State of Louisiana in the Interest of C.S., Y.M., A.M., E.M., and K.M

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA

FIRST CIRCUIT

2025 CJ 0017

STATE OF LOUISIANA IN THE INTEREST
e
OF C. S., Y.M., A.M., E.M., AND K.M.

Judgment Rendered:
SEP 17 2025

On Appeal from the Thirty -Second Judicial District Court
In and for the Parish of Terrebonne
State of Louisiana
Case Number MSJ-6753 • Division A

Honorable Timothy C. Ellender, Jr., Judge Presiding

Jane C. Hogan Attorneys for Appellant,
Hammond, Louisiana M.D. (Minors' Mother)
and-

Carmelita J. Ratna
Houma, Louisiana

Joseph L. Waitz, Jr. Attorneys for Appellee,
District Attorney The State of Louisiana
Joseph S. Soignet
Special Prosecutor
Sarah N. Chouest

Assistant District Attorney
Houma, Louisiana

Provanda Kennedy Attorney for Plaintiffs -Appellees,
Houma, Louisiana C. S., Y.M., A.M., E.M., and K.M.
Minor Children)

Linda A. Mitchell Attorney for Plaintiff A
- ppellee,
Thibodaux, Louisiana Louisiana Department of Child and
Family Services

Jacques A. Beebe Attorney for Appellee,
Houma, Louisiana E.M. (Minors' Father)

HESTER, I

This children in need of care (" CINC") case is before us on appeal by the

mother, M.D., from a judgment changing the goal in this case from reunification to

adoption of the minor children, Y.M., A.M., E.M., and K.M. For the reasons that

follow, we affirm.

M.D. is the mother of the five children initially involved in this proceeding:

C. S. born May 20, 2009; Y.M. born September 29, 2010; A.M. born May 1, 2012;

E.M. born October 29, 2013; and K.M. born August 22, 2017. On October 20, 2022,

the Louisiana Department of Children and Family Services (" DCFS") received

reports of alleged neglect, including that C. S., a 13 -year- old child, was the primary

caretaker of the younger children while M.D. was away from the home, the house

was in disrepair, the water service was cut off at the beginning of October 2022, and

the children were not enrolled in school.

Rebecca James, a DCFS employee, responded to the home on October 21,

2022, and discovered that all of the children except Y.M. were home alone. While

waiting for M.D. to arrive at the home, James spoke with C. S. C. S. informed James

that neither she nor her sibling attend school because her mother could not afford

clothes and shoes for them. C. S. indicated that the water service had been off for a

few days, but M.D. purchased jugs of water for the children. C. S. further indicated

that she cares for her siblings every time M.D. goes to work, which was typically

from 10: 00 a.m. to 8: 00 p.m., and sometimes when M.D. has somewhere else to go.

C. S. stated that she normally cooks for herself and her siblings, and assured James

she likes to cook, so M.D. did not cook much.

After M.D. arrived, M.D. began to tell James that she takes care of her kids

and provides food, further stating " there are b* * * * es killing their kids and putting

them into trash cans and y['] all are messing with me[.]" When questioned about the

2

schooling for the children, M.D. responded they had been out of school since

COVID, which by that time was about three years. M.D. stated that the kids did

homeschool but that it was online and not through the school system. M.D. could

not provide a name of the online homeschool program and was evasive when

answering follow up questions.

James was ultimately allowed into the home and observed dog feces on the

floor in the hallway. The home, which had six dogs, smelled of dog, feces, and

urine. James observed mold on the ceiling and pictures attached to the report showed

roof damage and a hole in the ceiling of one of the rooms. James walked around

outside the home and found no alternate source of water. Additionally, she observed

bags of trash and broken furniture in the front yard of the home.

In light ofthe overall safety assessment, along with M.D.' s inability to provide

proper care and supervision, proper childcare, and safe and stable housing, and the

unknown whereabouts of the fathers of the children, James contacted Judge Ellender

and requested an oral instanter order, which was granted. Upon being notified of the

decision, M.D. told James " my kids aren' t leaving with anyone[.]" The children

were removed from the home.

On October 24, 2022, the trial court confirmed the oral instanter order, finding

reasonable grounds existed to believe the children were in need of care in accordance

with La. Ch. Code art. 606( A).1 The trial court placed the children in provisional

custody of the State of Louisiana, through DCFS ( the " State"), pending the timely

i Louisiana Children' s Code article 606( A) provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

Allegations that a child is in need of care shall assert one or more of the following
grounds:

2) The child is a victim of neglect.

