State in the Interest of J.T.B.

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

JAC 18-443

STATE IN THE INTEREST OF

J.T.B., ET AL.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF CALCASIEU, NO. 30993
HONORABLE LILYNN ANNETTE CUTRER, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

BILLY HOWARD EZELL
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Billy Howard Ezell, Phyllis M. Keaty, and Van H. Kyzar,
Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Nicholas Pizzolatto, Jr.
State of Louisiana, Children and Family Services
1919 Kirkman Street
Lake Charles, LA 70601
(337) 491-2066
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana

James Wade Smith
P. O. Box 1706
Lake Charles, LA 70602
(337) 436-8424
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT:
L. N. B. - Mother

Edward M. Nichols, Jr.
827 Pujo St.
Lake Charles, LA 70601
(337) 439-8587
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
R. C.

Mike K. Stratton
Public Defender’s Office
1032 Ryan St.
Lake Charles, LA 70601
(337) 436-1758
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEES:
B. D.
R. J.

Lacey Bodley
Children’s Advocacy Program
1 Lakeshore Dr, Ste. 1585
Lake Charles, LA 70601
(337) 491-2461
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEES:
L. A. B.
L. L. B.
L. N. D.
J. A. B.
J. T. B.
L. I. B.

Lachasity Bernard
In Proper Person
1302 Jordan Street
New Iberia, LA 70560
(337) 739-4210

EZELL, Judge.

In this matter, L.N.B. (hereinafter “the Mother”) appeals the decision of the

trial court terminating her parental rights to her six children, L.A.B., L.I.B., L.L.B.,

L.N.D., J.A.B., and J.T.B., and certifying the children as free and available for

adoption.1 For the following reasons, we hereby affirm the decision of the trial

court.

On June 15, 2016, the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS)

received a call that the Mother was unable to care for the children, as she was

passed out due to synthetic marijuana use. DCFS went to the home and found a

house that was unfit for children to live in. The home was filled with roaches,

devoid of food, trash was scattered throughout the house, and there were no beds

for the children. The house was hot due to a lack of air conditioning. DCFS

transported the Mother to the grocery store to buy food, purchased two toddler

beds, two pack-and-play beds, and a window air conditioner. A safety plan was

put in place that day stating that the Mother would refrain from drug use while

caring for the children, would ensure the home was adequate for children to live in,

and that she would make sure they were properly supervised.

On June 28, 2016, DCFS received an additional report that the Mother was

again using synthetic marijuana, that she was being evicted, and that the children

were again unsupervised. When DCFS arrived at the home, the Mother was

incoherent and unable to answer any questions. The home was again in disarray

with trash and food on the floor. The children were dirty and several of them

reeked of urine. Once again, there was little to no edible food in the house. One of

1
The parental rights of the fathers of the children were also terminated, but they do not
appeal that decision, rendering that judgment final as to them.

the toddler beds and both pack-and-plays DCFS had purchased were torn up or

destroyed. While the window air conditioner had been put up, it was not running

and the house was hot.

DCFS filed for an instanter order that day and removed the children from the

home. A case plan was developed for the Mother in order for her to reconcile with

the children. The Mother was to find stable housing, was to refrain from drug use,

to find employment, to attend anger management classes, and to provide $25 per

month support per child while the children were in the care of the DCFS, among

other things. After the children were in the care of DCFS for roughly twenty

months, DCFS moved to terminate the Mother’s parental rights. After a hearing on

the matter, the trial court found that the Mother had not complied with the case

plan and that the children had been in the custody of the DCFS for over eighteen

months. Accordingly, the trial court terminated the Mother’s parental rights under

La.Ch.Code art. 1015(5)(b) and (c), as well as La.Ch.Code art. 1015(6). From that

decision, the Mother appeals.

On appeal, the Mother comes before this court in a pro se manner. She does

not assert any assignments of error, but makes a general and moving appeal for the

return of her children. This appeal comes not in a brief, but in a letter. Because

the Mother is currently a pro se litigant who lacks formal training in the law and its

rules of procedure, out of an abundance of caution and considering the delicate

nature of these proceedings, we will treat her letter as asserting a general

assignment of error that the trial court was incorrect in terminating her parental

rights. We will review the record as if that assignment of error was properly

alleged. See Bernard v. Lafayette City–Parish Consol. Gov’t., 11-816 (La.App. 3

Cir. 12/7/11), 80 So.3d 665.

