State in the Interest of S.L., B.B., C.W.

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

17-640

STATE IN THE INTEREST OF S.L., B.B., C.W.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
ELEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF SABINE, NO. 2885
HONORABLE JIMMY W. WILEY, DISTRICT JUDGE AD HOC

**********

D. KENT SAVOIE
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Marc T. Amy, D. Kent Savoie, and Van H. Kyzar, Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Brian C. McRae
Attorney at Law
111 N. Washington Avenue
Mansfield, Louisiana 71052
(318) 872-2973
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT:
C. W., Sr. (father of C.W., Jr.)

Kimberly S. Smith
State of Louisiana, Department of Children and Family Services
1525 Fairfield Avenue, Room 850
Shreveport, Louisiana 71101
(318) 676-7347
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana, Department of Children and Family Services

Jacqueline C. Williams
Acadiana Legal Services
134 St. Denis Street
Natchitoches, Louisiana 71457
(318) 352-7220
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
C. W., Jr. (child)

D. Scott Kendrick
Attorney at Law
1762 Texas Street
Natchitoches, Louisiana 71457
(318) 354-9146
COUNSEL FOR OTHER APPELLEE:
R. B. (father of R.B.)

Richard Woolbert
Attorney at Law
750 Southfield Road, Suite C
Shreveport, Louisiana 71106
(318) 219-3921
COUNSEL FOR OTHER APPELLEE:
C. L. W. (mother of C.W., Jr., S.L. and R.B.)

SAVOIE, Judge.

C.W., Sr.1 appeals the decision of the trial court terminating his parental rights

to the minor child, C.W., Jr. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

C.L.W. is the mother of three children, S.L. (born September 29, 1999), B.B.

(born May 14, 2002), and C.W., Jr. (born December 22, 2008). C.W., Sr. is the father

of C.W., Jr. and the step-father to S.L. and B.B. On July 7, 2014, the Department of

Children and Family Services (DCFS) received a report of possible sexual abuse of

sexual manipulation/fondling and passive sexual abuse concerning the minor children,

S.L. and B.B., by C.W., Sr. After an investigation, the children were deemed by

DCFS to be in present and impending danger. When told of the sexual abuse, the

children’s mother, C.L.W., refused to believe and/or protect her children from the

harm. In addition to the sexual abuse, DCFS also found evidence of poor parenting

practice, including purchasing and using marijuana in front of the children. The

children also indicated possible physical abuse in the past, as well as domestic abuse

between C.L.W. and C.W., Sr.

As a result of the investigation, an Oral Instanter Order was issued on July 8,

2014, and signed by the trial court on July 9, 2014, placing S.L., B.B. and C.W., Jr. in

the custody of DCFS. S.L. began living with her father and step-mother. B.B. and

C.W., Jr. were placed in relative placement through DCFS with their maternal

grandparents, N.L. and R.L. During the pendency of this matter, C.W., Sr. was

incarcerated in the Sabine Parish Detention Center in Many, Louisiana, and he did not

have visitation rights with C.W., Jr. because there was a “no contact order in place”

relating to the sexual abuse.

On September 22, 2014, in open court, DCFS dismissed its case regarding S.L.

as she was now in the custody of her father. On November 13, 2014, B.B. and C.W.,
1
Pursuant to Uniform Rules—Courts of Appeal, Rules 5–1 and 5–2, the initials of the parties
will be used to protect and maintain the privacy of the minor children involved in the proceeding.

Jr. were adjudicated as children in need of care, and a case plan was submitted.

DCFS’s placement of the children with the maternal grandparents was approved.

A termination of parental rights hearing concerning B.B. and C.W., Jr. was held

on April 7, 2017. C.L.W. stipulated to the termination of her parental rights as to both

children. The trial court terminated the parental rights of B.B.’s father, R.B. He has

not appealed that decision. The trial court also terminated the parental rights of C.W.,

Sr. He now appeals the judgment.

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review

The standard of review applicable to a termination of parental rights case is set

forth in State in Interest of M.C., 16-69, pp. 7-8 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/1/16), 194 So.3d

1235, 1240-41, writ denied, 16-1273 (La. 9/6/16), 205 So.3d 918 (citations omitted),

which states:

“A trial court’s findings on whether or not parental rights should be
terminated are subject to the manifest error standard of review.” In a case
involving the involuntary termination of parental rights, there are two
separate private interests involved: those of the parents and those of the
child. A parent has a natural and fundamental liberty interest in the
continuing companionship, care, custody, and management of their
children’s lives which warrants great deference. “In opposition to the
parent’s interest is the child’s interest in terminating parental rights that
prevent adoption and inhibit establishing secure, stable, long-term, and
continuous relationships found in a home with proper parental care.” In
termination proceedings, the interest of the parent must be balanced with
the interest of the child, and “courts of this state have consistently found
the interest of the child to be paramount over that of the parent.”

Louisiana Children’s Code Article 1035(A) requires that “[t]he petitioner bears

the burden of establishing each element of a ground for termination of parental rights

by clear and convincing evidence.” In a termination of parental rights case, DCFS

must establish two factors: (1) one of the grounds listed in La.Ch.Code art. 1015 by

clear and convincing evidence; and (2) that the termination of parental rights is in the

children’s best interest. State in Interest of M.C., 194 So.3d 1235.

2

II. Louisiana Children’s Code Article 1015

In order to terminate a parent’s right, DCFS must first prove, by clear and

convincing evidence, one of the grounds listed in La.Ch.Code art. 1015. In its

Reasons for Judgment dated May 5, 2017, the trial court found the following as it

relates to C.W., Sr.:

The basis (grounds) set forth for termination of the parental rights
of [C.W., Sr.] is that [C.W., Sr.] was convicted of Molestation of a
Juvenile pursuant to LA. R.S. 14:81.2(D) in the case captioned as “State
of Louisiana vs. [C.W., Sr.], Docket No. 73837of the Eleventh (11th)
Judicial District Court for the Parish of Sabine, Louisiana.”

