Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; June 22, 2016; Louisiana; State Appellate Court
Four children have been in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) for over two and a half years. The juvenile court altered the permanent case plan's goal from reunification with their mother, A.F., to adoption, a decision the mother is appealing. A.F. is 28 years old and has five children, the youngest of whom are twins born in June 2009. The children's father, H.T., is also noted. In November 2013, DCFS received a report of physical abuse involving one twin, prompting an investigation that revealed A.F. had left her children in the care of Marquerite Odom, who is described as having developmental delays. The investigation uncovered that Odom and her brother, Robert Frost, had been physically abusing the children. Frost acknowledged using a wooden back scratcher for discipline, while Odom admitted to being aware of the abuse but did not intervene. Their mother, Sandra Summerall, confirmed the abuse and expressed regret for not protecting the children. The living conditions in Odom's home were described as deplorable, with trash and feces present, and the children had not seen A.F. since April 2013. Following the investigation, DCFS placed the children in temporary custody on November 19, 2013, after a continued custody hearing on November 21, 2013, where the parents did not appear.
An attorney was appointed to represent the children, who were not present. The court reviewed an affidavit from the DCFS case worker and determined there were reasonable grounds for the children to remain in DCFS custody. A Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) was also assigned. On December 19, 2013, the state petitioned to declare the children in need of care, citing allegations of physical abuse, lack of shelter, and dependency due to the parents' absence and inadequate care by caretakers. During a January 6, 2014 hearing, the parents, represented by counsel, denied the allegations, and the court emphasized the seriousness of the situation, warning that it could lead to permanent removal of the children. The parents acknowledged the court's instructions. On February 6, 2014, an adjudication hearing found the children to be in need of care, which the parents stipulated to, leading to a judgment confirming this finding.
Subsequent case review and permanency hearings revealed that the parents were engaging with their case plans. The mother secured employment and housing and completed mental health and substance abuse assessments, with all drug screens returning negative results. The case plan's primary goal was reunification, with adoption as a concurrent goal. By March 2014, the younger children began counseling due to various mental and behavioral issues. K.F. was diagnosed with bipolar disorder, PTSD, and ADHD, displaying disruptive behavior. P.F. was also diagnosed with ADHD and exhibited aggressive behavior and night terrors. Both twins, C.F. and C.F., faced adjustment challenges, resulting in their removal from initial foster placements.
The father initially complied with his care plan while living in New Orleans but later returned to live with the mother and began testing positive for illegal drugs, failing to comply with substance abuse treatment. At a permanency hearing on August 18, 2014, a plan was proposed for the gradual transition of the children back to the mother's care, starting with the oldest child, A.F.
On November 21, 2014, A.F. was returned to the custody of her mother, with both parents living together in a trailer park in West Monroe and maintaining sufficient income. A physical altercation occurred between the parents on November 28, witnessed by A.F., where the mother reported that the father physically assaulted her and others. The father was arrested and charged with several offenses, including domestic abuse battery, and a restraining order was issued against him. Despite the order, the mother later sought to drop the domestic abuse charge.
In January 2015, the mother raised concerns about A.F.'s behavior, and both were referred to family counseling, which the father also attended. Visits at the DCFS office were noted as uneventful, while those at home were described as chaotic, with the mother unable to manage the children, who were provided unhealthy snacks. The mother's financial dependence on the father raised additional concerns.
During a February 2015 court review, the mother claimed no further incidents of domestic violence had occurred, and the father was living separately but still paying for the trailer. A permanent plan focused on reunification with a concurrent goal of adoption was established. Reports from a CASA volunteer in March and June 2015 highlighted the mother's difficulties in disciplining the children and maintaining a stable home environment, expressing concerns about the detrimental impact of the parents' volatile relationship on the children’s progress.
By June 2015, the court noted the father’s return to the home and expressed concerns over both his drug use and the living situation. The mother was warned that continuing this arrangement could adversely affect her case plan. By October 2015, the parents were no longer cohabiting, and the juvenile court approved unsupervised overnight visits between the mother and three of the younger children.
