 22, 2024, when she squeezed her NP’s face trying to make the child open her mouth and eat a piece of meat. The X-rays also showed older untreated skeletal injuries which included a broken leg and spinal fractures (i.e., which pre-existed the head trauma that NP suffered on January 24, 2024). Ms. Fredrick claimed she did not know about these older injuries. Prior to the January 24, 2024, incident, these injuries were never treated or disclosed to anyone. According to the DCFS5 supervisor, Kim Carleton (“Ms. Carleton”), the trauma nurse informed her and Ms. Fredrick that NP’s head injuries could not have happened from merely falling two to three feet from the bed to the floor of the truck sleeping cabin, and that someone must have done this to NP with physical violence ― likewise, “non-accidental trauma” is how Ms. Carleton said the doctors described it. Ms. Fredrick, however, testified (at the permanency hearing) that her daughter’s near-fatal, non-accidental, head trauma was the result of the child falling off the bed in the 18-wheeler. On January 24, 2024, the DCFS obtained an emergency instanter order for the removal of NP and, shortly thereafter, instituted CINC proceedings and placed NP in the custody of DCFS-certified foster parents who reside in Shreveport, Louisiana. 5 Louisiana Department of Children and Family Services. 3 Ms. Fredrick – subsequent conduct During her testimony at the permanency hearing on January 24, 2025, Ms. Fredrick claimed that, as of February 2024, she terminated her relationship with Mr. Granville, and that he moved to Atlanta while she did not. Problematic for this testimony, (1) Ms. Carleton reported that Ms. Fredrick was still living with Mr. Granville in March of 2024 and was in willful denial that Mr. Granville had injured her baby; and (2) Ms. Fredrick gave birth to two of Mr. Granville’s children during the pendency of the CINC proceedings ― one born circa August 2024, and another born circa August 2025.6 Ms. Fredrick, thus, had coitus with Mr. Granville in December 2024 or later, demonstrating that she remained sexually involved with Mr. Granville even though: (1) he was the only person in the truck with NP on January 24, 2024, when NP’s non-accidental (nearly fatal) trauma occurred, (2) she agreed ― in her case plan ― to terminate her relationship with Mr. Granville, and (3) she claimed to have terminated her relationship with Mr. Granville. Ms. Fredrick also contrived a story about her mother having a stroke as an excuse for missing court when, in reality, she attempted to hide her pregnancy with Mr. Granville’s baby from the trial court. As of November 2025, both Ms. Fredrick and Mr. Granville are being criminally prosecuted for second degree cruelty to a juvenile in connection with NP’s injuries.7 6 Ms. Fredrick claimed to have completely terminated her relationship with Mr. Granville by the time she birthed his older child (August 2024) to the degree of only keeping him updated (through a third party) regarding their baby; her giving birth to his younger child roughly one year later suggests otherwise. 7 For all these reasons, we find that the record contains clear and convincing evidence that NP cannot be safely returned to Ms. Fredrick within a reasonable time (or otherwise). Ms. Fredrick admitted to physically abusing NP herself, and admitted she did not seek treatment for NP’s fractured leg and vertebrae, and further, appears unwilling to 4 Virgin Islands home study ― contents and recommendation On August 22, 2024, the DCFS a requested that the Virgin Islands Department of Human Services (“DHS”) conduct a Relative Home Study on NP’s paternal grandmother, Beatris Lopez (“Ms. Lopez”), after which she filled out an “Application to Care for Child” inquiry packet. The study included not only an inspection of her home, but also an extensive investigation into her background and that of her 75-year-old mother, Colporina Montanez (“Ms. Montanez”), who resides with her. On March 17, 2025, Ms. Lopez was interviewed by a DHS caseworker and indicated that “her main focus is to have her granddaughter, NP, placed in her home where NP will have the love and care of her family.” She is applying for legal custody and permanent placement of NP. Mr. Perez was also interviewed. He explained that he loves his daughter (NP), wants to help his mother raise NP in St. Croix, and wants NP to grow up with her family there. He is eager for his mother to obtain custody of NP. The DHS worker asked Mr. Perez and his mother about Louisiana’s restriction of