3) The child is without necessary food, clothing, shelter, medical care, or

supervision because of the disappearance or prolonged absence of his parent or
when, for any other reason, the child is placed at substantial risk of imminent harm
because of the continuing absence of the parent.

3

filing of a CINC petition and adjudication. On October 26, 2022, the trial court held

a 72 -hour continued custody hearing at which counsel for the fathers entered general

denials with no evidence presented. Counsel for M.D. denied the allegations and

denied that the children were in need of care. The trial court found reasonable

grounds existed to find the children in need of care and ordered that the children

remain in the custody of the State pending further proceedings. On November 4,

2022, the trial court ordered that a Court Appointed Special Advocate (" CASA") be

appointed to represent and advocate for the best interest of C. S., Y.M., A.M., E. M.,

and K.M.

Thereafter, the State filed a petition seeking adjudication of C. S., Y.M., A.M.,

E.M., and K.M. as children in need of care, alleging that the investigation conducted

by James showed the allegations of neglect/lack of adequate supervision and

neglect/ lack of adequate shelter had merit and that the children' s best interests would

be served by maintaining their custody with the State. On December 14, 2022, the

trial court conducted an appearance to answer hearing, at which time counsel for

M.D. denied the allegations of the petition, denied that the children were in need of

care, and objected to the appointment of CASA. Counsel for the fathers also entered

general denials.

On January 17, 2023, the trial court conducted the adjudication and

disposition hearing, at which time counsel for M.D. and the fathers reiterated their

previous denials and objections and presented no evidence. The State introduced

the January 9, 2023 DCFS report and attached medical records of the children as

exhibits. The DCFS report indicated that M.D. made minimal renovations to the

home and completed a mental health assessment, but she had not yet started

parenting classes. The medical records showed all the children were obese and in

need of a dental exam. A.M. had a noted diagnosis of ADHD, for which he took

two medications — Vyvnse and Guanfacine.' All of the children were past due on

recommended immunizations. At the conclusion of the hearing, the children were

adjudicated as children in need of care, and the trial court ordered that the children

remain in the custody of the State. Further, the trial court approved DCFS' s case

plan goal of reunification concurrent with adoption, and the parents were ordered to

comply with the case plan and follow all recommendations therein.

At a case review hearing on April 26, 2023, the State requested that the

children remain in the State' s custody with the case plan goal of reunification

concurrent with adoption and introduced the April 14, 2023 DCFS report and the

April 10, 2023 CASA report as exhibits. The DCFS report noted that M.D. had

made substantial progress in her case plan: she obtained adequate housing in March

2023, but required two additional beds for the children; she began mental health

treatment, attending an evaluation and two individual sessions,3 but did not appear

for her sessions in February and March or her medication management appointment

in March; she successfully completed a parenting class in January and had attended

all meetings and court hearings regarding her case; and while she obtained full-time

employment, she had not made any parental contributions.

While the CASA report acknowledged that M.D. was concerned about her

children, the report also indicated that M.D. had not taken responsibility for any of

the allegations against her except for the condition of her home. M.D. had not

demonstrated any behavioral changes. Initially, M.D. was observed to be

2 Subsequent medical records noted that Y.M. also took medication for his diagnosis of
ADHD.

3 M.D. reported that she had a history of anxiety and depression, having last received
treatment six years prior after she and her husband separated. She further reported that she entered
into a new relationship three or four years ago, and her partner physically and emotionally abused
her. M.D. was diagnosed with major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and
problems related to housing and economic circumstances. She was prescribed medication at that
time.

4 M.D. maintained that she was told that counseling and medication management was
optional.

5

affectionate with the children during visits. However, on subsequent visits, M.D.

did not provide parenting care to the children, often having the children provide for
her while she sat. CASA volunteers also observed M.D. angry at times, yelling and

using profanity. She had inappropriate conversations either with the children

directly or in their presence, some of which conversations involved cursing and adult

content.

The CASA report indicated that the children' s initial foster mother, a fictive

kin placement, reported fear of M.D.' s retaliation due to her communication with

CASA and other parties in the case, noting that she witnessed the alleged

abuse/ neglect of the children. The foster mother reportedly obtained a restraining

order against M.D.' The children were placed in the foster mother' s home until they

became uncontrollable, breaking windows, physically fighting, and " total chaos."