A DCFS case worker reported that the children had no issues during their first weekend visit. However, after a visit from October 28-25, 2015, it was revealed that the father had spent a night in the mother's home while the children were present. Initially, the mother denied this but later admitted it, claiming ignorance of the father's visitation restrictions. Records indicated the father continued to test positive for illegal drugs and had not completed his substance abuse program, prompting DCFS to terminate overnight visits in the mother's home and refer her for visit coaching again, while still aiming for reunification.
The CASA volunteer's report in November 2015 expressed concerns about the mother’s capacity to make decisions in the children's best interests, maintain home stability, and manage their behavior. Although the mother completed her case plan, she failed to provide adequate supervision regarding the father's involvement. The CASA noted the volatile nature of the parents' relationship and recommended that the children remain in their current placement with a goal shift to adoption, citing the need for strong, structured parenting.
Dr. LaWanna Gunn-Williams, a family therapist counseling the younger children since March 2014, reported significant progress in their emotional well-being. She recommended that K.F., who has greater needs, be placed with the mother first if custody were granted, suggesting that this would help evaluate the mother's parenting capabilities. Dr. Gunn-Williams expressed concerns about the mother’s ability to provide a safe environment while working full-time and questioned the father's actual presence in the home. She highlighted issues of anxiety and behavioral problems in P.F. following weekend visits, indicating that the children saw their visits as distressing and preferred returning to their foster home, which they viewed as a safe haven. Dr. Gunn-Williams emphasized the potential negative impact on the children's well-being if placed in a dysfunctional environment.
Dr. Gunn-Williams assessed the family dynamics and individual needs of the children involved. K.F. exhibits minimal interest in his natural mother, only mentioning her when prompted. The female twin displayed distress during visits with their mother, including clinginess and stomach aches, but returned to normal behavior after visits ceased. In contrast, the male twin expressed a desire to remain with his foster mother, showing relief at not having to stay with their mother. Dr. Gunn-Williams concluded that the children's current placements are optimal and recommended limited visitations with their mother, questioning the benefits of such interactions.
By November 2015, the father had failed to comply with the case plan, ceasing family visits, testing positive for drugs, and not completing required programs. A report from social worker Tamara Thompson noted the mother's affectionate behavior but criticized her passive parenting style, which hinders her ability to manage the children's behavioral issues. Although she recommended a 30-day trial placement with the mother, she acknowledged the mother's lack of skills to handle multiple children effectively.
In a letter dated January 15, 2016, Dr. Gunn-Williams reported on the children's progress, highlighting P.F.'s claims about parental influence and K.F.'s behavioral changes post-visits. K.F. displayed anger and confusion after seeing his mother, which he could not articulate. Dr. Gunn-Williams emphasized the children's significant emotional and social progress in their current environments and expressed concerns about the mother's ability to meet their needs. She recognized the mother's desire for custody but highlighted the challenges of parenting children with special emotional requirements. Ultimately, she advocated for a resolution to the prolonged legal proceedings, emphasizing the need for stability in the children's lives.
On February 4, 2016, the DCFS recommended changing the permanency goal for siblings P.F., K.F., C.F., and C.F. from reunification to adoption, while advocating for the return of A.F. to their mother. The children had been in DCFS custody for over two years. A CASA volunteer submitted a report on February 12, 2016, expressing concerns about the mother’s parenting abilities and her hostility towards the recommendation for adoption. The volunteer supported maintaining the children's current placements and the shift in goal to adoption.
During the February 18, 2016, permanency hearing, Boyette testified that although the mother had complied with components of her case plan, the agency could not recommend reunification due to the absence of demonstrable progress in her parenting skills. Boyette noted issues with the mother’s discipline, citing an incident where K.F. slapped a sibling, and the mother failed to intervene, instead laughing at the behavior. Despite the presence of a visit coach who provided discipline guidance, the mother did not respond appropriately.
Boyette acknowledged that DCFS had not attempted weekend transition visits in the mother's home since October 2015, as they sought to observe the mother’s parenting skills through visit coaching first. Concerns were raised about the mother’s decisions, including permitting the father to spend the night during visits, which were seen as not in the children's best interests. While the mother fulfilled her case plan requirements, she did not demonstrate the learned parenting skills. Boyette highlighted the challenges of placing the children back with their mother, emphasizing the need for structure and the strong attachments the twins had formed with their foster mother, which they risked disrupting.
