State in the Interest of A. S.

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

22-155

STATE IN THE INTEREST OF

A. S.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
THIRTY-THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF ALLEN, NO. J-2020-056
HONORABLE E. DAVID DESHOTELS, JR., DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

D. KENT SAVOIE
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Shannon J. Gremillion, D. Kent Savoie, and Sharon Darville
Wilson, Judges.

AFFIRMED.

John Erwin Demoruelle
Attorney at Law
217 West Sixth Avenue
Oberlin, Louisiana 70655
(337) 639-2220
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT:
C.S. (Mother)

Annette Fuller Roach
Louisiana Appellate Project
Post Office Box 6547
Lake Charles, Louisiana 70606-6547
(337) 436-2900
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT:
C.S. (Mother)

Oliver “Jackson” Schrumpf
Schrumpf & Schrumpf
3801 Maplewood Drive
Sulphur, Louisiana 70663
(337) 625-9077
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
Curtis Spears
Gayla Spears

James David Miguez
Acadiana Legal Services
Post Office Box 2148
Lake Charles, Louisiana 70602
(337) 439-0377
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
A.S. (Minor Child)

Heath J. Dorsey
State of Louisiana, Department of Children and Family Services
1919 Kirkman Street
Post Office Box 1487
Lake Charles, Louisiana 70605
(337) 491-2545
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana, Department of Child and Family Services

SAVOIE, Judge.

Appellant C.S. 1 appeals the judgment of the trial court, terminating her

parental rights to the minor child, A.S. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On May 21, 2020, the Allen Parish Department of Children and Family

Services (DCFS) received a report of possible neglect by C.S. The minor children

living in the home were A.S., nine-months-old, J.E., seven-years-old, Kar.E.,

thirteen-years-old, and Kal.E., fifteen-years-old. The report alleged that C.S. was

doing drugs, specifically methamphetamines and marijuana, in the home, around

the children, and with the oldest child. It was also reported that another person

lived in the home, namely Darren Cappel, who was also doing drugs around the

children.

On May 22, 2020, DCFS worker Paula Bowman and Allen Parish Sheriff’s

Office Deputy Richard Wiseman knocked on the door of C.S.’s home, located in

Kinder, Louisiana. After knocking several times, a woman came to the door but

refused to let them in. Bowman and Wiseman contacted a judge who issued an

oral order to enter the home. 2 Upon entering, Bowman interviewed C.S., J.E.,

Kar.E. and Kal.E. C.S. denied using drugs, and when she was asked to submit to a

urine drug screen, she refused, stating she would not do so unless it was court

ordered. She also denied that Darren Cappel lived in the home. She further denied

that she had a history of substance abuse and mental illness. She refused to sign

forms necessary for DCFS and stopped cooperating with the interview.

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 child involved in this
proceeding.
2
A written judgment was signed May 26, 2020.

Bowman observed drugs and drug paraphernalia in the home. When

interviewing J.E., she stated that her mom smokes her “chill lax pipe” and pointed

to a bong. J.E. said that it helps her mom relax. J.E. explained that it usually

makes her mom fall asleep; however, J.E. has a hard time waking her mother up

when the baby is crying. J.E. stated that she normally stays with her paternal

grandmother, but she had to go to her mom’s house when her grandmother became

ill.

Bowman interviewed Sheila Spears, who confirmed that Darren Cappel was

living at C.S.’s residence off and on. He is married to C.S.’s sister-in-law Alisha.

Sheila Spears stated that she knows Darren Cappel abuses drugs, and he has

admitted to it. Sheila Spears explained that D.S., C.S.’s husband and A.S.’s father3,

also does drugs. Sheila Spears stated that C.S. is an excellent mother, and she has

never seen her under the influence. Next, Valarie Spears, D.S.’s sister, was

interviewed by Bowman. It was her opinion that C.S. is not mentally stable.

Kal.E. was interviewed by Bowman. She explained that she had not been to

her mother’s house in over two weeks. Kal.E. admitted to smoking marijuana on

her mother’s bong, while her mother was asleep. Kal.E. stated that she spends

most of her time at her father’s house and visits with her mother on weekends.

