130 So. 3d 360
La. Ct. App.2013Background
- DCFS petitioned to terminate J.R.'s parental rights over E.R.; trial on merits occurred January 29, 2013 with judgment issued March 7, 2013.
- E.R. was removed from J.R. and placed with a foster family in May 2011 and had lived there for about twenty months by trial.
- J.R. consistently complied with a court-approved case plan aimed at reunification, including housing, visitation, and treatments.
- Tulane Infant Team and other experts evaluated J.R.’s mental health, identifying longstanding psychotic/mood disorders and recognition of risk if reunified.
- Infant Team and experts ultimately recommended against reunification; CASA witness and foster parent testimony supported adoption for E.R.
- The juvenile court terminated J.R.’s rights, freeing E.R. for adoption; appellate court affirmed, emphasizing best interests and evidence to support termination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DCFS proved grounds to terminate under Art. 1015(5). | Wicker argues not all elements proven; risk remains despite compliance. | DCFS contends evidence shows no reasonable expectation of reunification and substantial risk persists. | Yes; courts upheld termination under Art. 1015(5). |
| Whether DCFS made reasonable efforts to reunify J.R. with E.R. | J.R. contends reasonable reunification efforts were lacking. | DCFS argues it made reasonable efforts and provided services. | Reasonable efforts were made; no reversible error found. |
| Whether termination was in E.R.'s best interest. | J.R. contends best interest favored reunification. | DCFS asserts best interest supports termination and adoption. | Termination in E.R.'s best interest was supported. |
| Whether J.R. substantially complied with the case plan. | J.R. argues near-full compliance and genuine efforts toward reunification. | DCFS contends persistent mental health issues prevented substantial compliance. | Court found lack of substantial compliance due to ongoing risk. |
| Whether the record supports considering continued improvement unlikely for reunification. | J.R. cites progress and potential for improvement with treatment. | Experts indicated no reasonable near-future improvement sufficient for reunification. | Record supports no reasonable near-term improvement; termination upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. A.T., 936 So.2d 79 (La. 2006) (reasonable efforts and permanency plans under the Children’s Code)
- State ex rel. D.D.M., 983 So.2d 141 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2008) (termination standard; clear and convincing evidence standard)
- State ex rel. J.A., 752 So.2d 806 (La. 2000) (focus on best interests and termination disposition)
- State ex rel. C.J.K., 774 So.2d 107 (La. 2000) (reunification considerations and standards in termination)
- State in Interest of J.R., 84 So.3d 623 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2011) (appellate review of best-interest and evidence weighing)
- State in Interest of L.L.Z. v. M.Y.S., 620 So.2d 1309 (La. 1993) (reasonable expectation of reformation after reunification efforts)