Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; April 19, 2017; Louisiana; State Appellate Court
N.D., the biological mother of four children, appeals a trial court judgment that ordered the children—S.C., M.C., K.C., and A.C.—to remain in foster care. The children were originally placed in temporary custody by the Louisiana Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) due to inadequate supervision reported on October 26, 2015. Following hearings in 2016, the trial court adjudicated the children as in need of care and stipulated to their continued custody with the State. N.D. filed her appeal on May 11, 2016, arguing that the trial court erred in its determination. The appellate court applies a manifest error standard of review, emphasizing that it should not substitute its judgment for that of the juvenile court, which is uniquely positioned to assess witness credibility and testimony. To overturn the trial court's findings, there must be no reasonable factual basis for its determination or evidence of clear error. The appellate court’s role is to ensure that the trial court’s evaluations and inferences, if reasonable, remain undisturbed.
N.D. claims the trial court erred in ruling that her minor children were in need of care, referencing Louisiana Children’s Code Article 606, which outlines criteria for such a determination. Grounds for adjudication include child abuse or neglect, with definitions provided in Article 603. "Abuse" involves actions that seriously endanger a child's health, while "neglect" refers to a parent's unreasonable failure to provide essential care, which threatens a child's welfare. Adjudication is justified if a parent consistently places a child at risk through inadequate shelter or supervision. The state must prove the child's need for care by a preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt. In the case at hand, the petition asserted that the children suffered neglect due to their parents' inability to provide shelter and supervision. Witness testimonies during the hearings revealed concerns regarding the children's welfare, including reports of unsupervised children and inadequate care for an infant. The investigation was initiated after a report on October 26, 2015, highlighted these issues.
On October 27, 2015, Washington visited Cino's home, interviewing both parents and observing their children. Cino and N.D. admitted to giving their child, A.C., a frozen Air-Head for teething. Cino testified that A.C. was small, not gaining weight and relying primarily on a diet of baby formula and rice cereal. She reported treating A.C.'s raw diaper rash with cornstarch, contrary to N.D.'s assertion that they were already treating it with medication. N.D. claimed she changed A.C.'s diaper promptly. Washington noted A.C. was very small, unable to hold her head up or crawl, and reported A.C. was diagnosed with malnourishment during a hospital visit, though the parents did not express concern or seek treatment. The children were removed from parental custody the same day and placed in foster care under Bernard’s supervision. Bernard confirmed A.C. weighed about ten pounds at that time, indicating severe underweight and developmental delays. By March 2016, A.C. had gained weight and made progress in her development. Bernard also reported on the other children’s health, noting normal physical exams for K.C. and M.C., both needing glasses, and ongoing treatments for PTSD and ADHD for S.C., who was thriving in her placement.
Children’s medical records from St. Martin Hospital, dated October 27, 2015, were introduced at the hearing, indicating that one child, A.C., was ten pounds and eight ounces, small for her age, and undernourished. A.C. was reported as not sitting up or crawling but attempting to crawl. In contrast, the other children, S.C., M.C., and K.C., had normal diagnoses. The mother, N.D., noted A.C. weighed eight pounds, three ounces at birth and expressed concern over her minimal weight gain. N.D. provided A.C. with cereal and formula every four hours and transitioned her to baby food as she grew older. A.C. missed her two-month vaccinations as they were not legally mandated, with N.D. stating the only vaccinations received were those in the hospital, while the other children were up to date. N.D. claimed regular doctor visits for A.C., who was put on cereal around two and a half months due to inadequate nutrition from soy formula; however, her weight did not improve. N.D. did not return for follow-up care after the doctor advised her of A.C.’s underweight status due to the children’s removal. B.C. corroborated N.D.'s account, mentioning two doctor visits for A.C. and noting that she began to gain weight after cereal was added to her formula. He also indicated A.C. had a milk allergy and described a pattern of slow development among family members. Prior to A.C.’s removal, she was able to sit up with support. Cino, an observer, reported that the children spent most of their time indoors and were not allowed outside until they behaved, citing safety concerns due to nearby roads. Cino highlighted issues of inadequate supervision, stating that the children often woke early while N.D. and B.C. were still asleep, leading to instances where they left the house unsupervised.
Cino provided testimony indicating that the parents took steps to prevent their children from leaving their room by barricading the door, which had a latch that the children could unlock by climbing on a car seat. She noted that the children, N.D. and B.C., often spent little time in their room, typically being in the kitchen or another area, while N.D. would check on them when noises occurred. Washington added that N.D. was unaware of the children being outside unsupervised, but B.C. claimed to have watched them from inside the house.