Kal.E. also stated that she assumes Darren Cappel does drugs. Kal.E. completed a

drug screen and tested negative for all substances.

During her interview with Bowman, Kar.E. admitted to smoking marijuana

at least twice a week. Kar.E. had not seen her mother using methamphetamines,

and she did not believe she would because of her step-father’s (D.S.’s) usage.

3
D.S. was incarcerated at the time of this DCFS visit.

2

Kar.E. stated that her mother keeps her bong on the closet shelf and the marijuana

in the drawer in her bathroom

Mr. Easton was interviewed by Bowman also. He is the father of Kal.E.,

Kar.E., and J.E. He stated that C.S. is not mentally stable. He also stated that she

was using methamphetamines with D.S., which would cause them to hallucinate.

The affidavit in support of the instanter order states:

[T]he following circumstances exists which indicate that there is a
substantial, immediate danger to the child, which precludes provision
of preventative services as an alternative to removal: The agency
attempted to fully assess [C.S.]. [C.S.] was not compliant. [C.S.] is
abusing drugs in the home with her children and in the room with her
infant child. She has drugs and paraphernalia in her home and despite
her knowledge that her children are using them, she has failed to
remove these things from her home. [C.S.] continues to struggle with
her mental health and has a current warrant for her arrest. [C.S.] also
has other known substance abusers living in the home periodically
with her children and her. [C.S.] has a history with the agency and
[A.S.] was removed in September, 2019. The allegations in that
report are similar to the current report. Up until [D.S.’s] incarceration
in February, 2020, there was continued domestic violence in the home
in the presence of the children. Although the child was returned at the
adjudication, [C.S.] continues to have some of the same diminished
caretaker protective capacities[,] and [D.S.] is currently incarcerated.

An Oral Instanter Order was issued on May 22, 2020, placing A.S. in the

temporary custody of the State. The written judgment was signed on May 26,

2020. A Continued Custody Hearing was held on May 27, 2020. The court

ordered C.S. to submit to a hair follicle test. The court found that there were

reasonable grounds to believe that A.S. was in need of care, specifically, because

C.S. was arrested on an active bench warrant, drugs and drug paraphernalia were

found in the home, and there were no suitable caretakers left in the home as A.S.’s

father was currently incarcerated. For these reasons, the court continued the

custody of A.S. in the care of the State.

3

A petition to adjudicate the minor child, A.S., as a child in need of care was

filed on July 14, 2020. DCFS held a family team meeting on June 25, 2020, via

conference call, which was attended by C.S. and the child’s appointed attorney.

Recommendations were made regarding the case plan for C.S., which were:

• [C.S.] will complete a substance abuse assessment with an
agency-approved provider. [C.S.] will provide the agency with
contact information for the substance abuse service provider.
[C.S.] will complete a release of information for the agency in
order for the worker to obtain recommendations and progress
notes.

• [C.S.] will complete a mental health assessment with an
agency-approved provider. [C.S.] will provide the agency with
contact information for the substance abuse service provider.
[C.S.] will comply with any recommendations made by the
mental health service provider. [C.S.] will complete a release
of information for the agency in order for the worker to obtain
recommendations and progress notes.

• [C.S.] will complete random urine drug screens and/or hair
follicle testing as directed by the agency or substance abuse
service provider. Failure to comply with random urine drug
screens and/or hair follicle testing will be considered as a
positive screening.

• [C.S.] will maintain a stable home for [A.S.]. [C.S.] will
maintain employment or legal resources to meet the financial
needs of [her] children. [C.S.] will provide proof of her income
to the worker.

• [C.S.] will attend and successfully complete domestic violence
classes with an agency approved provider. [C.S.] will sign
release of information forms for the case manager to check on
progress.

• [C.S.] will be referred to ETC for Nurturing Parenting after
completing the mental health and substance abuse components
of the case plan. [C.S.] will comply with any recommendations
made by [the] parenting educator. [C.S.] will compete a release
of information for the agency in order for the worker to obtain
recommendations and progress notes.