Y.M. and A.M. were removed from the home partly due to concerns with the foster

mother' s older child' s violent behavior/history. The CASA report noted that nine

total children were living with the foster mother, who was a single parent working

full-time.

The CASA report further indicated that there were significant educational

gaps due to the children being out of school for approximately three years. Concerns

regarding the children' s heath were great, as their mental, physical, and dental health

were neglected for several years. Y.M. was taken to the emergency room for chest

pains in March 2023 and was previously diagnosed with obesity, constipation, and

fatty liver. A.M. was also reported to be severely obese.

The CASA report indicated that counseling was needed for all the children.

C. S. reported to CASA volunteers past abuse, neglect, and " several incidents,"

which reports were " confirmed by more than one individual [ with] personal

5 A later DCFS report indicated that M.D. does not contact E.M. due to the restraining
order that was put in place in May 2023.

G

knowledge of the family dynamics." Notably, C. S. expressed fear that M.D. would

become angry and retaliate if she spoke to anyone; however, she requested to speak

with the judge privately or without M.D. present.

Counsel for C. S. further noted her opposition to reunification with M.D.,

requested visitation with her siblings separate from M.D., requested that visitation

begin with her father, and requested to remain in her current foster home.

Ultimately, the trial court approved the case plan goal of reunification concurrent

with adoption. Further, the trial court ordered that M.D. was not to visit the children

unsupervised, unless the therapist recommended otherwise. The trial court

authorized C. S. to visit with her father, provided there was no drinking, and ordered

that DCFS arrange for visits for the children without the presence of M.D.

At the October 17, 2023 permanency hearing, counsel for C. S.' s father

requested that custody be transferred to him and the case be closed as to her only.

M.D. had no objection. Having heard the testimony of the father and a CASA

advocate, and after reviewing the October 9, 2023 DCFS report, the trial court

ordered that custody of C. S. be transferred to her father.' As to the remaining

children, Y.M., A.M., E.M., and K.M., the trial court accepted DCFS' s

recommended case plan with the goal of adoption, finding it to be in the best interest

of the children. At the time of this hearing, M.D. had relocated to Maine.'

Two more review hearings were held on April 24, 2024 and May 30, 2024,

along with a status hearing on September 24, 2024, concerning Y.M., A.M., E.M.,

and K.M. At the April 24, 2024 hearing, the case plan of adoption was rejected, and

6 A later CASA report dated April 24, 2024 noted that C. S. was no longer in State custody
and guardianship was transferred to fictive kin.
7 Included in the October 9, 2023 DCFS report is the lease M.D. signed for a rental property
in Maine, with an initial rental period beginning on August 17, 2023. The DCFS report indicated
that M.D. had made some progress on her case plan, obtaining adequate housing in Maine in June
2023. It was noted that her mental health treatment would need to be transferred to Maine. She
continued to attend all her meetings and court hearings, but she had not paid any parental
contributions.

7

DCFS was ordered to reevaluate the case plan. The April 18, 2024 CASA report

entered into evidence noted that Y.M. tested positive for an STD antibody in August

2023, which was confirmed by a second test in October 2023. Y.M. was noted to

have soiled his pants several times, made frequent sexual comments, and was

obsessed with food. The CASA report also noted that M.D. rarely took care of the

children' s needs during the supervised visits with the children; rather, M.D.' s 20 -

year -old daughter acted as the caregiver ( bringing K.M. to the bathroom, getting

food, and supervising play), while M.D. acted more as a playmate.

At the May 30, 2024 hearing, the State requested that the case plan goal of

reunification be accepted with the agreement of counsel for the children, while

CASA recommended that the case plan goal be changed to adoption. The trial court

reviewed the May 23, 2024 DCFS report entered into evidence, which indicated that

M.D. was living in a three bedroom, one bathroom home in Maine. A case manager

completed a virtual walk-through of the home and found it adequate and with

adequate bedding for the children. The case manager requested the state of Maine

to complete a parent home study. As of May 23, 2024, M.D. still had not paid any

contributions ($ 10. 00 per child, per month), but she was employed more than forty

hours per week and paid $24. 00 per hour. While the DCFS report made no mention

of the STD antibody in relation to Y.M., the May 22, 2024 CASA report identified

numerous primary concerns with the children, including ( 1) the uninvestigated STD

of at least one of the children'; ( 2) the multiple uninvestigated abuse allegations

reported to CASA by multiple sources; ( 3) the lack of counseling, especially for

