251 So. 3d 554
La. Ct. App.2018Background
- Children ALD and LSD removed in May–June 2016 after parents tested positive for methamphetamine; infants also tested positive. DCFS filed CINC petitions and approved a reunification case plan for both parents.
- Case plan required safe housing, random drug testing and substance abuse treatment, legal income, parenting classes, and anger management.
- DCFS alleges ongoing parental substance abuse, intermittent contact, and noncompliance; children were moved from paternal grandmother’s home to foster care after further positive drug tests.
- DCFS filed petitions to terminate parental rights in October 2017; after a consolidated trial the juvenile court terminated both parents’ rights under La. Ch. C. art. 1015(6).
- Father CKD appealed, arguing (1) he substantially complied with the case plan, (2) there remained a reasonable expectation of significant improvement, and (3) termination was not in the children’s best interest.
- The appellate court reversed the termination as to CKD, reinstated the CINC proceeding, and remanded with instructions to continue reunification efforts (children to remain with great-uncle).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DCFS proved the three elements of La. Ch. C. art. 1015(6) by clear and convincing evidence | DCFS: one year had elapsed; parents failed to substantially comply with the case plan; no reasonable expectation of significant improvement | CKD: conceded time elapsed but asserted substantial compliance with parts of the plan (treatment, random drug screens, employment efforts, housing efforts) and that improvement was reasonably expected | Reversed as to CKD: DCFS failed to prove lack of substantial compliance and lack of reasonable expectation of improvement by clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether father’s partial compliance with case plan suffices as “substantial parental compliance” | DCFS: father’s ongoing positive drug tests, periods of noncontact, and housing issues show lack of substantial compliance | CKD: testified to completion of phase one of treatment, ongoing outpatient treatment, participation in random drug tests, employment, and steps toward housing | Held: father’s documented efforts (treatment participation, testing, employment, housing efforts) amounted to substantial compliance for purposes of Art. 1015(6) analysis; trial court erred by not giving enough weight to this progress |
| Whether there was no reasonable expectation of significant improvement in the near future | DCFS: continued substance abuse, prior noncompliance, and instability support no reasonable expectation of improvement | CKD: points to recent consistent treatment engagement, employment, housing efforts, and lack of expert testimony predicting no improvement | Held: no clear and convincing proof that improvement was not reasonably expected; appellate court found a positive trend and lack of expert opinion proving hopelessness |
| Whether termination was in the children’s best interest | DCFS: permanency requires termination when reunification unlikely and safety at risk | CKD/children’s counsel: father bonded with children; termination premature given progress | Held: termination was not shown to be in the children’s best interest under the record; court remanded to reinstate CINC and continue case plan rather than terminate parental rights |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. H.A.S., 52 So.3d 852 (La. 2010) (supreme court reversed termination where state failed to prove lack of reasonable expectation of improvement)
- State ex rel. J.A., 752 So.2d 806 (La. 2000) (parens patriae power and caution in involuntary parental termination)
- State in Interest of T.P., 209 So.3d 1015 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2016) (standard that termination is a fact question reviewed for manifest error)
- State in Interest of C.V.W., 113 So.3d 1202 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2013) (termination grounds and review standard)
- State in Interest of J.M.L., 92 So.3d 447 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2012) (permitting termination if grounds proven and in child’s best interest)
- State in Interest of C.S., 163 So.3d 193 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2015) (parent must take action to avoid termination)
- State ex rel. K.G., 841 So.2d 759 (La. 2003) (focus on child’s best interest in termination proceedings)
- State ex rel. L.R.S., 877 So.2d 1040 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2004) (expeditious proceedings and permanency considerations under Art. 1001)