• [C.S.] [will] participate in a financial assessment and pay
parental contributions or child support as required. [C.S.] will

4

pay parental contribution[s] of $25 per month pending
assessment by Support Enforcement or other court order.

In the report produced by DCFS for the September 2020 Review Hearing, it

is noted that C.S. had not completed a substance abuse assessment or mental health

assessment, nor had she completed a drug screen or hair follicle test. It was

requested that she submit to a drug test on multiple occasions, but she refused each

time. She also had not made herself available for home visits by DCFS. While

C.S. stated that she was working at the Golden Nugget Casino, she had not

provided proof of income or employment to DCFS. Regarding the domestic

violence classes, Ms. Sheema Forsythe with Oasis Women’s Shelter reported that

C.S. would call to schedule an appointment, but she would not participate in her

sessions. With regard to the parenting classes, in order for her to be referred to

these classes, C.S. must submit two negative drug tests, which she did not do,

before she can begin the classes. C.S. made no parental contributions. C.S. did

visit with A.S. every other week.

The next review hearing was held in November 2020. The progress report

on C.S. was substantially similar to the previous report except that she stated she

was no longer employed at the Golden Nugget Casino. She never provided proof

of this employment to DCFS. Additionally, due to the aftermath of Hurricane

Laura, C.S. missed some visits with A.S., and she stated she was unable to video

conference with A.S. because she was without a telephone.

The next review hearing occurred in March 2021. C.S.’s progress was

substantially similar to the previous reports. Regarding visitation, the report stated

that C.S.’s last in-person visit with A.S. occurred on August 20, 2020. C.S.

5

conducted one video call with A.S. on October 29, 2020. It was also noted in this

report that D.S. passed away on January 9, 2021.4

On August 24, 2021, a Petition for Certification for Adoption and

Termination of Parental Rights was filed in this case. The petition alleged that C.S.

“failed to comply with the court approved case plan and there is no reasonable

expectation that she will substantially comply in the future.”

A report was prepared for the court on August 23, 2021, describing C.S.’s

progress on her case plan. The report stated that C.S. told DCFS she had

“completed a substance abuse or mental health assessment and is in treatment at

Lake Charles Behavioral Health with Ms. Jennifer Jones.” DCFS attempted to

verify this information; however, because C.S. did not sign the consent forms sent

to her by DCFS, the healthcare provider could not release any information. C.S.

also stated that her doctor prescribed her medicine for her mental health, which she

was taking. Again, the DCFS worker was unable to verify this information

because C.S. did not allow the DCFS worker to visit her home and would not sign

the HIPAA releases. Regarding housing, C.S. told DCFS that she is again residing

in Kinder, Louisiana. DCFS was unable to verify this information. DCFS tried to

set up a home visit with C.S., but she has refused to allow DCFS into her home

throughout the case. The report stated that C.S. was not employed. As to the

domestic violence education, Ms. Forsythe explained that C.S. had completed three

classes over the year that her case plan has been in place. Ms. Forsythe further

explained that she had not heard from C.S. in two months at the time of this report.

C.S. reported to DCFS that she had attended four sessions with Eddie Windham,

4
In the petition for termination of parental rights, D.S.’s date of death is listed as January
6, 2021.

6

which DCFS was unable to confirm due to the lack of consents signed by C.S. C.S.

was referred to parenting classes with ETC, but she still had not provided the two

negative drug tests needed to take these classes. While C.S. stated she was taking

a different parenting class, DCFS was unable to verify this information. C.S. did

not pay any parental contributions throughout the course of this matter. C.S. began

visiting A.S. again every other week in April 2021.

On September 2, 2021, the trial court held an answer hearing on the petition

for termination of parental rights. C.S. did not attend. Counsel of record for C.S.

made an appearance and informed the court that C.S. would be consenting to the

termination of her parental rights. At that time, the trial on the petition for

termination was set for September 30, 2021. At the answer hearing, DCFS worker

Dawn Wade testified that C.S. had not complied with her case plan. The trial court

ordered that A.S. remain in the custody of the State, with adoption as the primary

goal and the secondary goal being reunification.