The evidence submitted in the trial proved by clear and convincing
evidence that [C.W., Sr.] was convicted of Molestation of a Juvenile
under the age of 12 years of age. Certified court minutes were received
into evidence. Also, he testified in the trial that he was serving his time
and working in a part of the prison whereby he earns money. However,
he has not paid any money for support of his son.

The victim of his crime was his minor female step-child, living and
residing in the family home of [C.W., Sr.] and his wife [C.L.W.]. His
sexual exploitation and abuse of his minor stepdaughter at the family
home constitute extreme abuse, cruel and inhumane treatment below the
reasonable standard of human decency. His conduct more than likely
resulted in psychological injury to his victim. His parental misconduct
toward his stepdaughter was cruel and inhumane treatment which
justifies the termination of his parental rights over his son, [C.W., Jr.].

[C.W., Sr.] was sentenced to serve fifty-eight (58) years at hard
labor with the Louisiana Department of Corrections with a mandatory
service time of twenty-five (25) years.

In accord with C.J.P. 1015(6), the period of incarceration is of
such a duration that [C.W., Sr.] will not be able to care for the child for a
lengthy period of time and his son deserves a safe, stable, and permanent
home.

The trial court based its decision on La.Ch.Code art. 1015(6), which sets forth

the grounds for terminating parental rights. We note that, at the time of the trial in

this matter, La.Ch.Code art. 1015(6) had been amended by 2016 La. Acts No. 608, §1.

Louisiana Children’s Code Article 1015(6), relating to a parent sentenced to a period

of incarceration, was renumbered and is now La.Ch.Code art. 1015(7). There were no

substantive changes made to this paragraph. It is clear that the trial court was

3

referencing La.Ch.Code art. 1015(7) in its reasons for ruling. As a ground for

termination of parental rights, La.Ch.Code art. 1015(7) states:

The child is in the custody of the department pursuant to a court
order or placement by the parent; the parent has been convicted and
sentenced to a period of incarceration of such duration that the parent
will not be able to care for the child for an extended period of time,
considering the child’s age and his need for a safe, stable, and permanent
home; and despite notice by the department, the parent has refused or
failed to provide a reasonable plan for the appropriate care of the child
other than foster care.

The evidence shows that C.W., Sr. was convicted of Molestation of a Juvenile,

with the victim being his step-daughter, who is also C.W., Jr.’s half-sister. The

evidence further shows that he was sentenced to fifty-eight years in the custody of the

Department of Corrections. He is required to serve twenty-five of those years before

being eligible for parole. Moreover, although he admitted to earning money in prison,

he has not provided any support for C.W., Jr.

Considering the foregoing, we find that the trial court did not commit manifest

error in finding that DCFS met its burden of proof under La.Ch.Code art. 1015(7).

III. Best Interest of the Child, C.W., Jr.

Next, DCFS must prove that the termination of parental rights is in the best

interest of the child. In this respect, the trial court found:

The testimony of [C.W., Jr.]’s maternal grandparent, [R.L.], is
impressive and he has shown by his conduct his total commitment to
serving the best interest and welfare of his grandson. [R.L. and N.L.]
stepped forward immediately to care for their grandson.

[C.W., Jr.] has been in the care of [R.L. and N.L] since his original
placement with [DCFS]. [R.L.]’s testimony reveals he and grandmother,
[N.L.], are absolutely dedicated to the care, safety, and wellbeing of their
grandson. [C.W., Jr.] is loved and cared for by [R.L. and N.L.] and he is
happy and is succeeding in school.

[DCFS], in its case, reports that the grandparents have been totally
cooperative in all activities as caretakers involving their grandson. The
case plan review of June 23, 2016 reveals the behavioral changes of
[C.W., Jr.] and evidences his progress and that [R.L. and N.L] have
completed MAPP classes to become certified foster parents.

4

The record reflects that C.W., Jr. has been placed in the loving and secure home

of his maternal grandparents with his sister B.B. He has been in this home since the

beginning of his time in DCFS custody, which at this point has been three and a half

years. C.W., Jr. has not seen his father since November 10, 2014. The evidence

shows that C.W., Jr. is doing very well in school under the care of his grandparents,

receiving straight A’s. He is happy, well-adjusted, and thriving in his new

environment, and his grandparents are in the process of becoming certified to adopt

their grandchildren.

C.W., Sr. argues in his brief that “it is not in [C.W., Jr.]’s best interest to grow

up in an environment that produced [C.L.W.]” This seems to be his only argument.

No evidence has been produced to bolster this assertion. C.W., Sr. does not put forth

anyone else who would be better able to care for his son. As such, we find this

contention without merit. There is ample evidence showing that R.L. and N.L are

providing a safe and stable environment for C.W., Jr., one that he has called home for

three and a half years. Over these years, there have been many meetings with DCFS,

reports, and therapy to repair the damage done by his parents. DCFS believes this

placement to be in the best interest of C.W., Jr., and the trial court agreed.

When weighing the rights of the parent against the rights of the children,

“courts of this state have consistently found the interest of the child to be paramount

over that of the parent.” State in Interest of M.C., 194 So.3d at 1241. As such, we

find that the trial court did not commit manifest error in determining that termination

of C.W., Sr.’s parental rights was in the best interest of C.W., Jr.

DECREE

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. All costs associated with this

appeal are assessed to C.W., Sr.

AFFIRMED.

5

This opinion is NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. Uniform Rules—
Courts of Appeal. Rule 2–16.3.

6