State ex rel. C.V.W., 113 So. 3d 1202

DCFS sought termination of the mother Ch.W.’s parental rights after the children C.W. (b. 2009) and J.W. (b. 2010) were removed June 4, 2011 via instanter order

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether art. 1015(5) grounds were proven by clear and convincing evidence	DCFS asserts lack of substantial compliance and no reasonable expectation of improvement	Mother contends some progress; no clear error shown to terminate	Art. 1015(5) proven; termination warranted
Whether lack of substantial compliance and lack of future improvement were established under 1036(C)-(D)	Prior DCFS history shows repeated noncompliance and no near-term improvement	Some efforts made; not substantial	Evidence supports lack of substantial compliance and lack of near-term improvement
Whether termination is in the children's best interests	Termination and adoption best protect fostered children’s stability	Maintaining mother–child ties preferred if possible	Best interests favor termination and adoption for C.W. and J.W.
Whether evidence beyond pleadings (prior DCFS history, mental capacity) was properly considered	History and mental capacity relevant to compliance and permanency goals	Potentially improper if not pled; cannot rely on unpled factors	Prior history and mental capacity properly considered to assess compliance and prospects for reunification

State ex rel. L.R.S., 877 So.2d 1040 (La.App.2d Cir. 2004) (expedite permanency; focus on best interests in termination)
State ex rel. KG., 841 So.2d 759 (La. 2003) (grounds and standards for termination; article 1015 analysis)
State ex rel. J.A., 752 So.2d 806 (La. 2000) (role of parent’s mental state in termination considerations)
State ex rel. C.J.K., 774 So.2d 107 (La. 2000) (support for considering pattern of behavior in 1036(C)/(D))
J.T. v. J.M., 56 So.3d 1009 (La.App.2d Cir. 2010) (use of prior family history to establish lack of compliance)