248 So. 3d 532
La. Ct. App.2018Background
- Clarissa Hammond is mother of four children; after the 2015 death of one child (B.B.), the three surviving children (N.B., I.B., P.B.) were removed and adjudicated children in need of care and placed in foster care.
- Autopsy of B.B. showed blunt-force injuries; Hammond and Russell Flowers were criminally charged with second-degree murder (charges pending). Children and Hammond initially lied about drowning; later Hammond implicated Flowers.
- DCFS developed a reunification-focused case plan for Hammond (parenting, housing, income, mental health, substance abuse, visitation, domestic violence); permanency goal later changed to adoption.
- DCFS petitioned to terminate Hammond’s parental rights under La. Ch. C. art. 1015(4) (misconduct/abuse) and (6) (failure to substantially comply with case plan; no reasonable expectation of improvement). Trial court found DCFS met its burden and terminated parental rights; appellate court affirmed.
- Trial testimony emphasized Hammond’s unstable housing, failure to secure independent income or contribute financially, volatile temperament in children’s presence, excessive gift-giving instead of meaningful parenting, inconsistent compliance with drug screens, extensive medical/ER visits, ongoing criminal charge, and credibility concerns; foster parent sought to adopt and children were doing well in foster care.
Issues
| Issue | Hammond's Argument | DCFS's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion to recuse judge | Judge who heard CINC should be recused from termination because prior exposure could bias proceedings | Motion speculative; no specific factual basis for recusal; juvenile judge routinely presides over related juvenile matters | Denied — no abuse of discretion; allegations were speculative and insufficient under La. C.C.P. art. 151 |
| Termination ground: misconduct under art. 1015(4) | Hammond denied committing the abuse; claimed coercion by Flowers and contested credibility of evidence | DCFS relied on autopsy, children’s accounts, expert testimony, and trial court found Hammond noncredible; abuse/neglect contributed to B.B.’s death | Affirmed — clear and convincing evidence supported finding of abuse/misconduct |
| Termination ground: failure to comply with case plan & no expectation of improvement (art. 1015(6)) | Hammond claimed substantial compliance and requested more time to complete plan | DCFS showed multiple failures: unstable housing, no independent income or required payments, poor parenting interactions, inconsistent testing, unresolved criminal matters, and lack of meaningful reform | Affirmed — lack of substantial compliance and no reasonable expectation of near-term improvement proven by clear and convincing evidence |
| Restriction on co‑counsel participation | Limiting role of Murray (Hammond’s criminal defense attorney) impaired right to counsel of choice | Court restricted enrollment to limited, nonconflicting role to preserve orderly procedure; no denial of effective representation | Affirmed — limitation within trial court’s discretion; no denial of counsel shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (state must prove termination grounds by clear and convincing evidence)
- Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153 (U.S. 1988) (presumption in favor of a party’s right to choose counsel)
- McCuin v. Texas Power, 714 F.2d 1255 (5th Cir. 1983) (right to counsel of choice is significant but not absolute)
- Slaughter v. Bd. of Sup'rs of S. Univ. & Agr. & Mech. Coll., 76 So.3d 465 (La. App. 1 Cir.) (Article 151 recusal grounds are exclusive; mere appearance insufficient)
- State ex rel. H.A.B., 49 So.3d 345 (La. 2010) (appellate review standard and discussion of termination reformation requirement)