Y.M. and A.M.; (4) M.D.' s continued denial of the reasons the children went into

State custody; and ( 5) the inability to supervise and corroborate facts while M.D. is

in Maine. Most notable was CASA' s concern with M.D.' s non-compliance with

8 The prior CASA report noted that A.M. needed to be retested for STDs due to
insufficient specimen" after an August 2023 test.

8

court orders when C. S. resided in Maine with M.D. Following alleged physical

abuse that occurred almost immediately after her arrival in Maine, C. S. was returned

to her father' s custody. While M.D. was ordered not to be around C. S., M.D. was

listed as the guardian when C. S. was enrolled in school the following week.

Guardianship of C. S. was ultimately granted to fictive kin.

At the conclusion of the May 30, 2024 hearing, the trial court ordered that all

the children have a psycho -sexual evaluation and receive trauma therapy and group

therapy. The trial court did not change the case plan goal to adoption at that time.

At the September 24, 2024 status hearing, A.M. requested to " speak to the

Court[,]" which request was granted. After hearing additional statements and sworn

testimony, the trial court issued a judgment ordering, in part, that A.M. was not

allowed to have electronic devices; DCFS was to notify law enforcement of any

possible criminal conduct involving Y.M. and A.M. within twenty- four hours; M.D.,

the mother, was not allowed any unsupervised communication with Y.M., A.M.,

E.M., and K.M.; and DCFS should follow through with all scheduled appointments

and any recommendations for the children.

A permanency hearing was held on October 22, 2024. At that time, K.M. was

in a foster home, A.M. was placed with fictive kin, E. M. was in a therapeutic foster

care home, and Y.M. was placed at Harmony House. Two DCFS employees, two

CASA advocates, and M.D. testified at the hearing, and the trial court accepted into

evidence a DCFS report dated October 15, 2024, the case plan for A.M. and K.M.,

and a CASA report dated October 14, 2024. 9

The DCFS report indicated that the Maine home study was completed and was

not accepted. According to the Maine home study, M.D. indicated that she had

9 The DCFS report indicated that A.M. had diagnoses of ADHD, oppositional defiant
disorder, and anger reaction, for which he was prescribed multiple medications. He was referred
to specialized services for the treatment of children with sexual behaviors, and the case manager
reported A.M.' s sexualized behavior to law enforcement on September 24, 2024, along with
Y.M.' s positive STD results.

L

assistance with childcare but had no specific plans outlined. It was noted that the

two persons M.D. identified as helping her with childcare did not live close by and

did not appear to be probable or practical full-time childcare options. M.D. had not

resolved or planned to resolve the risk of leaving the children unattended for long

periods of time. Further, M.D. did not appear to understand the behavioral and

mental health needs of her children, minimizing their needs and blaming the
10
children' s behaviors on DCFS changing their medications. She stated that the

children were removed from her home because of "retaliation" by the case worker

who had a personal conflict, and she generally blamed others for her behaviors and

choices." According to the home study, it was unlikely that health care, supervision,

behavioral needs, or mental health needs would be provided in a timely manner with

M.D. in the state of Maine.

h.M., A.M., and E.M. were assessed by professionals at the Children' s

Advocacy Network Care Center on July 16, 2024. All of the children reported

traumatic events and abuse and neglect in the home while living with M.D. While

none of the children qualified for trauma -focused cognitive behavioral therapy, it

was recommended that they receive treatment from licensed professionals with

trauma training.

An October 14, 2024 CASA report reiterated prior concerns with M.D., while

acknowledging that she has completed most of her case plan. Of particular concern

was that M.D. refused to accept responsibility for the issues which caused the

children to be removed from the home, ignored court orders regarding contact with

her children, failed to provide a viable childcare plan in Maine, and failed to

to M.D. stated that she did not have to use discipline often and that the children listen to
her because she is the mom.

In fact, in an initial diagnostic assessment of M.D. prepared by a provider in Maine,
which was included with the DCFS report introduced into evidence at a prior hearing, M.D.
indicated that her children were taken into protective custody because her home was severely
damaged during Hurricane Ida. Additionally, she continued to claim that her children were
homeschooled.