On September 30, 2021, the case was called to proceed with the trial on the

merits. C.S. was present. In court, the State moved for a continuance, with no

objection from the other parties. The State had recently been made aware that C.S.

finally provided releases for medical records from certain healthcare providers.

The records were ordered, but they had not yet been received. Also, if C.S. was

attempting to comply with the case plan, the State wanted to give her the

opportunity to continue to do so before a trial on the termination of her parental

rights. The court granted the continuance, wanting to give C.S. every opportunity

to comply. The State requested that the court order C.S. to undergo a random drug

test at the district attorney’s office. Without objection from C.S., the trial court

7

ordered the drug test. The trial on the petition for termination of parental rights

was continued to November 9, 2021.

On November 9, 2021, the matter was again continued. The State explained

that there has been some compliance by C.S. with her case plan, so that the State

did not feel comfortable moving forward with termination of her parental rights.

However, the State did note that it needed more substantial progress.

A trial on the merits of the Petition for Certification for Adoption and

Termination of Parental Rights was held on January 4, 2022. Several witnesses

testified. The first witness was DCFS worker Dawn Wade. Ms. Wade stated that

C.S. was assessed a financial contribution of $25 per month, which has never been

paid. Regarding safe and stable housing, Ms. Wade explained that, since A.S. had

been in State custody, C.S. moved several times. DCFS requested several home

visits, which were all denied by C.S. However, C.S. had recently moved into a

new apartment in November 2021, and Ms. Wade was allowed to visit that

apartment. This was the first home visit DCFS was allowed by C.S. since A.S.

first came to be in the custody of the State.

Ms. Wade testified that C.S.’s case plan requires her to provide proof of

income to DCFS. From the summer of 2020 through December 2021, C.S. never

provided proof of income to DCFS. In December 2021, C.S. provided DCFS with

proof of supplemental security income (SSI).

C.S. must also submit to random drug screens as part of her case plan. Ms.

Wade testified that there have been several occasions when DCFS had requested

C.S. submit to a drug screen and a hair follicle test, and C.S. refused. The court

did order C.S. to undergo a drug test on September 30, 2021. Ms. Wade stated that

8

C.S. passed the urinalysis drug screen with a negative test, although she did not

follow protocol because she left the facility and came back later in the day.

Because substance abuse was a leading factor in this case, C.S. was required

to complete a substance abuse assessment. Ms. Wade testified that C.S. did

complete that assessment with Jennifer Jones at Lake Charles Behavioral Health.

From that assessment, it was recommended that C.S. complete at least twelve

classes with Lake Charles Behavioral Health and continue with follow up

treatments. Ms. Wade explained that C.S. had attended some classes, but she had

also missed a few of the sessions with her counselor. Therefore, she had not

completed the recommendations.

Ms. Wade also testified that a mental health assessment is included in the

substance abuse assessment, and C.S. is on medicine for her mental health. C.S. is

required, per her case plan, to attend parenting classes through ETC; however, Ms.

Wade testified that C.S. had not attended these classes. C.S. must submit two

negative drug tests to begin these classes, and she had not done so. She only

submitted the one drug test that was ordered by the court. Instead, C.S. attended

some parenting classes with Lake Charles Behavioral Health.

C.S. testified that she attends Lake Charles Behavioral Health three times

per week. C.S. stated that she is drug tested at Lake Charles Behavioral Health,

and she passed those tests. However, C.S. did not provide evidence of these tests.

She said she was on her way to completing her case plan. Regarding her living

situation, C.S. testified that she moved into her apartment in July 2021. On cross-

examination, counsel for the State pointed out that Ms. Wade requested a home

visit in August 2021, September 2021, and October 2021, all of which were denied

by C.S. Counsel also noted that this was the second time A.S. was removed from

9

C.S.’s care. A.S. was first removed in September 2019, but she was ultimately

returned to the home. C.S. testified that her three older children do not live with

her. Her three eldest children live in Lake Charles with their paternal grandmother.

