State ex rel. MTS

Citations: 161 So. 3d 1025; 2015 La. App. LEXIS 50; 2015 WL 160699Docket: No. 49,630-JAC

Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; January 13, 2015; Louisiana; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

SMS, the mother of four minor children, appeals a Caddo Parish juvenile court judgment that terminated her parental rights to her child MTS and certified him for adoption. MTS, diagnosed with asthma and laryngomalacia, faced significant health challenges requiring specialized care. Following reports of medical neglect, where his parents failed to administer prescribed medications and treatments, the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) intervened, removing MTS from his parents' custody. Initially placed with his maternal grandmother, MTS was later moved to foster care due to ongoing concerns.

A case plan aimed at reunification was established, requiring SMS and MTS's father to complete psychological evaluations, parenting classes, maintain stable housing, attend medical appointments, and participate in visitations and court hearings. The parents, however, showed consistent non-compliance with these requirements, with SMS frequently moving and being difficult to locate. They also missed a significant number of scheduled visitations and failed to provide necessary financial support for MTS. Both parents were incarcerated for part of 2012, and upon release, continued to struggle with compliance, demonstrating a pattern of inconsistent efforts to fulfill the reunification plan. The juvenile court affirmed the termination of SMS's parental rights based on these failures.

DCFS sought SMS's cooperation through in-home services and group sessions, providing transportation for counseling and appointments. SMS did not comply with the plan. On September 13, 2013, DCFS filed a petition to involuntarily terminate the parental rights of both parents and to certify MTS for adoption. The juvenile court found clear and convincing evidence to terminate parental rights, emphasizing the parents' failure to engage in required treatment and rehabilitative services, particularly in addressing the child's medical needs. This failure persisted over three years, far exceeding the minimum one-year period typically required before termination. The court highlighted that the parents' ongoing issues could not be used as a defense against termination, as the child's health, safety, and welfare must take precedence. MTS had been in foster care for three years, with the current pre-adoptive home providing necessary love and care, establishing a psychological bond. The court concluded that separating MTS from this home would not be in the child's best interest. SMS is now appealing the decision, arguing that the state did not prove substantial non-compliance with the case plan or the lack of reasonable expectation for reformation. It is noted that parents have a constitutionally protected interest in maintaining relationships with their children, which includes companionship, care, and custody.

In Lassiter v. Dept. of Social Svcs. and related cases, the state has a legitimate interest in restricting or terminating parental rights under certain circumstances. A court may involuntarily terminate these rights if the state demonstrates that: (1) at least one year has passed since the child was removed from the parent's custody by court order; (2) the parent has not substantially complied with a court-approved case plan necessary for the child's safe return; and (3) there is no reasonable expectation of significant improvement in the parent's condition or behavior in the near future, considering the child's need for a safe and stable home.

To terminate parental rights, the state must prove one of the statutory grounds for termination, as outlined in LSA-Ch.C. art. 1015, by clear and convincing evidence, which indicates that the disputed fact is highly probable. Evidence of lack of compliance with the case plan can include failure to attend scheduled visitations, communicate with the child, inform the department of whereabouts, contribute to foster care costs, comply with treatment programs, or show significant improvement. 

Additionally, a lack of reasonable expectation for improvement may be indicated by physical or mental illnesses, substance abuse, or other conditions that suggest the parent cannot provide an adequate home for the child. Issues of parental compliance and expectations for rehabilitation are factual questions, and appellate courts will not overturn trial court findings unless there is manifest error. The permanent termination of parental rights is considered a severe action by the state against its citizens.

The courts prioritize the best interest of the child, permitting termination of parental rights if statutory grounds are proven. In this case, foster care case manager Andrea Mitchell outlined that the court-approved case plans for the mother, SMS, required her to complete several tasks, including undergoing a psychological evaluation, maintaining adequate housing, and attending parenting and anger management classes, among other obligations. Although SMS completed her psychological evaluation, she did not comply with the majority of the case plan requirements. Mitchell indicated that SMS attended less than half of the scheduled visits with her child, MTS, and only one medical appointment.

Stephanie Mesloh, a case manager for Community Support Programs, testified that SMS’s participation in parenting classes was inconsistent, with SMS missing the first class and later having difficulty due to personal conflicts, including another pregnancy. Although SMS showed initial enthusiasm post-birth, her attendance dwindled, and she completed only seven out of 16 classes. Moreover, during visit coaching, SMS often failed to show up or bring necessary items, resulting in minimal interaction with MTS during visits.