Mr. Perez’s contact with NP to supervised visitation. Mr. Perez said he would respect and follow that restriction even though he did not understand why it was imposed. Ms. Lopez likewise agreed to respect the restriction and supervise her son’s visits with NP. Thereupon, the home study was complete and Ms. Lopez was provisionally approved as a permanent placement recommendation, pending only the be truthful about the real cause of NP’s near-fatal injuries, and remains sexually attracted to and/or involved with the man apparently responsible for almost killing NP — while she (Ms. Fredrick) must realize that her own testimony, if true, demonstrates Mr. Granville is the only possible culprit. For the sake of organization, Ms. Fredrick’s appeal is not further discussed herein, but her powerful lack of credibility as a witness is noted. 5 results of the National Crime Information Center (“NCIC”) background check. The provisional report and recommendation were sent to the Louisiana Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (“ICPC”) central office on March 28, 2025 ― seven months after receipt of the request.8 The NCIC background checks were completed and reported to DHS on May 12, 2025 — neither Ms. Lopez nor Ms. Montanez had any criminal history. Mr. Perez did not have any additional criminal history except that which was already known via the Virgin Islands background check: (1) a pending arrest or prosecutorial charge from May 2, 2020, for unauthorized possession of a firearm; (2) a pending arrest or prosecutorial charge from September 1, 2023, for first degree assault; (3) a first degree burglary charge dismissed with prejudice on December 12, 2024; and (4) a simple assault and battery charge (a misdemeanor) also dismissed with prejudice on December 12, 2024.9 Furthermore, Ms. Lopez and Ms. Montanez were interrogated under oath and denied having: (i) any criminal history; (ii) ever been the victim or perpetrator of family violence; (iii) ever perpetrated emotional or physical abuse on anyone; (iv) any history of substance abuse or any use of illegal drugs, child abuse, or sexual abuse; (v) any relevant physical, mental, or 8 The report attributes the delay to the paternal grandmother not submitting all the paperwork until February 2025. 9 If it remains pending now, over a year after the report, the first degree assault charge is concerning ― it is a felony that includes wide range of conduct from attempted murder to simple assault with the intent to commit robbery or larceny ― and is punishable by 0 to 15 years of imprisonment. There is no narrative whatsoever in the record as to this charge. However, the record does reflect that this charge: (1) was instituted while Mr. Perez was already in jail for the “Ms. Fredrick-related” charges that were dismissed with prejudice; (2) was known to the DHS when it recommended placement with Ms. Lopez; and (3) was or should have been known to the DCFS when it requested that reunification with Mr. Perez be added as a case plan goal (June 17, 2025), and to the Virgin Islands criminal court when it allowed Mr. Perez to travel to DeSoto Parish, Louisiana, to attend court and visit NP despite his bail obligations. 6 emotional health conditions; (vi) knowledge of any family members abusing legal or illegal drugs; or (vii) ownership of any weapons. Additionally, Ms. Lopez stated that she does not use tobacco or alcohol and disclosed her family history in great detail.10 She stated that, alongside her son (Mr. Perez), and her mother (Ms. Montanez), three of her daughters would also have regular contact with NP. She further disclosed that her base monthly income (after taxes) is $2,880, and that she works overtime (when available) for additional income as overtime is not guaranteed. Upon visual inspection, the DHS worker found the home to be quite suitable for housing a minor child in all regards, including safety, cleanliness, size, location, amenities, fixtures, and utilities. Ms. Lopez was required to send out five character reference forms; all five were returned completed to DHS and all five respondents gave strictly positive feedback: (1) Jamal Browne described her as his “mentor and lifelong friend,” stated he observed her interact with her children, and that she is “a respected person in the community” who is always willing to help the less fortunate; (2) Corina Campbell had known Ms. Lopez for over 6 years and reported having observed her interacting with her children, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, and other extended family and that such was always “happy and filled with love and laughter”; (3) Artemeh Woods has known Ms. Lopez for 15 years and described her interactions with friends and family as “loving and caring” and further described her as “kind and 10 This includes the residence and occupation of (1) all five of Ms. Lopez’s children, all of whom live in St. Croix; and (2) all six of her siblings, three of whom reside in St. Croix. 