Boyette testified about DCFS's repeated but unsuccessful efforts to instruct the mother on the necessary structure for her children, P.F. and K.F., and emphasized that visit coaching is more interactive than parenting classes, aimed at promoting appropriate behavior. The mother was referred to visit coaching twice during the proceedings. Odom, a non-relative, was caring for the children at the time of the hearing and lived directly in front of the mother. DCFS had advised the mother to obtain a protective order against Odom, concerning A.F., but she did not pursue this action.
Dr. Gunn-Williams, an expert in marriage and family therapy, testified about the extreme anxiety experienced by K.F., P.F., C.F., and C.F. She noted the children's anxiety stemmed from uncertainty about their future living arrangements and fears of being removed from their foster home. Dr. Gunn-Williams expressed concerns that transitioning the children back to their mother would negatively impact them, given their special needs and the mother’s challenges in providing adequate care. She indicated that the children currently receive the structure and stability they need in their placements.
On cross-examination, Dr. Gunn-Williams clarified that the children do not fear their mother and expressed that K.F. and P.F. love her, although they know her less due to their young age when they lived together. She did not explore the effects of terminating contact with the mother but stressed the need for permanency to avoid further mental health issues for the children. While advocating for the children's stability, she did not support terminating the mother’s parental rights. Dr. Gunn-Williams noted that she had never counseled the mother but had observed her interactions with K.F. during a meeting, where K.F. was disruptive. She acknowledged that counseling could benefit both the mother and the children. Additionally, she reported the children’s feelings towards A.F. were negative due to her behavior during visits and highlighted the strong bond between the twins, who had always been together. Ultimately, she could not recommend returning the children to the mother, citing the challenges of meeting their needs and the potential detriment of their proximity to Odom’s home.
The mother testified that she has fully complied with her case plan and is perplexed by DCFS's concerns regarding her parenting abilities, stating she has not had the opportunity to parent her children. She reported positive experiences during the children's transition visits, with no disciplinary issues. The father stayed overnight during the second visit, and the mother was unaware of any restrictions regarding his presence, as a restraining order had been lifted. She described her disciplinary approach as taking items away from A.F. for misbehavior and acknowledged that K.F. tapped C.F. on the face but dismissed it humorously. The mother expressed a desire to spoil the children due to infrequent visits and indicated that she has benefited from counseling, wishing to continue it for all her children.
The mother desires custody of all her children and would not prioritize any over the others. She reported contacting law enforcement when Odom moved nearby but did not seek a new restraining order after learning the previous one had expired. While she acknowledged that the children might have memories of Odom's proximity, she could not afford to relocate. The mother recognized the challenges of managing all the children if returned at once, preferring a gradual transition. She disputed Dr. Gunn-Williams' assessment against returning the children to her custody, suggesting bias in the doctor's testimony. Financially, she expressed uncertainty about supporting all five children, mentioning her current reliance on food stamps and aspirations to return to school for better job opportunities, although she admitted to not taking steps toward this goal.
Esperanza Cannon, the maternal grandmother, testified about her close relationship with the mother, observing their daily interactions. She noted that the mother maintains discipline over A.F. through various methods and attends all DCFS visits, where she has witnessed the mother managing the other children effectively, despite their rambunctious behavior. Cannon described a specific incident where K.F. lightly slapped the male twin, noting that the mother did not discipline K.F. at that moment but addressed it afterward.
The mother is given the chance to regain custody of her children, but not all at once, as this would be challenging for her. She and her brother are prepared to support her. Cannon, in her testimony, acknowledged her felony drug history and recognized that the children were living with Odom. Attempts to take the children out were thwarted by Odom's refusal. Cannon expressed a preference for the DCFS to prioritize the return of two children while addressing behavioral issues with A.F. She actively participates in family visits, demonstrating her love for her grandchildren.
The juvenile court determined that changing the permanent plan from reunification to adoption was the most suitable action for the children, while suspending visitation with the younger children for 60 days. The mother is appealing this decision, arguing that the court did not justify the change effectively and claimed that the adjustment stemmed from her father's overnight visit during unsupervised time with some children. She contends that she has fulfilled her case plan obligations and successfully cared for A.F. for over a year. The mother believes that instead of terminating home visits, DCFS should have offered more guidance and counseling for her and the younger children.