John Green, a CASA volunteer, noted that SMS frequently missed visits and moved often, complicating efforts to maintain contact. He observed that MTS had a loving relationship with his foster mother and was thriving in that environment. Additionally, licensed counselor Anthony Williams provided ongoing counseling and parenting classes to SMS throughout the proceedings. The agency ultimately closed SMS's case in November 2018 due to her lack of contact for over 30 days.

Mr. Williams observed SMS with her other children and deemed her an "okay" parent, expressing confidence that she could effectively parent MTS if given proper guidance on his medical needs. He noted SMS lacked knowledge about MTS's requirements because no one had informed her. However, he acknowledged challenges in contacting her due to her frequent relocations, describing her housing situation as unstable and admitting that she had not completed any of the services provided to her. Over three years, he only witnessed MTS with SMS three times and was uncertain if returning MTS to her would be in the child's best interest, citing her lack of consistent effort to regain custody despite her verbal wishes.

CH, MTS's foster mother, testified that MTS has been in her care for approximately three years, and they share a loving bond. She emphasized the need for close monitoring of MTS's asthma, detailing the necessity of administering breathing treatments every two hours during asthma attacks and potential emergency room visits if treatments are ineffective. SMS frequently missed scheduled visits with MTS, and during these visits, MTS showed greater interest in his father than in SMS. CH indicated her willingness to maintain MTS's relationship with his parents if she were to adopt him and had provided them with demonstrations on administering treatments.

Dr. Hester Suh, MTS’s pediatrician, confirmed that MTS suffers from moderate persistent asthma requiring daily medication. She highlighted the importance of vigilant care to minimize hospital visits and emphasized CH's effective management of MTS’s health needs. SMS acknowledged the removal of MTS from her care, claimed she had provided necessary medications, and criticized DCFS for not offering training on MTS's medical needs despite her interest in learning from her niece's similar condition. She reported moving approximately ten times since MTS's removal and currently resides with her three other children and extended family.

The mother primarily gathers information about her child, MTS, through his foster mother and paternal grandmother, noting challenges in managing his medical needs alongside her responsibilities for three other children. She acknowledges the requirement to complete a case plan, which includes parenting classes, but admits to only partially fulfilling it when MTS was initially removed from her care. Although she attended one anger management class, she did not complete it, citing the demands of the case plan as overwhelming. She has not provided child support, prioritizing other financial obligations, such as probation fees. 

Over a three-year period since MTS's removal, she missed only a few visitations, primarily due to incarceration or MTS’s illness, and has never canceled visits. The juvenile court determined that the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) provided clear and convincing evidence supporting termination of parental rights, indicating significant non-compliance with the case plan and a lack of improvement in addressing issues preventing reunification. The court noted her frequent relocations, failure to inform DCFS of her whereabouts, and non-contribution to MTS’s foster care costs. 

Despite her claim of having completed one requirement (a psychological examination), she acknowledged feeling overwhelmed by the case plan's demands. The court affirmed its findings, concluding that there was no reasonable expectation of her improving her circumstances. The mother also challenged the court's determination that terminating her rights was in MTS's best interest, referencing an expert's opinion favoring her custody. However, the court maintained that once a termination ground is established, it may proceed if it serves the child's best interest, as outlined in LSA-Ch.C. art. 1037(B).

The court affirms the termination of the parental rights of SMS concerning her child, MTS, under the state's parens patriae power, which allows intervention in parent-child relationships under serious circumstances, particularly in cases of involuntary termination. The court emphasizes that such proceedings aim to protect children whose parents are unable or unwilling to provide adequate care, ensuring permanency and stability. 

In this case, the juvenile court determined it was in MTS's best interest to terminate SMS's parental rights, supported by evidence indicating SMS's failure to improve her parenting skills despite multiple opportunities and resources. SMS's testimony regarding her experience with her niece’s medical care did not translate into action for MTS, as she neglected to attend his medical appointments. After three years in foster care, MTS has received consistent medical treatment, reinforcing the need for stability in his life.

The judgment regarding SMS’s parental rights is affirmed, with costs of the appeal assessed to her. Additionally, the document notes past criminal charges against both parents, detailing SMS’s guilty plea to forgery and accessory after the fact to armed robbery, along with the father's similar charges. SMS's arguments related to the case plan requirements are deemed waived due to her failure to object or appeal the juvenile court’s prior approvals of those plans.