State in the Interest of C.H., T.E. & T.H.

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

11-189

STATE OF LOUISIANA

IN THE INTEREST OF

C.L.H., T.L.E., & T.A.H.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF CALCASIEU, NO. 23410
HONORABLE RONALD F. WARE, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

JAMES T. GENOVESE
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Sylvia R. Cooks, J. David Painter, and James T. Genovese,
Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Nick Pizzolatto, Jr.
Louisiana Department of Children and Family Services
4250 5th Avenue
Lake Charles, Louisiana 70607
(337) 475-3037
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT:
Louisiana Department of
Children and Family Services

Charlotte Ieyoub – Assistant District Attorney
1020 Ryan Street
Lake Charles, Louisiana 70601
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT:
State of Louisiana

Mike K. Stratton
14th Judicial District Public Defender’s Office
901 Lakeshore Drive, Ste. 700
Lake Charles, Louisiana 70601
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE:
L.A.H.

Ronald A. Rossitto
Post Office Box 3206
Lake Charles, Louisiana 70602
COUNSEL FOR MINORS:
C.L.H., T.L.E., and T.A.H.

Edward Kelly Bauman
1131 Hodges Street
Lake Charles, Louisiana 70601
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT:
W.E.

Douglas K. Hall
901 Lakeshore Drive, Suite 700
Lake Charles, Louisiana 70629
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT:
A.E., Jr.

GENOVESE, Judge.

The State of Louisiana, through its Department of Social Services, Office of

Community Services, renamed Department of Children and Family Services (State),

appeals the judgment of the trial court dismissing its petition to terminate the

biological mother’s parental rights. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On July 15, 2010, the State filed a Petition for Certification for Adoption and

Termination of Parental Rights of L.A.H.,1 the biological mother of C.L.H. (date of

birth April 21, 2003), T.L.E. (date of birth December 13, 2005), and T.A.H. (date of

birth May 20, 2008). The State asserted that two of the children, C.L.H. and T.L.E.,

were taken into the State’s custody on January 26, 2009, and that T.A.H. was taken

into the State’s custody on February 1, 2009, after L.A.H. was “arrested for various

drug[-]related criminal charges when [her] house was raided by the Sulphur Police

Department.” According to the State’s petition, the three children were returned to

L.A.H. on a trial basis on October 5, 2009; however, on October 23, 2009, the

temporary placement ceased, and the children were again placed into foster care. The

State sought to have L.A.H.’s parental rights terminated pursuant La.Ch.Code art.

1015(4), La.Ch.Code art. 1015(5), and La.Ch.Code art. 1036.

In its petition, the State asserted that L.A.H. had not substantially complied

with her case plan. Specifically, the State alleged that L.A.H.: (1) had “not obtained

safe, stable housing[;]” (2) had “not provided any proof of legal income[;]” (3) had

not satisfactorily completed outpatient treatment with the Office of Addictive

Disorders; (4) had failed a random drug screen in December of 2009 and was arrested

for possession and distribution of marijuana in February of 2010; (5) had attended the

1
Pursuant to Uniform Rules—Courts of Appeal, Rules 5–1 and 5–2, the initials of the parties
are used to protect and maintain the privacy of the minors involved in this proceeding.

incorrect parenting course and had yet to attend the parenting course the State deemed

acceptable; (6) had attended a course for domestic abuse victims but needed to attend

another course since the State alleged that L.A.H. had “returned to being around drug

users and dealers[;]” and (7) had “failed to make any monthly contributions toward

the care of her children.” The State did concede, however, that L.A.H. was in

compliance with her case plan’s requirement that she regularly visit her three

children.

On October 21, 2010, a termination hearing was held. Following said hearing,

the trial court dismissed the State’s petition against L.A.H.,2 finding that she had

substantially complied with her case plan. The State appeals.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

On appeal, the State asserts:

The trial court committed manifest error by finding that the mother was
in substantial compliance with her case plan, that there was reasonable
expectation of significant improvement in the mother’s condition, by
failing to find that the State had proven that the mother’s parental rights
should be terminated based upon Children’s Code Article 1015(4) and
(5) and Article 1036, and failing to find that it was in the best interest of
the children that the mother’s parental rights be terminated.

Additionally, the trial court committed manifest error by applying the
incorrect burden of proof and requiring the mother be convicted of
criminal charges before he would hold the two (2) drug busts against
her.

LAW AND DISCUSSION

Louisiana Children’s Code Article 1035 requires that the State establish “each

element of a ground for termination of parental rights by clear and convincing

evidence.” This court, in State in the Interest of M.R. v. S.F.H., 09-889, pp. 2-3

2
Though the parental rights of W.E., the biological father of C.L.H. and T.L.E., and A.E., Jr.,
the biological father of T.A.H., were terminated, W.E. and A.E., Jr., have not appealed the judgment,
and their respective rights are not at issue herein.

2

(La.App. 3 Cir. 12/9/09), 25 So.3d 1021, 1022-23, writ denied, 09-2812 (La.