After hearing the evidence, the trial court found:

We are talking about a young child who is 2 years old, who has
basically been in State’s care most of its life. Under the Article
1015(6), the court is to consider the child’s age, [her] need for safe,
stable, and permanent home. This concerns the Court specifically or
particularly because of the young age of this child. This case has been
lingering on for eighteen months from the time the child first came
into care. This Petition for Termination of Parental Rights was filed
in August of 2021. From the time the child came into State’s care
from July of 2020 to August of 2021, there was hardly any
compliance by the mother working her case plan. Her location was
pretty much unknown to the Agency. There was no stability in her
life, no source of income, no compliance with some of the
requirements to be evaluated by, to be assessed and to undergo certain
requirements. She was not able to prove for the first twelve or
fourteen months, probably fourteen months, she was not able to prove
that she had any housing that was stable and secure. She was not able
to show or prove that she had income. She was not able to show or
prove about some of the drug screens and substance abuse and being
evaluated. The court does acknowledge that since [this] petition was
filed - - since the Petition was filed mother did start to make efforts.
The testimony that the Court heard was that if, under optimum
circumstance, if the mother were permitted to [continue] to work this
case plan that it would probably take, under great - - under perfect
circumstances, another four to six months, that is if she does
everything that she is supposed to be doing. The Court, because of
the age of the child, and because the directive under the law, is that
the Court consider that age and consider the child’s need for a safe
and stable and permanent home, that we cannot afford to continue to
wait. The Court finds that the case has been proven by clear and
convincing evidence that the mother did fail to substantially comply
for the first fourteen months.

The trial court terminated C.S.’s parental rights as to A.S., finding that it was

in the child’s best interest. C.S. now appeals.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

C.S. assigns the following errors:

10

1. The court manifestly erred in terminating the parental rights of
C.S. to her minor child, A.S., as the evidence was insufficient to
clearly and convincingly prove that C.S. had not substantially
complied with the case plan or that C.S. intended and did
abandon the child.

2. The court manifestly erred by finding that the State proved by
clear and convincing evidence that termination of C.S.’s
parental rights was in the best interests of A.S.

LAW AND DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review

This court in State in the Interest of J.A., 17-500, pp. 3-4 (La.App. 3 Cir.

1/4/18), 237 So.3d 69, 72, explained:

A parent has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in
establishing and maintaining a meaningful relationship with his or her
children. State in Interest of A.C., 93-1125 (La. 1/27/94), 643 So.2d
719. This parental interest includes the “care, custody, and
management of their child.” State ex rel. J.M., 02-2089, p. 7 (La.
1/28/03), 837 So.2d 1247, 1252. Consistent with the parental interest,
the state has a legitimate interest in limiting or terminating parental
rights under certain conditions. Id. Because termination of parental
rights is a severe action, the state bears the burden of establishing each
element of a ground for termination by clear and convincing evidence.
La.Ch.Code art. 1035; State ex rel. B.H. v. A.H., 42,864 (La.App. 2
Cir. 10/24/07), 968 So.2d 881. The statutory grounds for involuntary
termination of parental rights are found in La.Ch.Code art. 1015,
although “only one ground need be established.” State ex rel. B.H.,
968 So.2d at 885. Once a ground for termination has been established,
the parental rights may be terminated by the trial court if it is in the
child’s best interest. Id; La.Ch.Code art. 1037.

The trial court’s judgment terminating parental rights is reviewed under a

manifest error standard of review. State in the Interest of M.J.F., 18-584 (La.App.

3 Cir. 12/6/18), 261 So.3d 879.

A trial court’s factual determinations as to whether there has been
substantial compliance with a case plan, whether a significant
indication of reformation has been shown, and whether the parent is
likely to reform will not be set aside unless the record reflects that the
trial court is clearly wrong.

11

State ex rel. G.O., 10-571, pp. 5-6 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/8/11), 68 So.3d 636, 640, writ

denied, 11-1512 (La. 7/21/11), 67 So.3d 479.

II. Applicable Children’s Code Articles

The trial court in this case terminated C.S.’s parental rights under

La.Ch.Code art. 1015(6), which states:

The grounds for termination of parental rights are:

....

(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.

Louisiana Children’s Code Article 1036(C) and (D) provides the grounds for

lack of parental compliance with a case plan, stating:

C. Under Article 1015(6), 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.

(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.

