Case Name: STATE of Louisiana IN the INTEREST Z.D.
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 2017-12-06
Citations: 234 So. 3d 134
Docket Number: NO. 2017-CA-0616
Parties: STATE of Louisiana IN the INTEREST Z.D.
Judges: (Court composed of Judge Terri F. Love, Judge Roland L. Belsome, Judge Daniel L. Dysart, Judge Rosemary Ledet, Judge Regina Bartholomew Woods)
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 234
Pages: 134–137

Head Matter:
STATE of Louisiana IN the INTEREST Z.D.
NO. 2017-CA-0616
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
DECEMBER 6, 2017
Leon Cannizzaro, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, Scott G. Vincent, ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY, J. Taylor Gray, ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY, PARISH OF ORLEANS, 619 S. White Street, New Orleans, LA 70119, COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT/STATE OF LOUISIANA
(Court composed of Judge Terri F. Love, Judge Roland L. Belsome, Judge Daniel L. Dysart, Judge Rosemary Ledet, Judge Regina Bartholomew Woods)

Opinion:
Judge Rosemary Ledet
hln this appeal, the State seeks review of the juvenile court's finding that Z.D. is not a child in need of care as to his father. For the reasons that follow, we find that we lack appellate jurisdiction and therefore dismiss the State's appeal.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On May 2, 2017, the State filed a petition, alleging, inter alia, that Z.D.'s father is incarcerated in Texas and requesting that Z.D. be adjudicated a child in need of care as to his father. The matter was then set for adjudication. At the adjudication hearing, the juvenile court found that Z.D. was not a child in need of care as to his father. The juvenile court then set the matter for "case review" on July 20, 2017. This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
Article 330(B) of the Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure provides that, "[i]n . child in need of care proceedings pursuant to Title VI . an appeal may be taken only after a judgment of disposition . [and] shall include all errors |aassigned concerning the adjudication and disposition." The record in this case does not contain a judgment of disposition as to Z.D.'s father. Accordingly, we find that we lack appellate jurisdiction over this case.
DECREE
For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss the State's appeal.
APPEAL DISMISSED
LOVE, J., CONCURS IN THE RESULT WITH REASONS
DYSART, J., DISSENTS, WITH REASONS
BARTHOLOMEW-WOODS, J., DISSENTS WITH REASONS
. The petition also alleged a pattern of abuse and neglect by Z.D.'s mother and requested that Z.D. also be adjudicated a child in need of care as to his mother. Z.D.'s status as a child in need of care as to his mother is not an issue before the court in this appeal.