Cino described instances of physical and verbal abuse by the parents, stating that the children were made to go to bed by 4:30 or 5:00 p.m. but often did not fall asleep until 9:00 to 9:30 p.m., during which time the parents would scold them until they succumbed to sleep. The children reportedly exhibited signs of fear, such as shaking, when in trouble. Cino detailed that N.D. and B.C. spanked the children daily, except for A.C., using a thick stick wrapped in duct tape with the children's names on it.
Cino recounted an incident where the older girls poured A.C.'s bottle on N.D. while she was sleeping, leading to N.D. reacting angrily and threatening physical harm. Cino had recorded this incident and shared it with social workers, although she did not have the recording during the hearing. Washington confirmed having listened to the recording, which captured N.D.'s verbal abuse.
Cino also witnessed a confrontation between N.D. and B.C. regarding A.C., noting that B.C. seemed ready to leave with the children due to N.D.'s aggressive behavior toward A.C. Cino observed that A.C. spent most of her time in her car seat, being removed only occasionally by N.D. Over their two-month stay, Cino noted that A.C. was held by N.D. only briefly on a few occasions. Cino reported that the children were bathed about once a week, with parents occasionally wiping them down instead of giving full baths. Washington observed that the older three children appeared dirty and unbathed, while N.D. claimed to bathe them twice a week, contradicting B.C.'s assertion that the children were not bathed daily because they weren't dirty.
S.C., K.C., and M.C. were described in hospital medical records as unkempt and wearing dirty clothes. Washington reported that B.C. disciplined the children with a "paint stick," which he claimed was broken and could not be shown. No bruises or marks were found on the children. N.D. admitted to raising her voice and spanking the children but denied beating them. Due to a fire, A.C. was sleeping in a car seat instead of a crib, and the children were put to bed at 6:00 p.m., often taking three hours to fall asleep. N.D. acknowledged that her fussing, which involved cursing and screaming, lasted about three hours daily. Both N.D. and B.C. spanked the children regularly, with B.C. stating he used a stick wrapped in tape for safety, which did not have the children's names on it. N.D. was under treatment for mental health issues but could not attend appointments due to her pregnancy; she tested positive for cannabinoids and THC despite denying illegal drug use. N.D. had a history with the DCFS concerning "drug-exposed newborns" and was discharged from the Healthy Start Program for lack of contact. B.C. was receiving treatment for PTSD and denied drug use, although he tested positive for THC. He was prescribed medications for his bipolar disorder and PTSD but preferred marijuana due to adverse effects from the prescriptions and financial issues with Medicaid. Concerns were raised about both parents' substance abuse and their interactions with the children.
Washington's testimony indicated that N.D. and B.C. were deemed homeless by DCFS before their children were removed. Cino explained that their trailer had burned down, and the family initially moved in with an unsuitable friend before staying with her. Washington noted Cino expressed a desire for the family to leave that day, prompting B.C. to mention friends who could provide temporary housing. Washington spoke with Patricia LeBlanc, who agreed to house the family for two weeks, despite having her own open investigation regarding children's needs.
The trial court found the children in need of care, citing parental neglect due to their indifference to A.C.'s failure to gain weight. The court highlighted the parents' neglect in seeking medical help for A.C., having only consulted one physician without pursuing further diagnoses. The court deemed the extended use of a car seat as abusive, as it delayed A.C.’s physical development. It criticized the parents for bathing the children only once a week, which was considered inadequate for hygiene. Additionally, verbal abuse by the mother, including cursing at the children, was highlighted as detrimental to their development.
In her appellate brief, N.D. argued that A.C.'s weight issues were due to malabsorption rather than neglect, but the court's finding of neglect stemmed from the failure to seek appropriate medical attention. The court upheld the definition of neglect as a parent's failure to provide necessary care, which was supported by testimony that the children were bathed infrequently and appeared unkempt. Washington's observations confirmed that the children had poor hygiene and body odor, further substantiating the trial court's conclusions regarding neglect.
Evidence presented was deemed sufficient for the trial court to determine that the parents' inadequate care, specifically failing to regularly bathe the children, negatively impacted their physical, mental, or emotional health. In the case of State in Interest of I.B.W., the court upheld the trial court's decision that the infant required care, based on a report of dependency shortly after birth and the mother's non-compliance with her case plan, which included substance abuse treatment. Additionally, she tested positive for narcotics six times during her pregnancy. In another case, State in Interest of Dronet, the court affirmed a judgment of need for care, noting that the mother’s habit of hitchhiking with her child resulted in the child returning dirty and unhealthy. Further, in State ex rel. L.M., the court supported the trial court's finding regarding the mother's neglect, as her children often lacked clean clothes and appropriate hygiene. The review of the evidence confirmed reasonable grounds for believing the children needed care and that continued custody was necessary for their safety. The trial court’s decision to keep the children in foster care was upheld, with costs of the appeal assigned to the mother, N.D., who was pregnant with her fifth child at the time of the hearings.
