56 So. 3d 1009
La. Ct. App.2010Background
- JT, born Jan 10, 2008, was removed from her mother and placed in foster care following a positive drug screen for mother at birth; DSS provided substance abuse services to mother starting Feb 2008.
- J.M. was identified as JT’s biological father via DNA; he had a history of abuse, death/neglect, substance abuse, and lack of supervision in prior cases.
- J.M. attended the initial Family Team Conference; case plan aimed at reunification but he largely failed to comply with requirements (drug testing, assessments, visits, communications).
- Court-approved case plans required J.M. to complete substance abuse assessment, random drug screens, psychological evaluation, parenting classes, avoid criminal activity, support JT’s foster care, contribute to costs, participate in visits, and provide relative placement options.
- Six-month periods of noncompliance were shown; J.M. had extended incarcerations and did not contact or support JT, nor propose viable plans for her care while incarcerated.
- Permanency goals shifted to adoption in 2009; JT’s mother surrendered parental rights in 2009; JT was ultimately placed for adoption and a termination petition was filed May 5, 2010.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination was warranted under 1015(4) and (5) | JM argues failure to prove clear and convincing evidence | Department proved noncompliance and no reasonable expectation of improvement | Yes; grounds proven, termination affirmed |
| Whether 1015(6) was properly considered or necessary | JM claims department failed to provide reasonable plan during incarceration | Even if true, 1015(4)/(5) suffice; 1015(6) supported but not needed | Not necessary to reverse; 1015(4)/(5) supported; 1015(6) also supported but moot |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. K.G., 841 So.2d 759 (La. 2003) (manifestation of clear and convincing standard; review standards for termination of parental rights)
- State ex rel. S.C.M., 986 So.2d 875 (La. 2008) (clear and convincing evidence standard in termination cases; courts uphold findings of lack of compliance)
- State ex rel. S.D.P. v. K.P., 1 So.3d 808 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2009) (grounds under 1015(4)/(5) must be proven; substantial compliance required for termination based on plan)
- State ex rel. D.L.R., 998 So.2d 681 (La. 2008) (requirement that termination be in child’s best interests; standard of review)
- State ex rel. C.M.O., 901 So.2d 1168 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2005) (imprisonment not per se defense to failure to support or contact)
- State ex rel. M.H. v. K.W.H., 912 So.2d 88 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2005) (incarceration does not excuse failure to maintain parental obligations)