163 So. 3d 193
La. Ct. App.2015Background
- Infant C.S. was placed in DCFS custody shortly after birth due to mother M.S.’s housing instability and concerns about protection; DCFS moved to an emergency removal and placed C.S. with M.S.’s sister K.N. and her husband E.N.
- M.S. had other children in DCFS custody since 2013-2014 following prior abuse investigations; she disputed those allegations but the court found risk to C.S. favored removal.
- A 2014 petition alleged C.S. was a child in need of care; a case plan for reunification was developed but repeatedly hindered by M.S.’s housing instability, noncompliance with services, and inadequate communication with DCFS.
- DCFS recommended and a CASA (Laura Hyson) later supported changing the plan to adoption due to M.S.’s noncompliance, missed visits, and failure to show significant progress.
- The juvenile court ultimately found M.S. failed to comply with the case plan, and the permanent plan was changed to adoption; the court affirmed the change on appeal.
- M.S. appealed pro se, arguing misconduct and misrepresentation by DCFS and staff, but the record supported the change to adoption.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the permanent plan change to adoption was proper. | M.S. argues DCFS and staff misled the court and that she complied with many requirements. | DCFS showed M.S. failed to meet housing, income, mental health, and visitation requirements. | Yes; change to adoption warranted by lack of cooperation and failure to progress. |
| Whether DCFS made reasonable efforts to reunify or place C.S. in a safe home. | M.S. contends DCFS did not adequately support reunification. | DCFS made substantial efforts but M.S. refused or failed to participate. | Yes; DCFS’s efforts were reasonable and still, M.S. did not progress. |
| Whether the court should defer to the prior findings and CASA recommendations. | M.S. argues CASA and court findings were biased against her. | Record supports termination of reunification due to noncompliance. | Yes; court properly weighed evidence and adopted adoption. |
| What standard governs reversal of a permanency plan in the appellate review. | M.S. requests reversal based on alleged errors. | Appellate review requires clear error or manifest injustice. | Appellate review requires showing the trial court’s finding was clearly wrong. |
Key Cases Cited
- State in Interest of S.M., 719 So.2d 445 (La. 1998) (child’s rights outweigh parental rights; best interest governs permanency)
- State ex rel. H.M. v. T.M., 12 So.3d 409 (La.App.2d Cir. 2009) (clearly wrong standard for permanency determinations)
- State ex rel. J.B. v. J.B., Jr., 811 So.2d 179 (La.App.2d Cir. 2002) (analysis of permanency plan sufficiency)
- State ex rel. S.D. v. D.M.D.B., 823 So.2d 1113 (La.App.2d Cir. 2002) (adoption as permanent plan when reunification unlikely)
- State in Interest of P.B., 154 So.3d 806 (La.App.2d Cir. 2014) (courts may change plan when progress toward reunification is lacking)