BE

contribute to the children' s needs financially per the case plan. CASA recommended

that the children remain in the State' s custody and that the case plan goal be changed

to adoption.

Ultimately, the trial court ordered that the permanent plan be changed to

adoption, finding that it is the plan most likely to achieve stability for the children

and that it was in the children' s best interest, considering their health, safety, and

welfare. The trial court further ordered as follows:

1. That all the children continue receiving individual mental health
counseling services on a regular basis to address their mental
health needs and trauma endured.

2. That all the children continue receiving extensive tutoring and/or
educational services to help address educational gaps.

3. That [ DCFS] investigate the allegations of physical abuse by
M.D.].

4. That all contact between [ M.D.] and the children be supervised
by [ DCFS].

5. That all the children be tested for STD' s [ sic] ( including HS[ V]
2) due to allegations of possible sexual abuse.

6. That [ Y.M.] be referred to a sexual abuse counseling center to

receive counseling and guidance regarding his STD diagnosis.
7. That [ A.M.] be referred to a sexual abuse counseling center to
receive counseling regarding the alleged sexual assault, his
pornography use, and his solicitation of men and women for sex.
8. That all children receive group therapy.

9. That [ M.D.] complete a psychological evaluation and participate

in trauma therapy.

M.D. appeals from this ruling, which was memorialized in a judgment dated

October 30, 2024.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

Legal Precepts

Whenever custody of a child is assigned to DCFS as a child in need of care,

there are two separate components of permanency planning: ( 1) the initial case plan

La. Ch. Code arts. 671 to 677 ( Chapter 13)) and its review hearing process; and ( 2)

11

the identification of a permanent plan for the child and its review hearing process
12
La. Ch. Code arts. 701 to 711 ( Chapter 16)). State in Interest of A.C., 2023-

0825 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 1/ 19/ 24), 2024 WL 206378, * 6 ( unpublished) ( citing State

in Interest of C.M., 2017-0429 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 5/ 31/ 17), 2017 WL 2384881 at

3 ( unpublished)). This case review and dispositional review process continues until

the child achieves the proposed permanent plan. State in Interest of A.C., 2024

WL 206378 at * 6. An assignment of legal custody to DCFS, regardless of the stage

of the proceedings, confers to DCFS the exclusive authority to determine a particular

placement of the child. La. Ch. Code art. 672, Official Comments, 2001; State in

Interest of A.C., 2024 WL 206378 at * 6. However, the overall consideration for

the welfare of the child is still the exclusive domain of the juvenile court judge. See

State in Interest of S. S., 499 So. 2d 1198, 1201 ( La. App. 5th Cir. 1986); see also

La. Ch. Code arts. 619( C), 700( A), and 702( C).

Louisiana Children' s Code article 700, which was intended to clarify the role

of the court vis- a-vis the role of DCFS as set forth in La. Ch. Code art. 672 ( see La.

Ch. Code art. 700, Official Comments, 1991), provides, in part, as follows:

A. At the conclusion of the case review hearing, the court shall make a
finding as to whether the child can safely return to the custody of the
parent and shall order return of custody to the parent if it is safe to do
so. The court order shall give specific written reasons for the findings.
If the court finds that the child cannot be safely returned to the parent
under terms and conditions deemed to be in the best interest of the child,
the court may take one of the following actions:

1) Approve the plan as consistent with the health, welfare, and safety
of the child and order compliance by all parties.

12 Louisiana Children' s Code article 671 provides that if at any point in a CINC proceeding,
a child enters the custody of a child care agency ( defined by La. Ch. Code art. 603( 7) as " any
public or private agency exercising custody of a child"), the provisions of Chapter 13 as to
permanency planning reports govern. Similarly, La. Ch. Code art. 687 provides that if at any point
in CINC proceedings, the child is removed from his parents' care and control and placed in the
custody of DCFS, the provisions of Chapter 15 as to dispositional reviews shall govern the
subsequent review process until such time as the child achieves a permanent placement as defined
in La. Ch. Code art. 603( 22). The provisions of Chapter 16 are also applicable to the review
process. La. Ch. Code art. 701.

12

2) Find that the case plan is not appropriate, in whole or in part, based
on the evidence presented at the contradictory hearing, and order
DCFS] to revise the case plan accordingly.

