263 So. 3d 860
La.2019Background
- Two children, A.L.D. and L.S.D., tested positive for methamphetamines while in parents' custody; children were removed in May–June 2016 and adjudicated CINC.
- DCFS approved a court-ordered case plan for father C.K.D. requiring sobriety, random drug testing, stable housing, parenting/anger/mental-health treatment, and nominal monetary contributions.
- Father had intermittent compliance: completed Phase I treatment in Nov. 2016, relapsed in Feb. 2017, multiple positive drug tests (including July 2016, Dec. 2016, May 2017, hair test positive for cocaine Nov. 2017), and limited contact with children May–Oct. 2017.
- DCFS filed to terminate parental rights Oct. 2017; after a two-day trial the district court terminated both parents’ rights under La. Ch. C. art. 1015(6).
- The court of appeal reversed as to the father, finding substantial compliance and a reasonable prospect of improvement; the Louisiana Supreme Court granted review and reinstated the district court’s termination judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DCFS) | Defendant's Argument (C.K.D.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether father substantially complied with the court‑approved case plan under La. Ch. C. art. 1015(6) | Father failed substantial compliance: ongoing positive drug tests, no adequate housing, no required support payments, and periods of nonparticipation in services | Father made significant efforts: employment, completion/continuation of treatment, compliance with random drug screens, attending parenting/anger management classes | Court: Father did not substantially comply; district court’s finding affirmed (manifest‑error review) |
| Whether there is no reasonable expectation of significant improvement in the near future (art. 1015(6)) | Established pattern of substance abuse and instability shows no reasonable expectation of improvement without expert testimony; positive tests after claimed sobriety support lack of reasonable expectation of improvement | Father recently engaged in services, had negative urine tests in Oct/Nov 2017, and showed employment/housing progress, so future improvement is reasonably likely | Court: DCFS proved lack of reasonable expectation of significant improvement based on established pattern of behavior; expert testimony not required |
| Whether expert testimony is required to prove inability/unlikelihood of improvement under art. 1036(D) | Not required; statute permits proof by expert opinion or by an established pattern of behavior | Argues absence of expert proof undermines termination finding | Court: Expert testimony is not required; established pattern of conduct may suffice |
| Whether termination is in the children’s best interests | Best interests favor termination given parental substance abuse, children’s drug exposure, unstable housing, and delay in rehabilitation | Father bonded with children; children’s counsel argued termination premature and that father has made progress | Court: Child’s best interests are paramount; record supports termination to secure safety, permanency, and adoptability |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. J.M. v. 837 So. 2d 1247 (La. 2003) (termination is drastic but child’s best interest governs)
- State ex rel. L.B. v. G.B.B. 831 So. 2d 918 (La. 2002) (standard for determining best interest after statutory ground proved)
- State ex rel. K.G. and T.G. 841 So. 2d 759 (La. 2003) (appellate review of termination uses manifest error standard)
- State In Interest of C.F. 235 So. 3d 1066 (La. 2017) (conditions that led to removal must be remedied for reunification)
- State ex rel. S.M.W. 781 So. 2d 1223 (La. 2001) (termination considered when necessary to achieve permanency and stability)