1/14/10), 24 So.3d 878, set forth both the burden of proof which the State must meet

and the standard of appellate review in parental termination matters as follows:

The termination of parental rights is a two-pronged inquiry. First,
the State must prove by clear and convincing evidence the existence of,
at least, one ground for termination under La.Ch.Code art. 1015.
La.Ch.Code art. 1035(A); Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 102 S.Ct.
1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982). Only after the ground for termination is
found, the trial court must determine whether the termination is within
the best interest of the child. La.Ch.Code art. 1039. On review of a
termination of parental rights, an appellate court cannot set aside a trial
court’s finding of fact in the absence of manifest error or unless the
findings are clearly wrong. State in the Interest of K.G. & T.G.,
02-2886, 02-2892 (La.3/18/03), 841 So.2d 759.

Thus, the State must first establish by clear and convincing evidence one of the

statutory grounds for involuntary termination of a parent’s rights, and then the State

must establish by clear and convincing evidence that termination of parental rights

is in the child’s best interest. Id.

In the present case, the State’s Petition for Certification for Adoption and

Termination of Parental Rights alleged that termination of L.A.H.’s parental rights

was appropriate pursuant to La.Ch.Code art. 1015(4), La.Ch.Code art. 1015(5), and

La.Ch.Code art. 1036.3 The relevant subsections of La.Ch.Code art. 1015 include the

3
Louisiana Children’s Code Article 1036 governs proof of parental misconduct and states that
a lack of parental compliance with the family case plan and the lack of any reasonable expectation
of significant improvement in the near future may be evidenced in the following manner:

A. The admissibility of the conviction of a parent is governed by the Code of
Evidence.

B. A prior conviction may be proved by certified copy of the judgment of
conviction or certified copy of the minute entry of conviction.

C. Under Article 1015(5), lack of parental compliance with a case plan may
be evidenced by one or more of the following:

(1) The parent’s failure to attend court-approved scheduled visitations with
the child.

3

following grounds for termination:

(4) Abandonment of the child by placing him in the physical
custody of a nonparent, or the department, or by otherwise leaving him
under circumstances demonstrating an intention to permanently avoid
parental responsibility by any of the following:

....

(b) As of the time the petition is filed, the parent has failed to
provide significant contributions to the child’s care and support for any
period of six consecutive months.

....

(5) Unless sooner permitted by the court, at least one year has
elapsed since a child was removed from the parent’s custody pursuant
to a court order; there has been no substantial parental compliance with

(2) The parent’s failure to communicate with the child.

(3) The parent’s failure to keep the department apprised of the parent’s
whereabouts and significant changes affecting the parent’s ability to comply with the
case plan for services.

(4) The parent’s failure to contribute to the costs of the child’s foster care, if
ordered to do so by the court when approving the case plan.

(5) The parent’s repeated failure to comply with the required program of
treatment and rehabilitation services provided in the case plan.

(6) The parent’s lack of substantial improvement in redressing the problems
preventing reunification.

(7) The persistence of conditions that led to removal or similar potentially
harmful conditions.

D. Under Article 1015(5), lack of any reasonable expectation of significant
improvement in the parent’s conduct in the near future may be evidenced by one or
more of the following:

(1) Any physical or mental illness, mental deficiency, substance abuse, or
chemical dependency that renders the parent unable or incapable of exercising
parental responsibilities without exposing the child to a substantial risk of serious
harm, based upon expert opinion or based upon an established pattern of behavior.

(2) A pattern of repeated incarceration of the parent that has rendered the
parent unable to care for the immediate and continuing physical or emotional needs
of the child for extended periods of time.

(3) Any other condition or conduct that reasonably indicates that the parent
is unable or unwilling to provide an adequate permanent home for the child, based
upon expert opinion or based upon an established pattern of behavior.

4

a case plan for services which has been previously filed by the
department and approved by the court as necessary for the safe return of
the child; and despite earlier intervention, there is no reasonable
expectation of significant improvement in the parent’s condition or
conduct in the near future, considering the child’s age and his need for
a safe, stable, and permanent home.

The trial court found that the State had not established by clear and convincing

evidence the grounds for terminating L.A.H.’s parental rights. We hold that the trial

court did not clearly err in finding that the State failed to prove either ground by clear

and convincing evidence.

At the October 21, 2010 trial, the State first called L.A.H. to testify. When

questioned about whether she had complied with her case plan’s requirement that she

obtain employment, L.A.H. testified that to comply with her case plan, she worked

at her brother-in-law’s construction company until October of 2009. According to

L.A.H., she stopped working during the time that her children were returned to her

because she did not have a babysitter. After her children were again placed into

foster care, L.A.H. went back to work for her brother-in-law’s construction company

until February of 2010. She claims that her employment there ended when her sister

and brother-in-law separated. Thereafter, L.A.H. worked as a convenience store

clerk, then as a dancer at a gentleman’s club in Leesville. On the date of trial, she

was employed as a waitress at a gentleman’s club in Lake Charles. According to

L.A.H., she provided the required documentation of her employment in the form of

letters from her employers or copies of her check stubs to each of her foster care

managers.