The court shall determine the permanent plan for the child that is " most appropriate

and in the best interest of the child[.]" La. Ch. Code art. 702( C). However, La. Ch.

Code art. 702( C) specifies the priority of placement, in part, as follows:

1) Return the child to the legal custody of the parents within a specified
time period consistent with the child' s age and need for a safe and
permanent home. In orderfor reunification to remain as the permanent
plan for the child, the parent shall be in compliance with the case plan
and making significant measurable progress toward achieving its goals
and correcting the conditions requiring the child to be in care.
2) Adoption.

3) Placement with a legal guardian.

4) Placement in the legal custody of a suitable relative who is willing
and able to offer a stable and safe home for the child.

Emphasis added.) In most permanent plan determinations, the court is required to

determine whether DCFS has made reasonable efforts to reunify the parent and child

or to finalize the child' s placement in an alternative safe and permanent home in

accordance with the child' s permanent plan. The child' s health, welfare, and safety

are the paramount concerns in the court' s determination of the permanent plan. La.

Ch. Code art. 702( E). More than simply protecting parental rights, our judicial

system is required to protect the children' s rights to thrive and survive. State in

Interest of M.N., 2023- 0174 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 6/ 23/ 23), 370 So. 3d 744, 749, writ

denied, 2023- 00947 ( La. 9/ 6/ 23), 369 So. 3d 1269 ( citing State in Interest of K.P.,

51, 853 ( La. App. 2d Cir. 11/ 15/ 17), 246 So. 3d 627, 634).

Importantly, in order for reunification to remain the permanent plan for the

child, the parent must be ( 1) complying with the case plan; ( 2) making significant

measurable progress toward achieving its goals; and ( 3) correcting the conditions

requiring the child to be in care. See La. Ch. Code art. 702( C)( 1); State in Interest

of M.N., 370 So. 3d at 749. Mere cooperation by a parent is not the sole focus of the

13

evaluation of a permanency plan. Rather, the courts must assess whether the parent

has exhibited significant improvement in the particulars that caused the State to

remove the children from the parent' s care and custody. State in Interest of M.N.,

370 So. 3d at 749 ( citing State in Interest of N.L., 54,429 ( La. App. 2d Cir. 3/ 30/ 22),

335 So. 3d 1018, 1023).

An appellate court' s review of a juvenile court' s determination of a permanent

plan is governed by the manifest error standard. An appellate court may not overturn

a judgment of a juvenile court absent an error of law or a factual finding that is

manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong. State in the Interest of E.F., Jr., 2010- 1185

La. App. 1st Cir. 10/ 29/ 10), 49 So. 3d 575, 582. The two-part test for the appellate

review of a factual finding is: ( 1) whether there is a reasonable factual basis in the

record for the finding of the juvenile court; and ( 2) whether the record further

establishes that the finding is not manifestly erroneous. Id. (citing Mart v. Hill, 505

So. 2d 1120, 1127 ( La. 1987)).

The appellate court must not substitute its own opinion when it is the juvenile

court that is in the unique position to see and hear the witnesses as they testify. State

in the Interest of C.M., 2017 WL 2384881 at * 4 ( citing State in the Interest of

T.B., 2016- 215 ( La. App. 5th Cir. 9/ 22/ 16), 202 So. 3d 555, 560). Where there is

conflicting testimony, reasonable evaluations of credibility and reasonable

inferences of fact should not be disturbed upon review, even when the appellate court

may feel that its own evaluations and inferences are as reasonable as those of the

juvenile court. See State in the Interest of E. F., Jr., 49 So. 3d at 582. If the juvenile

court' s findings are reasonable in light of the record reviewed in its entirety, the

appellate court may not reverse, even though convinced that, had it been sitting as

the trier of fact, it would have weighed the evidence differently. State in the

Interest of T.B., 202 So. 3d at 560- 61.

14

Issue Presented for Review

On appeal, M.D. contends that the trial court erroneously changed the case

plan goal to adoption. M.D. argues that the trial court failed to recognize her

significant, measurable progress and compliance with her case plan.

Notwithstanding M.D.' s arguments, the trial court concluded in its reasons for

judgment that M.D. " did not comply with the case plan by failing to make significant

measurable progress toward achieving its goals and correcting the conditions that

originally placed the children in the State' s care."