The Louisiana Children’s Code emphasizes the children's health and safety as paramount in care proceedings. The court has the authority to place children with parents or suitable individuals, institutions, or grant guardianship, prioritizing the least restrictive option aligned with the child's best interests. For reunification to be maintained as a permanent plan, parents must comply with their case plans and demonstrate significant progress in addressing the issues necessitating care.
Placement of a child in legal custody must prioritize relatives who can provide a safe and stable home and seek the least restrictive, family-like permanent living arrangement. The department is required to document compelling reasons in the child’s case plan for choosing this option over higher-priority alternatives. The trial court will factor in the child's need for contact with established relatives when determining the best permanent plan. It must also assess whether reasonable efforts have been made to reunite the parent and child or finalize safe, permanent placement, with the child's health and safety as the primary concern. Judicial protection extends beyond parental rights to ensure children's rights to thrive.
Appellate review of a juvenile court’s permanent placement decisions follows the manifest error standard, which respects the trial court's unique position to evaluate witness credibility and testimony. Conflicting evidence should not lead to reversal if the juvenile court's findings are reasonable based on the full record. In this case, the appeal concerns the juvenile court’s decision to change the permanency goal from reunification to adoption. Although the mother has shown a desire to regain custody and has complied with most of her case plan, the court found she has not demonstrated adequate parenting skills despite participation in classes and coaching. Additionally, the children exhibit significant behavioral issues.
Mom is required to possess a higher level of parenting skills due to her children's behavioral issues. Evidence indicates significant poor decision-making on her part, particularly allowing the father, a known drug addict with a history of domestic violence, into the home, which poses a risk to the children. Despite having regained custody of the oldest child, she struggles with parenting A.F. and has difficulty managing the needs of her other children, K.F., P.F., C.F., and C.F. Experts, including a doctor and a CASA volunteer, concur that she lacks the necessary skills to care for all five children simultaneously. Although provided with a parenting coach during supervised visits, she did not effectively engage in parenting or discipline. The juvenile court's decision to change the permanent case plan from reunification to adoption is deemed to be in the children's best interest and supported by the record. The court's ruling is affirmed, with costs of the appeal assessed to the mother. Additionally, past records reveal a history of neglect, including instances where the children were found unsupervised and exhibiting signs of abuse.
The mother faced child neglect charges following a 2012 DCFS investigation, which revealed concerning conditions at home while the father was in a substance abuse program. A report indicated that the father was found "passed out on the sofa" with children unattended. The eight-year-old A.F. reported that Odom and Frost physically disciplined her and her siblings daily for minor offenses, using a back scratcher, resulting in visible bruises on K.F. and P.F. Additionally, both twins had multiple bruises and reported being punished with Tabasco sauce for disobedience. Odom and Frost were arrested for child abuse, with the investigation uncovering a loaded gun and samurai swords in Frost's bedroom.
The mother was temporarily in Texas but stated she was working to regain custody of her children, expressing the need for the father’s presence to help manage household bills. She acknowledged the father's non-compliance with a restraining order, admitting they communicated despite its existence. The father had been referred to a Batterer’s Intervention program but had not completed it. K.F. remained in a children's home, while P.F. moved between foster care placements due to behavioral issues. The twins were also placed in certified foster care after initial placements failed due to their disruptive behavior.
The mother was referred to The Wellspring for a domestic violence assessment. At the hearing, the state proposed to return custody of A.F. to the mother, which was agreed upon by the attorneys for both A.F. and the mother. The father was absent and his attorney stated they took no position on the matter. The juvenile court ordered custody to be returned to the mother, a ruling that was not appealed.
K.F., the child, faced disciplinary issues, having been expelled from his elementary school during the 2014-2015 school year for disruptive and violent behavior. He returned to school for the 2015-2016 year but was expelled again for continued disruptive behavior, including stabbing another student with a pencil. While the father did not appeal the juvenile court's decision, he submitted a brief supporting the mother's arguments. The court emphasized that the health, safety, and best interest of the child are paramount in proceedings under Title VI. A child in need of care is initiated by a petition from the district attorney, with the possibility for DCFS to file if authorized. The state bears the burden of proof in these hearings, which must be conducted by a preponderance of evidence. A disposition hearing must occur within 30 days following a child in need of care adjudication.
