State of Louisiana In The Interest of S. B., D. B. and K. D.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NO 2011 CJ 1280 STATE OF LOUISIANA IN THE INTEREST OF S D BB D K Judgment Rendered December 21 2011 On Appeal from the 22nd Judicial District Court in and for the Parish of Washington State of Louisiana District Court No J09 142 The Honorable Mary Clemence Devereux Judge Presiding Randall A Fish Counsel for Appellant Lacombe La D C Walter Reed Counsel for Appellee District Attorney State of Louisiana Franklinton La Betsy Humphries Smith Child Advocacy Program Counsel for Appellees B B S D D K Mandeville La Anne Thompson Covington La Counsel for Appellee State of Louisiana Department Of Children and Family Services John D Allen Counsel for Appellee Sandra B Terrell Franklinton La B C BEFORE CARTER C PARRO AND HIGGINBOTHAM JJ J CARTER C J Appellant C appeals the juvenile court judgment terminating her D parental rights as to the minor children S D and K For the reasons BB D that follow we affirm FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY BB S D and K are the children of C and Appellant S was D B B born in May 2006 D was born in August 2007 and K was born in B D May 2009 The children parents were never married and currently live s apart The two older children S and D first came to the attention of B B the Department of Children and Family Services DCFS in November 2007 B S and B D were taken into state custody in January subsequently adjudicated as children in need of care 2008 and The two children remained in state custody until May 20 2009 when they were returned to Appellant with the requirement that visitations with C be properly B supervised One day after the two children were returned to Appellant K D was born K tested positive for marijuana at birth D The most recent state intervention occurred in December 2009 when Appellant took the children to the emergency room Six month old K D had a knot on his head and bruising to his face in the shape of a handprint He also had a healing fracture to his clavicle D had bruising to his eye B According to Appellant the children had been at an extended visit with B C under the supervision of C girlfriend The injuries to K were s B D explained initially as being caused by a fall from a bed D bruising was s B explained as being caused by D repeatedly hitting himself in the face with B a cup while at C home s B No explanation was offered for K s D K fractured clavicle All three children were taken into state custody pursuant to a December 2 2009 Instanter Order Following a hearing in January 2010 the disposition regarding S B and D was modified and they again were adjudicated children in need of B care and continued in state custody K also was adjudicated a child in D need of care and continued in state custody On June 10 2010 DCFS filed a case plan with a stated goal of reunification A sixmonth review hearing was held on July 15 2010 and extensive testimony including the testimony of experts was presented At the conclusion of the hearing the trial court ruled that based on the evidence presented the case plan was not appropriate and ordered that the case plan be revised The attorney for the children then orally moved that the case plan goal be changed from reunification to adoption The trial court granted the motion and approved the suspension of parental visitation On September 2 2010 the State filed a petition for termination of parental rights and certification for adoption At the twoday hearing the court considered extensive testimony and numerous pieces of evidence The court ultimately ruled that Appellant and C parental rights be s s B terminated and declared S D and K eligible for adoption B B D The court provided detailed reasons in support of its conclusion that the state proved the allegations of the petition for termination by clear and convincing evidence and that its decision was based on the best interests ofthe children On appeal Appellant challenges the trial court judgment granting a s termination of her parental rights and declaring the children eligible for B C has not appealed the trial court judgment Thus the judgment is final and s definitive as it relates to the termination of his parental rights to S D and K B D 3 adoption She also appeals the denial of her request that she be relieved of paying the costs of preparing the record for this appeal DISCUSSION Termination o Parental Rights Louisiana Children Code article 1015 lists the statutory grounds for s involuntary termination of parental rights only one of which needs to be established See State ex rel SNW v Mitchell 01 2128 La 1 28 800 01 So 2d 809 816 The State bears the burden of establishing the statutory ground for termination on which it relies by clear and convincing evidence La Child Code Ann art 1035A SNW 800 So 2d at 816 Once a ground for termination has been established by clear and convincing evidence the judge may terminate parental rights if the termination is in the best interest of the child State ex rel D 081541 La 12 998 So 2d 681 R L 08 688 see La Child Code Ann art 1039 The manifest error standard applies to appellate review of the trial court findings as to whether parental s rights should be terminated State ex rel K 022886 La 3 G 841 03 18 So 2d 759 762 The State sought termination of Appellant parental rights pursuant s to Article 1 Pursuant to Article 1015 petition for termination of 5 015 5a parental rights can be filed after one year has elapsed or sooner ifJ permitted by the court since the child was removed from the parent s custody pursuant to a court order when 1 there has been no substantial parental compliance with a court approved case plan for services which