7 patient with those around her”; (4) Verna Maxwell has known Ms. Lopez for most of her life, interacts with her daily, and is the biological aunt of Ms. Lopez’ children. She stated that Ms. Lopez “cares for those she considers family, even when you are not blood related,” and that she “is kind and teaches children on being responsible and treating each other kindly and with respect”; (5) Chanice Jarvis has known Ms. Lopez for 11 years and was her direct supervisor at Champs (a former employer) and became a family friend; she stated that Ms. Lopez “is gracious and makes you feel welcome” and that she “observed her [Ms. Lopez] interacting with her children, grandchildren, and her cousins, big or small, with love and compassion” and is “well-equipped with the skills needed to care for a child,” and that is especially so because Ms. Lopez “plays an active role in her family’s lives.” Ms. Lopez was also required to undergo a physical and mental examination, which did not reveal any condition that would derogate from her ability to care for NP. The evaluator stated that she appears mentally, physically, and emotionally “stable and suitable to proceed with the minor’s care.” Based on all the information ― including the suitable financial condition of Ms. Lopez ― the DHS formally recommended permanent placement of NP with the paternal grandmother (Ms. Lopez) to the Louisiana authorities on May 28, 2025. (Hereinafter, the “ICPC report” or “ICPC report and recommendation.”) The ICPC report also included an addendum home study on Mr. Perez, which was included in the March 28, 2025, provisional recommendation. His dwelling – a “container home” – is on the same tract 8 as his mother’s (Ms. Lopez’s) home. Mr. Perez admitted that he has too little space for NP to live with him, and the DHS agreed. Mr. Perez’s case plan The case plan required Mr. Perez to: (1) obtain and maintain housing that is free from all safety hazards; (2) attend domestic violence classes; (3) submit to a parenting assessment; (4) “attend substance abuse and comply with all recommendations”; (5) complete random drug screens; (6) attend and complete Trust-Based Relational Intervention (“TBRI”) Training; (7) attend anger management classes; and (8) maintain contact with DCFS in regard to case plan progress/lack of progress. Outline of the proceedings As a preface, we note that the DCFS caused months of unnecessary delay, arbitrarily dismissed the Virgin Islands DHS recommendation of permanent placement with Ms. Lopez, and unreasonably stifled Mr. Perez’s visitations with NP. In his efforts to contend with this capricious and dilatory bureaucracy, Mr. Perez had six different attorneys assigned to him throughout the course of these proceedings. This profound lack of continuity created a lack of familiarity with the case on the part of the respective attorneys. As a result, these attorneys were inactive and passive rather than assertive or proactive.11 11 There is only one notable exception to this statement: Mr. Hill, who was counsel for the first few hearings, requested that Mr. Perez be granted supervised visitation, and the trial court granted that request (but later revoked it per the DCFS request, despite the fact that no change of circumstances had occurred). Otherwise, nowhere did they attempt to meaningfully cross-examine the DCFS witnesses. Nor did these attorneys make one objection or even file one motion or brief throughout entire course of the trial court proceedings. They did not attempt to redirect the court and the DCFS back to the (Virgin Islands) DHS recommendation of permanent placement with Ms. Lopez. They did not challenge any of the actions or positions of the trial court or the DCFS by oral argument or by writ applications to this court. The accuracy of these statements is demonstrated in the remainder of this section of the opinion. 