108 So. 3d 1237
La. Ct. App.2013Background
- Seven-year-old M.B. was placed in DCFS foster care in 2009 due to supervision and housing concerns and alleged abuse.
- M.B. was adjudicated a child in need of care in 2009 and remained under DCFS custody/supervision for years.
- DCFS reunification efforts temporarily restored custody to KB. in 2011, but legal custody remained with DCFS and supervision continued.
- In late 2011, another adjudication was filed; the trial court consolidated two related cases and later terminated KB.’s rights in 2012.
- The trial court found grounds under La. Ch.C. art. 1015(3)(j) (misconduct after return under supervision) and held termination was in M.B.’s best interests, with adoption as the goal.
- DCFS was found to have made reasonable efforts toward reunification, and the appellate court affirmed, with a concurrence addressing 672.1(C) considerations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination under La. Ch.C. 1015(3)(j) is supported | KB. argues insufficient misconduct under supervision to justify termination | DCFS asserts misconduct after return under department supervision supports termination | Yes; grounds under 1015(3)(j) established; best interests satisfied |
| Whether DCFS made reasonable reunification efforts | KB. contends DCFS failed to provide adequate reunification services | DCFS showed substantial efforts and directed to services | Yes; trial court did not err in finding reasonable efforts |
| Whether Article 672.1(C) affects the outcome | KB. argues DCFS should have pursued 672.1 procedures to negate reunification duty | Article 672.1(C) not mandatory when grounds for termination exist | Not controlling; reunification efforts still evaluated and upheld the termination |
| Effect of the concurrence on the standard of review | Concurrence questions DCFS’s role under 672.1 in this context | Majority opinion remains valid despite concurrence | Concurrence agreed with outcome but provided additional reasoning; primary holding unchanged |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. A.T., 936 So.2d 79 (La. 2006) (defines reasonable efforts and standard for reunification in La. Ch.C.)
- State ex rel. D.D.M., 983 So.2d 141 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2008) (requires clear and convincing evidence for termination and best-interest finding)
- State ex rel. C.J.K., 774 So.2d 107 (La. 2000) (articulates child’s best interests in termination cases)
- State in Interest of J.R., 84 So.3d 623 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2011) (recognizes child’s paramount interest in permanence)
- Louviere v. Louviere, 839 So.2d 57 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2002) (cases consolidated or merged actions may be treated for termination considerations)
- State ex rel. H.M. v. T.M., 12 So.3d 409 (La.App. 2 Cir. 2009) (discusses permanency goals after termination petitions)