has been deemed necessary for the safe return of the child and 2 earlier intervention there is no reasonable 4 despite expectation of significant improvement in the parent condition or conduct in the near future s considering the child age and his need for a safe stable and permanent s home Louisiana Children sCode article 1036 sets forth considerations in proving the lack of parental compliance with a case plan Considerations include the failure to comply with a required program of treatment and a lack of any reasonable expectation of significant improvement as evidenced by the inability to exercise parental responsibilities without exposing the children to a substantial risk of serious harm based upon expert opinion or an established pattern of behavior See La Child Code Ann art 1036CD Whether a parent has complied with a case plan the expected success of rehabilitation and the expectation of significant improvement in the parent s condition or conduct are all questions of fact and the court factual findings s may not be set aside in the absence of manifest error State ex rel JT v M 090 J 46 La App 2 Cir 12 56 So 3d 1009 1013 14 10 Appellant contends that the petition for termination was improper under Article 1015 as it was filed less than one year after the three 5 children were taken into custody B S and D were first removed from B their mother home in January 2008 They were returned to their mother s s home in May 2009 and removed again along with their infant brother K D in December 2009 After hearing the evidence at the July 2010 sixmonth review hearing the court concluded that the June 2010 case plan with a 2 Appellant also contends that the trial court improperly accepted an oral motion for modification ofthe case plan goal from reunification and visitation to a more restrictive plan See La Child Code Ann art 714 Appellant initially moved to appeal the change of the case plan goal however after the court issued its judgment terminating her parental rights Appellant voluntarily dismissed her earlier motion for appeal Moreover pursuant to Louisiana Children Code article 1 the court can on its own motion s 004A and at any time including in any hearing in a child in need of care proceeding order the filing ofa petition for termination on any ground authorized by Article 1015 6i stated goal of reunification was not appropriate and ordered DCFS to revise the plan Thereafter on September 2 2010 the State filed its petition for termination which the court set for a hearing To the extent the petition for termination pursuant to Article 1015 may be construed as being filed 5 within one year of all three children being taken into custody the court clearly permitted the filing of the petition for termination See La Child Code Ann art 1015 5see also La Child Code Ann art 1004A Finally Appellant maintains the trial court judgment terminating her s parental rights is manifestly erroneous At the conclusion of the termination hearing the trial court concluded that the State met its burden of proving a ground for termination of Appellant parental rights s by clear and convincing evidence and that termination of Appellant parental rights was s in the best interests of the three children We have thoroughly reviewed the record in this matter and the history leading up to the State petition for s termination of s Appellant parental rights The record clearly and convincingly demonstrates that it was in the best interests of S D and BB D K that Appellant parental rights be terminated and that all three children s be cleared for adoption The trial court conclusion is supported by the s evidence and is therefore not manifestly erroneous We also find that the trial court oral reasons for judgment adequately explain the decision of the s court providing a clear statement of the conclusions drawn from the facts of the case 3 Pursuant to Louisiana Children Code article 700 at the conclusion of a case s review hearing the trial court has the authority to find that the case plan is not appropriate in whole or in part based on the evidence and to order DCFS to revise the case plan accordingly 6 Indigent Status Appellant maintains that the trial court erred in denying her motion for production of the record free of charge for the purpose of an appeal Counsel points out that because Appellant was indigent counsel was appointed to assist her at all stages of the proceeding To the extent that a person is financially able the court shall order them to pay court costs La Child Code Ann art 321 A court may assess a determination of indigence at any time La Rev Stat Ann a 1 574A 15 State v In re C 082346 La 59 So 3d 845 845 J 09 22 per curiam The trial court determination will be reversed only if it s constitutes an abuse of discretion See C 9 So 3d at 846 Herein the trial J court denied Appellant request for indigent status after considering her s testimony and her forma pauperis affidavit We cannot say the trial court s decision was unjust or an abuse of discretion CONCLUSION In conclusion we find no abuse of discretion in the juvenile court s denial of Appellant motion for indigent status s Moreover finding no manifest or legal error in the court judgment terminating Appellant s s parental rights and declaring S D and K eligible for adoption we BB D affirm Costs of this appeal are assessed against Appellant C D We issue this memorandum opinion in accordance with Uniform RulesCourts of Appeal Rule 2 16 1B AFFIRMED 4 Although the pauperis affidavit was referred to in the transcript and in the forma court minutes it was not filed into evidence Therefore this court review is limited to s stestimony Appellant 7
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