9  At the continued custody hearing on January 29, 2024, Mr. Perez was present via Zoom and was represented by Mr. Weber Hill (“Mr. Hill”) of the Public Defender’s Office. At the appearance to answer hearing on February 14, 2024, Mr. Perez was present in person and was, again, represented by Mr. Hill. Mr. Perez indicated on the record that he wanted custody of NP to be granted to his mother, Ms. Lopez, in St. Croix. In fact, Ms. Lopez accompanied Mr. Perez to Louisiana and together had a DCFS-supervised visit with NP ― which Ms. Carleton personally observed and said it (meaning the visit) “went well.” She also noted that NP was “very bonded” with the foster mother, seeming to prefer her over Mr. Perez during the visitation. As of the CINC adjudication on March 12, 2024, NP had not fully recovered from her injuries. Mr. Perez was represented by Mr. Brian McRae (“Mr. McRae”) at this hearing and was present by Zoom. In her testimony, Ms. Carleton (the DCFS supervisor) recommended a case plan goal of adoption only, and that the DCFS would “start working on the termination process, TPR,” but had told Mr. Perez that he “can still work a case plan.” When asked why this recommendation as to Mr. Perez, Ms. Carleton stated that “[NP] hasn’t seen him since July [2023],” and he “was incarcerated in St. Croix for domestic violence against the mother.”12 Nonetheless, Ms. Carleton testified that Mr. Perez was very willing to work his case plan, was “consistently cooperative,” and had obtained NP’s immunization record for the DCFS within 24 hours of their request after the 12 We note that once the Fredrick-related arrests had been dismissed with prejudice, the DCFS stated reasons for continuing to deprive Mr. Perez of his child shifted to other matters. 10 DCFS struggled to get it on their own. Anything the DCFS asked of Mr. Perez, he tried to fulfill. She also indicated that all the professionals counseling Mr. Perez are in the Virgin Islands and would have to be approved by the DCFS before such could be treated as compliance with the case plan. The court adjudicated NP a CINC pursuant to La. Ch. C. art. 606(A)(1) in that she: is a 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, and that the child was a victim of neglect. And, specifically, the Court makes those findings based upon the significant injuries to the child at the time when—it sounds as though all parties agree that the child was in the custody of the boyfriend of the mother. Also, with respect to the old injuries that were healing, there was apparently neglect as well as abuse that would have caused those injuries as well. The court also adopted the DCFS proposed case plan, which suspended Mr. Perez’s ability to visit his daughter. There was no objection to this aspect of the case plan. The disposition hearing took place on April 9, 2024. Mr. Perez was present by Zoom and represented by Mr. Hill. NP’s foster mother reported that all of NP’s injuries had healed by this point. The DCFS caseworker, Shalonda Sanders (“Ms. Sanders”), stated that she had spoken with Ms. Lopez, and that the DCFS “[had not] done anything yet” but, later, probably would be considering her as a possible placement. However, when asked “what is the plan for the next two months?” Ms. Sanders responded that “the plan is for [NP] to stay in the home with…[the foster mother],” and beyond that, the DCFS had “not made any other plans,” and that the ICPC packet had not yet been submitted. Ms. Sanders further stated she did not know 11 when it (ICPC packet) would be submitted. The court approved the case plan and ordered that NP be kept in her placement with the foster mother. The ban on Mr. Perez’s visitation was continued. By July 24, 2024, Mr. Perez had completed the anger management and domestic violence courses and stated that he also had completed the parenting course, but the DCFS had not yet received the certificate(s). The next hearing was a case review on August 13, 2024 ― five months after Mr. Perez’s visitation rights had been suspended. He was present in person and represented by Mr. Hill. Ms. Carleton testified that NP was doing “extremely well” in foster care and apparently had no lasting effects from her injuries. Ms. Carleton indicated that Mr. Perez had been progressing on his case plan through St. Croix service providers, but warned that “oftentimes, the DCFS does not accept or recognize providers for various reasons,” and that she had not yet determined whether his providers would be accepted or even spoken with all his providers. Her testimony also suggested that the DCFS had only recently submitted the ICPC packet. Mr. Perez testified that he had been incarcerated for alleged “domestic violence” against Ms. Fredrick; however, the apparently corresponding charges on his RAP