When questioned about her living situation, L.A.H. testified that after her

children were taken into the State’s custody, she briefly went to live with her sister.

She then moved next door to her sister for a short time. In November of 2009, L.A.H.

5

moved to another residence in Sulphur. In March of 2010, L.A.H. moved to

Leesville. In May of 2010, she moved back to Lake Charles and lived at this

residence until September of 2010 when she moved in with her cousin in Sulphur.

On the date of trial, L.A.H. was still living with her cousin, but only until the home

next door was ready for her to move into. L.A.H. testified that the water and

electricity were scheduled to be connected the next day.

When questioned about whether she had complied with her case plan’s

requirement that she pay $100.00 per month for her contribution towards the

children’s care, L.A.H. did not deny that she had failed to comply every month.

Although she could not recall exactly how many times she had made payments,

L.A.H. testified that she also bought items for the children to give to them during

their visits. According to L.A.H., she attended all but one of her scheduled visits with

her children. Finally, L.A.H. denied having contact with D.C.4 after it became a

requirement that she not have contact with him.

When questioned about her required attendance of a parenting course, L.A.H.

testified that she had attended a parenting course entitled “Common Sense Parenting.”

When the State questioned L.A.H. as to why she had not attended the parenting

course entitled “Nurturing Parenting” which was the course specified by the State in

her case plan, L.A.H. responded that she believed the course she attended was in

compliance with her case plan, and she was never told differently.5

Only one witness was called by the State to counter the testimony of L.A.H.

4
D.C. was L.A.H.’s boyfriend when the drug raid which precipitated the three children’s
placement into the State’s custody occurred. Pursuant to L.A.H.’s pre-trial diversion plan for the
charges stemming from this drug raid, L.A.H. was not to have contact with D.C.
5
In addition, and even though it was not a part of her case plan, L.A.H. testified that she
attended mental health counseling.

6

Jamie Comeaux, the foster care manager, testified that she was assigned to this case

in February of 2010. Ms. Comeaux was the third foster care manager to handle this

case since C.L.H., T.L.E., and T.A.H. entered the State’s custody. Ms. Comeaux

testified that L.A.H. was not in compliance with her case plan because she did not pay

$100.00 per month for her contribution towards the children’s care, she had not

satisfactorily completed a substance abuse program, she had not attended the required

parenting class,6 and she had not refrained from having contact with D.C.

In its oral reasons for judgment, the trial court found that although it was

shown that L.A.H. did not pay $100.00 per month, “she did provide some other

material needs for the [children,]” such as purchasing shoes, clothing, and school

supplies. On the issue of L.A.H.’s alleged failure to obtain suitable and stable

housing, the trial court questioned Ms. Comeaux as to whether L.A.H. was ever

offered assistance in obtaining suitable housing. Ms. Comeaux’s response was

simply that L.A.H. had never told her she needed assistance in that regard.

It is evident from our thorough review of the record that the trial court did not

find the testimony elicited from Ms. Comeaux to be “clear and convincing.” While

the testimony at trial established that L.A.H. has not yet reached her goal of

completing the requirements of her case plan, the testimony at trial did not establish

that L.A.H. had failed to substantially comply with the requirements of her case plan.

Finally, the State asserts that “the trial court committed manifest error by

applying the incorrect burden of proof and requiring [L.A.H.] be convicted of

criminal charges before [it] would hold the two (2) drug busts against her.”

Essentially, the State would have the trial court treat an arrest as though it were the

6
Ms. Comeaux testified that L.A.H.’s case plan required that she attend “Nurturing
Parenting,” not “Common Sense Parenting.”

7

same as a conviction—this is simply not the case. The trial court was cognizant of

the fact that L.A.H. was arrested twice following two separate drug raids. The first

arrest was the drug raid which precipitated the three children’s placement into the

State’s custody; however, the charges in that instance against L.A.H. were dismissed.

The second occurred in February of 2010, and the charges against L.A.H. were

pending as of the date of trial of this matter. In its oral reasons for judgment, the trial

court declared, “She has not been convicted of any criminal conduct.” We agree.

The conviction of a parent may be introduced to prove parental misconduct pursuant

to La.Ch.Code art. 1036; however, the record before us does not contain evidence that

L.A.H. was convicted of any criminal charges. This argument is without merit.

Based on the record before us, we conclude the trial court did not manifestly

err in finding that the State failed to meet its heavy burden of presenting clear and

convincing proof of one of the statutory grounds for the involuntary termination of

L.A.H.’s parental rights and that termination of L.A.H.’s parental rights is in the best

interest of C.L.H., T.L.E., and T.A.H.

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court dismissing

the State’s Petition for Certification for Adoption and Termination of Parental Rights

of L.A.H.

AFFIRMED.

8