State ex rel. A.S., 220 So. 3d 179

In March 2015, three-month-old K.H. was found dead in the Houston home; five surviving children were removed by DCFS after officers observed severe undernourishment, diaper rash, bruising, and an unsafe, unsanitary home.
Calendria Houston and her husband executed a reunification case plan in April 2015; Houston was arrested in May 2015 and charged with murder and cruelty to juveniles and has remained in pretrial custody because she could not afford a $350,000 bond.
DCFS filed a petition to terminate Houston’s parental rights in March 2016, alleging multiple statutory grounds including extreme abuse (starvation/neglect), failure to comply with the case plan, abandonment, and lack of contribution/contact.
The trial court terminated Houston’s parental rights in November 2016, finding DCFS met its burden by clear and convincing evidence and that termination was in the children’s best interests; the children improved materially in foster care.
On appeal Houston argued the trial court relied improperly on her pretrial incarceration (which caused case-plan noncompliance) as a basis for termination; the court rejected this, finding that independently the extreme-abuse/misconduct ground supported termination.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (DCFS)	Defendant's Argument (Houston)	Held
Timeliness of appeal	Notice of appeal was timely based on mailing of judgment	Appeal was untimely under local practice of personal service	Held timely: statute starts the appeal clock on mailing, not local sheriff practice
Use of pretrial incarceration in termination	Noncompliance while incarcerated can support termination (abandonment/case-plan failure) among other grounds	Pretrial incarceration caused inability to comply with the case plan; relying on incarceration is improper basis for termination	Court did not decide the legality of using incarceration alone but rejected Houston’s claim because other independent grounds supported termination
Sufficiency of evidence for extreme-abuse/misconduct ground	Evidence showed severe neglect/possible starvation, injuries, fatality, and unsafe home conditions — clear and convincing proof of extreme abuse/gross neglect	Argued trial court relied on incarceration and case-plan noncompliance rather than parent conduct	Held: clear and convincing evidence supported termination under the misconduct/extreme-abuse ground; termination was in the children’s best interests

Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (recognition of parental liberty interest in care and custody of children)
Lassiter v. Department of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18 (due process framework for termination of parental rights)
Lehman v. Lycoming County Children’s Servs. Agency, 458 U.S. 502 (child’s interest in permanency and adoption)
State ex rel. M.S., 768 So.2d 628 (standard of deference to parental liberty interest in Louisiana cases)
State ex rel. S.M.W., 781 So.2d 1223 (Louisiana precedent on parental liberty and statutory safeguards)
State ex rel. L.B. v. G.B.B., 831 So.2d 918 (two-pronged inquiry: statutory ground by clear and convincing evidence and best-interest determination)
Mitchell (State ex rel. SNW v. Mitchell), 800 So.2d 809 (clear-and-convincing proof required in involuntary termination proceedings)