Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; February 27, 2018; Louisiana; State Appellate Court
A.J.M. appeals the judgment of the Twenty-Sixth Judicial District Court in Bossier Parish, Louisiana, which terminated her parental rights to her daughter, B.A.T., born December 18, 2015. The case arose after a domestic violence incident on September 6, 2016, involving A.J.M. and her partner S.T., during which police responded to a call while B.A.T. and another child were present. Following the incident, both parents tested positive for illegal substances, and B.A.T. also tested positive for methamphetamines. Subsequently, A.J.M. pleaded guilty to domestic abuse battery.
Witnesses reported that A.J.M. had physically harmed B.A.T., leading to a medical examination that revealed a previously healed arm fracture. On September 14, 2016, the State sought temporary custody of B.A.T. and her sibling due to concerns of neglect and abuse. The State was granted custody at a subsequent hearing on September 19, 2016. The State filed a petition on October 17, 2016, alleging the children were in need of care, which A.J.M. denied. The adjudication occurred on November 21, 2016, resulting in B.A.T. being officially recognized as a child in need of care, with her custody remaining with the State.
On December 12, 2016, a disposition hearing was held where the State presented a case plan for A.J.M. aimed at reunification with her child. The plan included requirements for A.J.M. to secure safe housing, establish a legal income, support her child financially, keep the State informed of her whereabouts, undergo substance abuse evaluation and treatment, participate in random drug screenings, complete parenting classes, attend all court hearings and scheduled visits, and engage in domestic violence and anger management counseling. A judgment was entered mandating A.J.M.'s compliance, warning that failure to do so could lead to termination of parental rights within a year of the child's removal.
A permanency hearing was initially scheduled for March 6, 2017, but was delayed due to the State's failure to file a report. After the State submitted its report on March 7, 2017, a review occurred on March 13, 2017, followed by a permanency/case review judgment on June 22, 2017, reaffirming the reunification goal. However, on July 25, 2017, the State filed for termination of parental rights, resulting in a revised case plan prioritizing adoption. A.J.M., having recently been released from jail, testified at the case review hearing. Ultimately, on September 26, 2017, the court terminated A.J.M.'s parental rights to B.A.T. under specific Louisiana statutes.
The legal framework for involuntary termination of parental rights emphasizes balancing the fundamental rights of parents with the child's best interests, which are deemed paramount. The Louisiana Supreme Court has affirmed that while parents have significant rights, the child's need for stability and proper care is prioritized. Louisiana law stipulates eight grounds for termination, requiring the State to prove at least one ground and demonstrate that termination serves the child's best interests by clear and convincing evidence.
A.J.M.'s parental rights were terminated under Louisiana Children's Code Article 1015(5)(b), (c), and (6), which outlines grounds for termination including abandonment due to lack of significant contributions to the child's care or maintaining contact for six consecutive months. Additionally, it requires that at least one year has passed since the child was removed from parental custody, no substantial compliance with a case plan has occurred, and no reasonable expectation for improvement in the parent's situation exists, considering the child's need for a permanent home. The determination of whether termination is warranted is a factual question, with trial court findings upheld unless there is manifest error.
A.J.M. contended that the trial court erred by not holding a permanency hearing as mandated by Article 702, which requires such a hearing within thirty days of a judicial determination that reunification efforts are unnecessary. However, the State argued that a permanency hearing was not necessary because the court had already authorized the termination petition on July 25, 2017. Article 672.1 allows the department to motion for a judicial determination that reunification efforts are not required, with the burden on the department to prove this by clear and convincing evidence, especially in cases of egregious conduct. A written finding is required for the court's determination, and a permanency hearing must follow promptly.
As of March 13, 2017, reunification remained the goal for the case, with a review and permanency hearing scheduled for August 28, 2017. However, on July 25, 2017, the State filed a petition for termination of parental rights, and A.J.M. entered a denial on July 31, 2017. The trial court maintained the August 28 date to address the termination, case review, and permanency hearing. A report filed on August 17 changed the case plan goal from reunification to adoption. Despite the irregularity of the State's petition while reunification was still the goal, this action was permissible under the Children's Code, and a permanency hearing was not required.
The termination was justified under La. Ch. C. art. 1036.2 concerning incarcerated parents, which mandates that an incarcerated parent must provide a reasonable care plan for their child. A.J.M. was notified of this obligation and signed a form on May 17, 2017, acknowledging the possibility of termination if she failed to provide an adequate care plan within sixty days. Although A.J.M. suggested potential caregivers, the State found them inappropriate and ineligible. Consequently, the State was permitted to proceed with the termination of parental rights, and the trial court's decision was upheld. A.J.M. appealed, claiming the State did not meet the burden of proof under La. Ch. C. art. 1015, but the court found clear and convincing evidence of her non-compliance with the case plan and lack of reasonable expectation for improvement.
The state must demonstrate, under the clear and convincing proof standard, that a parent's noncompliance with a case plan is highly probable. Key indicators of noncompliance include missed visitations, lack of communication, failure to inform the department of whereabouts, non-adherence to treatment programs, and ongoing harmful conditions. Evidence of a lack of reasonable expectation for significant improvement can stem from mental or physical illness, substance abuse, or any behavior indicating the parent is unfit to provide a safe home. These matters are factual inquiries.
In this case, A.J.M.'s parental rights were primarily terminated due to her failure to comply with the case plan, as she admitted to not completing any requirements and had not interacted with her child since a relevant incident. The trial court noted A.J.M.'s lack of stable employment and housing, and her failure to take proactive steps toward rebuilding her relationship with her child. Although A.J.M. was drug-free at the hearing and claimed to have attended substance abuse programs while incarcerated, she did not demonstrate ongoing efforts toward sobriety after her release, engaging instead in behaviors inconsistent with being a responsible parent.
A.J.M.'s assertion that her incarceration justified her inability to fulfill parental obligations was rejected, as imprisonment does not absolve one of parental responsibilities. The trial court found clear and convincing evidence of A.J.M.'s noncompliance and lack of foreseeable improvement, deeming her arguments meritless. Lastly, A.J.M. contended that the court erred in concluding that terminating her rights was in B.A.T.'s best interest, emphasizing the gravity of such a decision.
Terminating parental rights is recognized as a serious action, yet A.J.M. fails to present specific reasons against such termination for B.A.T., only calling for careful scrutiny of the trial court’s decision. The court prioritizes the children's interests, which include the need for secure, stable environments conducive to adoption. B.A.T.'s early life with A.J.M. was chaotic, marked by violence, drug abuse, and neglect, including an undiagnosed arm fracture. A.J.M. has acknowledged her poor parenting and demonstrated a lack of bond with B.A.T., prioritizing personal interests over her responsibilities as a mother. Despite general future plans, A.J.M. has not taken concrete steps towards improvement. Conversely, B.A.T.'s foster parents have provided a loving and stable home since April 2017 and wish to adopt her, aligning with her best interests. The court concludes that terminating A.J.M.'s parental rights is justified and affirms the trial court’s judgment, assessing costs to A.J.M. Additionally, while S.T. is listed as B.A.T.'s father, DNA testing does not confirm his paternity, and he did not appeal the termination of his rights. The State also notes a procedural correction regarding the date of the ruling.