sheet (burglary and misdemeanor simple assault) do not indicate actual physical violence. He stated that Ms. Fredrick “lied to put him in jail,”13 and that his bail conditions for the (apparently unrelated) 13 Though not definitive proof, this claim is corroborated by the fact that the prosecutorial charges were subsequently dismissed with prejudice, and by the fact that Ms. Fredrick has demonstrated a deeply troubling lack of credibility in this record. See notes 6 and 7, supra. According to the ICPC report, however, there remains a first-degree assault charge that was still pending against Mr. Perez as of May 28, 2025. He testified that all the charges based on Ms. Fredrick’s allegations were dismissed with prejudice. If true, that means the still-pending assault charge is unrelated. This testimony was not challenged. 12 charge that had not been dismissed allowed him travel provided he obtain court approval before each trip. Upon Mr. Hill’s request, the court allowed supervised visitation for Mr. Perez and his mother, Ms. Lopez, who had accompanied him again and rented a car to travel from Bossier City to the courthouse in Mansfield. Ms. Carleton initially opposed his visitation with NP but reversed her position in open court after the district attorney went off-script and praised Mr. Perez for making an “extraordinary effort” to attend the hearings. The trial court held a permanency hearing on January 14, 2025, and Mr. Perez was present in person and represented by Mr. McRae. By that point, he had completed the TBRI training and parenting courses. Ms. Sanders testified that Mr. Perez “contacts the office all the time [and] is doing well,” and “doing everything the agency has asked of him” in a timely fashion. The trial court agreed. Ms. Sanders also reported that Mr. Perez and Ms. Lopez had been contacting NP via phone calls to the foster mother. Mr. Perez testified that his two Fredrick-related charges had been dismissed with prejudice and that he had emailed proof thereof to the DCFS.14 He also testified that he had finished his case plan except he had not yet finished all the random drug screens. Mr. McRae used Mr. Perez’s testimony as an opportunity to advise him to be “very proactive” in goading the DHS to move as quickly as possible to complete the ICPC report. However, the court also determined that Mr. Perez tested positive for marijuana (“THC”) that day without any testimony or other evidence to that 14 Here, Mr. Perez stated that the charges dismissed were first degree burglary, disturbing the peace, and destruction of property. He explained that, according to Ms. Fredrick’s allegations, he destroyed some of her property while they were living together. 13 effect in the record.15 Neither the court nor Ms. Sanders said anything suggesting this was a potential roadblock or reason for delaying reunification. The court did, however, indicate that Mr. Perez would be required to undergo another substance abuse assessment/treatment. As stated earlier, the Louisiana ICPC Central Office received the finalized ICPC report recommending permanent placement with Ms. Lopez on May 28, 2025. On June 6, 2025, after a family team meeting, Ms. Carleton updated the case plan to add reunification with the father (Mr. Perez) as a concurrent goal. She also mentioned in the case plan report that “the ICPC was approved the Agency awaiting on upper management to move forward with the next step. The Agency is setting up Zoom calls between [Ms. Lopez and NP].” During the case review hearing on June 17, 2025, Mr. Perez was represented by Mr. Richard Woolbert (“Mr. Woolbert”). Ms. Carleton testified that Mr. Perez had completed his entire case plan but did not specify how long before that date he had done so. The court approved the amendment adding reunification with Mr. Perez as a concurrent case plan goal. Ms. Carleton acknowledged that at this point Ms. Lopez had traveled to Louisiana to visit NP three times and stated that she [Ms. Carleton] had started talks with the DCFS about bringing NP to the Virgin Islands for a visit with Ms. Lopez or trial placement with her. There were, however (according to Ms. Carleton), bureaucratic restrictions: the Louisiana DCFS would, if it were to allow this, require that a Louisiana DCFS worker stay for the entire duration and monitor NP’s experience in Ms. Lopez’s home – 15 For purposes of this appeal, the positive drug screen on this date did not happen because there is no evidentiary basis for it in the record. 