2

In State in the Interest of J.A., 99-2905, pp. 7-8 (La. 1/12/00), 752 So.2d 806,

810-811(citations omitted), the supreme court stated:

In any case to involuntarily terminate parental rights, there are
two private interests involved: those of the parents and those of the
child. The parents have a natural, fundamental liberty interest to the
continuing companionship, care, custody and management of their
children warranting great deference and vigilant protection under the
law, and due process requires that a fundamentally fair procedure be
followed when the state seeks to terminate the parent-child legal
relationship. However, the child has a profound interest, often at odds
with those of his parents, 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
balancing these interests, the courts of this state have consistently
found the interest of the child to be paramount over that of the parent.

“We review a trial court’s determination as to whether parental rights should

be terminated according to the manifest error standard of review.” State in Interest

of M.A.N., 12-946, p. 3 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/28/12), 106 So.3d 288, 290-91.

Louisiana Children’s Code Article 1015 sets forth eight
grounds for termination of parental rights. Although the State need
only establish one ground for termination, the trial court must also
find that the termination is in the best interest of the child in order to
meet the statutory requirement of La.Ch.Code art. 1035(A), which
requires that grounds for termination be proven by clear and
convincing evidence.

State in the Interest of J.K.G. and J.L.G., 11-908, pp. 5–6 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1/11/12),

118 So.3d 10, 14–15.

In the instant case, the State sought termination of the Mother’s parental

rights based on La.Ch.Code art. 1015(5)(b) and (c), as well as La.Ch.Code art.

1015(6). Those articles list grounds for termination of parental rights as including:

(5) 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:

....

3

(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.

(c) As of the time the petition is filed, the parent has failed to
maintain significant contact with the child by visiting him or
communicating with him for any period of six consecutive months.

(6) 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 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.

Reviewing the record before this court, we can find no error in the trial

court’s ruling. The record shows that nearly twenty months had passed between

the time the children were removed from the Mother’s care and the trial on this

matter. The Mother failed to substantially comply with her case plan.

While the Mother testified she had started working just prior to trial, she had

not maintained steady employment during the prior year-and-a-half. She still had

no housing of her own, and moved frequently enough that DCFS could not visit

her at any home to inspect the house. DCFS was unable to reach her throughout

the twenty months over the phone. Although she alleges she sought drug treatment,

the Mother has never provided DCFS with proof of this treatment or signed any

releases so that DCFS could investigate her claims on its own. Furthermore, the

Mother failed one drug test, testing positive for cocaine. Her admitted drug of

choice, synthetic marijuana, would not have shown up on drug screens.

The Mother frequently missed visitation with the children and, according to

the testimony of the CASA workers supervising those visits, she seemed mostly

uninterested in the children, giving them her phone, rather than interacting with

4

them in the limited time she could see them. Furthermore, there is no evidence that

the Mother paid any support to DCFS in accordance with her case plan. While the

Mother alleges she has “paid” support to DCFS via the seizure of a tax return, she

offered no proof, the DCFS has no record of the alleged payment at all, and worse,

the Mother blatantly admitted to receiving any such refund via obvious tax fraud.

She claims she received a sizable tax refund by claiming her children for a year in

which they were entirely in the custody of DCFS and by claiming other family

members who did not live with her. Even if the illegal refund had actually been

seized, the Mother still went over eighteen months without paying support prior to

the alleged seizure, as noted by the trial court. Finally, the Mother admits she did

not attend anger management counseling as required by the case plan.

It is clear from the record before this court that the Mother did not

substantially comply with her case plan and termination of her parental rights is in

the best interests of the children. As noted by the trial court, the Mother may want

her children back, but over the course of twenty months she failed to do the things

required to have them returned to her care. We can find no error in the ruling of

the trial court below.

For the above reasons, the decision of the trial court is affirmed. Costs of

this appeal are hereby assessed against the Mother.

AFFIRMED.

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

5