In addition to finding a lack of substantial compliance with the case plan, the

trial court determined that M.D. failed to show improvement by altering or

modifying in a significant way the behavior that served as a basis for the State' s

removal of the children from her home. See State in Interest of S. M., 98- 0922 ( La.

10/ 20/ 98), 719 So. 2d 445, 451. In support of its ruling, the trial court made the

following factual findings:

The children were taken into custody on October 21, 2022. At
the time of the permanency hearing, the children had been in custody
with [DCFS] for over two years. Although the children were originally
taken into custody due to lack of adequate shelter, supervision[,] and
neglect, subsequent discoveries regarding the children' s well-being and
health surfaced. Specifically, new grounds of past sexual and physical
abuse were brought to light, specifically, at least one of the minors has
tested positive twice for STD antibodies. Additionally, the children' s
physical health is of significant concern. Each of the children' s BMI
are at the 991h percentile.

In addition to concerns surrounding the children' s wellbeing,
M.D.] has repeatedly defied court orders including contacting the
children outside of the court sanctioned modes and failing to make
parental contributions. From the onset of the case, [ M.D.] has been
ordered to financially contribute to her children' s needs. Up until the
last hearing, she had not made any significant contribution. Since then
she sent cash directly to the children in lieu of providing it to [ DCFS].
This is emblematic of the one many ways [ M.D.] repeatedly
demonstrates unwillingness to work with [ DCFS] and further avoids
accepting any responsibility for her children' s past and present mental
and physical health. The Court characterizes the open defiance as
selfish and in complete opposition to her trying to reunite with her
children.

15

Although
Lastly, [ M.D.] resides and is employed in Maine.
gainful employment is a component of her case plan, her present
residence makes it impractical for her to conduct regular visitations
with her children. Even though [DCFS] tried to implement an Interstate
Compact on Placement of Children, Maine' s Office of Child and
Family Services declined to assist with transitioning supervision of the
children to Maine. Her relocation to Maine has only hindered her

ability to work her case plan evidenced by the fact that the children
remain in State' s custody.

As defined to La. Ch. C[ ode] [ a] rt. 601, the purpose of these

proceedings is to protect children, and these efforts are to be " conducted
expeditiously to avoid delays in achieving permanency for children."
The Court considered the litany of evidence put forth by all parties and
determined that to uphold the statutory purpose and consider the best
interest of the children, that after two years of uncertainty, it must order
that the permanent case plan goal be changed to adoption in efforts to
work towards any sort of permanency for these children.

After a thorough review of the record, the testimony at the October 22, 2024

hearing, and the evidence introduced, we find a reasonable factual basis exists in the

record supporting the trial court' s findings. See Mart, 505 So. 2d at 1127; State in

the Interest of E. F., Jr., 49 So. 3d at 582.

M.D. further argues that because the children are not in currently in adoptive

placements and are in separate placements across the state, the change of the plan to

adoption was erroneous because it is not a realistic placement for the children. While

these factors can be considered by the court, the paramount concern in the court' s

determination of the permanent plan is the children' s health, welfare, and safety.

See La. Ch. Code art. 702( E). Moreover, pursuant to La. Ch. Code art. 702( C)( 1),

i] n order for reunification to remain as the permanent plan for the child, the parent

shall be in compliance with the case plan and making significant measurable

progress toward achieving its goals and correcting the conditions requiring the child

to be in care." The very clear reasons of the trial court establish that M.D. was not

in compliance with the case plan and there were significant concerns regarding

M.D.' s behavior, which had not shown improvement.

16

Accordingly, reunification could not remain the permanent plan for the

children in light of the children' s ages and need for a safe and permanent home. The

trial court noted that the children had been in the State' s care for more than two

years. Under La. Ch. Code art. 702( C), the next placement option was adoption.

Thus, the trial court correctly applied the plain language of La. Ch. Code art. 702( C)

and changed the case plan goal to adoption. Therefore, in considering the health,

welfare, and safety of the children, we are unable to conclude that the trial court' s

ruling was manifestly erroneous. See State in the Interest of E.F., Jr., 49 So. 3d at

582.

CONCLUSION

For the above and forgoing reasons, we affirm the trial court' s October 30,

2024 judgment ordering the permanent plan be changed to adoption. All costs

associated with this appeal are assessed to appellant, M.D.

AFFIRMED.

17