14 to observe how well NP tolerated being placed in a new environment. Ms. Carleton also explained that she wanted to get NP (then roughly 32 months old) further acquainted with Ms. Lopez through DCFS-monitored Zoom calls before allowing a trip to the Virgin Islands. The court ordered that DCFS not take NP to the Virgin Islands without first obtaining the court’s authorization. Present by Zoom, Mr. Perez asked why this process was taking so long and intimated that he wanted his daughter to come home soon. The court responded that Mr. Perez would have to come to Louisiana if he wanted to see his daughter, and that the next court date would be two months later, in August, so he should come then. Mr. Perez, his mother, and his sister (Ms. Lopez’s daughter) traveled from the Virgin Islands to Louisiana to visit with NP around the time of the August 5, 2025, case review hearing. On this date, Mr. Perez was represented by Mr. William Eades (“Mr. Eades”). Ms. Carleton testified that the visit the night before the hearing went “very well” and noted Mr. Perez’s positive interaction with NP, but did state: So, we are trying to make as much effort to get him visits while he is here to attempt to get her familiar with him and his mother. We did do the ICPC on his mother [i.e., completed 2 months earlier]. She’s not interacting much with [NP]. So, we have done a Zoom link, which [NP] [still a 2-year-old] did surprisingly well on with the help of Ms. Lala. The father interacted the whole time, the grandmother did not. Then, in the visit last night, he was the one on the floor playing and interacting with her while the grandmother did not have much interaction with her. So, we have some concerns about that. So, we have started -- we’ve discussed it with upper management, and we have started. We are going to do a home study on the father just to see what’s going on with him in St. Croix to be able to possibly end up placing with dad. (Emphasis added.) 15  It appears from their conversation on the record that Ms. Carleton and the trial court were unaware that the ICPC report indicates that Mr. Perez lives in a separate dwelling on the same tract as his mother’s home and includes a study of his home. Ms. Carleton indicated that the DCFS would now begin “digging into” Mr. Perez’s finances since now they were now considering direct placement with him ― i.e., even though (1) the ICPC report had already disapproved of his home, (2) Mr. Perez repeatedly stated (since his first appearance in the proceedings), in open court and the ICPC report, that he wanted his mother, Ms. Lopez, to get custody of NP, and that he wanted to help her raise NP, and (3) the case had already been pending over 18 months.16 The trial court asked Ms. Carleton why, given that it had been over 18 months since removal, reunification was still a concurrent case plan goal instead of setting the goal of adoption by the foster parents only? Yet, the trial court had just approved the addition of reunification in the immediately prior hearing, and no circumstances had changed since then except the passage of two months (wherein the DCFS apparently made no progress on the matter). Ms. Carlton responded that the DCFS was still considering giving NP back to her father, rather than making foster adoption the sole objective, because Mr. Perez had “worked his case plan as much as possible,” (he had already done so before the previous hearing two months earlier) and the DCFS legal department doubted there were legal grounds for terminating his parental rights. Ms. Carleton added that the DCFS had been 16 Additionally, the DCFS and the court had already set Mr. Perez’s support obligation at $15 per month and he had been afforded counsel free of charge throughout the proceedings ― which can only be done when the parent is indigent. La. Ch. C. art. 608. 16 hesitant initially because Mr. Perez was in jail when NP was taken into care, and NP “did not really remember him.” Then the following exchange occurred: THE COURT: And so how does that balance against her need for permanency after more than a year and a half in care? THE WITNESS: So, the department definitely sees both sides. But with him working his case plan, we are not sure that we can——the agency has met with legal, and we are not sure that we are there yet for termination. THE COURT: Okay. Which, of course, doesn’t bind the Court as far as y’all——as far as the department’s requested case plan goal, correct? THE WITNESS: Right. THE COURT: Have other options been considered? THE WITNESS: As to the foster parents? THE COURT: Well, as to the permanency for the child. THE WITNESS: The agency cannot recommend guardianship for a child this young. It can be done by the Court, but the agency cannot recommend it. (Emphasis added.) Ms. Carleton, notably, did not mention permanent placement with NP’s grandmother ― as recommended by DHS and as requested by the father ― in her response to the court’s above-emphasized question. Also quite notably, Mr. Perez’s stand-in counsel for the day, Mr. Eades, offered no resistance against this disregard of the ICPC report’s recommendation of permanent placement with Ms. Lopez, and the father’s request that such be done. The court expressed disinclination toward allowing reunification to remain a concurrent case plan goal but would allow it “for the moment.” The foster parents had indicated throughout the case that they would be quite willing to adopt NP if placement with NP’s family failed. There was no discussion regarding or in consideration of accepting the DHS 17 recommendation in the ICPC report for placement with Ms. Lopez except what little is reflected in the preceding paragraphs. On October 14, 2025, the court held a case review hearing. Mr. Perez was supposed to appear by Zoom but failed to do so because of technical difficulties that were not his fault.17 In the hearing, Ms. Carleton stated that (1) Mr. Perez has maintained contact with the agency, completed his case plan, and visits with NP when he comes to Louisiana; he has also had multiple DCFS-monitored Zoom visits with NP, but despite his efforts it is difficult for him to keep her attention since she is so young (having just turned three years old on October 12, 2025); and (2) the DCFS was trying to “get [Ms. Lopez] involved to see if she could be a possible placement” but she only participated in one of the two DCFS-monitored Zoom calls and did not interact “a whole lot” with NP therein, and only attended two of the three DCFS-supervised visits last time she came to Louisiana, and therein was not doing most of the interaction with NP (Mr. Perez and his sister were). As the DCFS never recommended placement with Ms. Lopez to the court, Ms. Carleton’s testimony suggests that the DCFS viewed this supposed underperformance as significantly derogatory ― even disqualifying ― of her bid for custody of her granddaughter, NP. On cross-examination, Ms. Carleton testified that the DCFS still ― over 4 months after receiving the ICPC report ― had not begun making plans to take NP to the Virgin Islands and if she tried to make such a plan, 17 The district attorney requested a bench warrant for Mr. Perez’s arrest (for failure to appear), which the trial court issued. However, the DCFS requested that the warrant be recalled on November 12, 2025, because his failure to appear was due to a technical difficulty that was not his fault, as Ms. Carleton explained at the next hearing on January 13, 2026. 18 she would “probably have to staff that with upper management in the state office before that could happen,” because “even though it’s a U.S. Virgin Island, it’s still not here in the forty-eight. So it would definitely have to be staffed.” At that point, the court interjected that “the court has already made it abundantly clear that the court is not allowing the child out of the state.” (However, the court had rendered orders authorizing the foster parents to remove NP from the state for multiple days on at least three occasions.) No explanation why NP could not visit her family in the Virgin Islands was requested or offered. The court continued: And so to the extent that Mr. Perez wants to have meaningful visitation or, you know, the ability to have extended time with the child in order to prove that he can be a parent, he’s going to have to come to Louisiana, and probably to DeSoto Parish. (Emphasis added). Mr. Perez’s counsel for that day offered no resistance in the moment and sought no writ to challenge the court’s ban on NP visiting her family in the Virgin Islands. Similarly, counsel for Mr. Perez did not challenge Ms. Carleton’s apparent conclusion that Ms. Lopez was no longer a viable placement option (if ever Ms. Carleton so considered her). Though she did not directly explain, it seems ― given the lack of any other “derogatory” matter in the record ― Ms. Carleton concluded so because of Ms. Lopez’s supposedly inadequate performance in the DCFS-supervised Zoom call with almost three-year-old NP and in the several DCFS-supervised in-person visits between NP, the grandmother, father, and aunt (Mr. Perez’s sister)