12

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

(8)(a) The parent’s failure to provide a negative test result for all
synthetic or other controlled dangerous substances, except for any
drug for which the parent has lawfully received a prescription, at the
completion of a reasonable case plan.

(b) For purposes of this Article, “controlled dangerous substance”
shall have the meaning ascribed in R.S. 40:961.

D. Under Article 1015(6), 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.

The trial court applied the factors of La.Ch.Code art. 1036(C) and (D) to the

present case, finding:

The Court looks more specifically toward the items in Article 1036,
proof of parental misconduct, and looks at C, Subsection 1, parent[’]s
failure to keep the Department apprised of her whereabouts, that
applies. Number 4, the parent[’]s failure to contribute to the costs of
the child’s care applies. The parent[’]s repeated failure to comply
with the requirement program of treatment and rehabilitation applies.
Failure to provide negative tests for synthetic or controlled dangerous
substances applies. And I acknowledge that applies more for the first
fourteen months than it has for the last three months. But I cannot - -
it is the Court’s opinion that this case dragged on long enough. So,
the Court does grant the State’s request to terminate parental rights,
does find that it is in the best interest of the minor [child]. The Court
also acknowledges that there is a couple, a loving couple, who is
available to continue to care for that child, and [they] offer that

13

permanent placement that that child needs and desires[] or needs and
requires. And they are an adoptive placement.

Louisiana Children’s Code Article 1037(B), provides:

When the court finds that the alleged grounds set out in any
Paragraph of Article 1015 are proven by the evidentiary standards
required by Article 1035 and that it is in the best interests of the child,
it shall order the termination of the parental rights of the parent
against whom the allegations are proven. The court shall enter written
findings on both issues. The consideration of best interests of the child
shall include consideration of the child’s attachment to his current
caretakers.

At trial, there was evidence from Stacy and Kevin Hartstine, A.S.’s foster

parents. Stacy Hartstine stated that initially they did not consider being a

prospective adoptive home for A.S. However, after having A.S. in their home,

they found they love her, and they have a good relationship with C.S. Stacy

Hartstine testified that they work well with C.S.

III. Assignments of Error

In her assignments of error, C.S. argues that the trial court erred in

terminating her parental rights because the evidence was insufficient to clearly and

convincingly prove that C.S. had not complied with her case plan or that she

intended to abandon A.S. She also complains that the trial court erred in finding

that termination was in the best interest of A.S. We disagree.

Substance Abuse Assessment with an Agency Approved Provider

Ms. Wade testified that C.S. had completed the substance abuse assessment.

Based on the assessment, it was recommended that C.S. complete at least twelve

classes with Lake Charles Behavioral Health and also attend follow-up treatments.

Ms. Wade testified that C.S. attended some of the classes and missed some of the

classes. Therefore, C.S. has not completed the recommendations.

Mental Health Assessment with an Agency Approved Provider

14

The record reflects that a mental health assessment was included in the

substance abuse assessment, and C.S. was prescribed medication for her mental

health as a result.

Random Drug Screens and/or Hair Follicle Testing

C.S. was repeatedly asked to submit to a drug screen or hair follicle test by

DCFS throughout the year and a half that this case was pending. She never

submitted to the requests. She only submitted one urinalysis test that was court

ordered. This test came back negative; however, C.S. did not follow the drug

testing protocol by leaving the facility and then returning for her test. C.S. testified

that she was drug tested at lake Charles Behavioral Health and that she passed

those tests. C.S. did not provide evidence of these tests to DCFS or introduce these

tests into evidence.

Stable Home/Employment/Proof of Income

C.S. was required to provide a stable home for her family. The record

indicates that DCFS requested home visits with C.S. multiple times over the year

and half long period that this case was pending. All of these requests were denied

by C.S. C.S. moved several times over this period. C.S. testified at trial that she

moved into her current apartment in Kinder in July 2021. On cross-examination,

counsel for DCFS pointed out that home visits were requested in August 2021,

September 2021, and October 2021. All of these requests were denied by C.S.

Immediately prior to trial, C.S. finally allowed DCFS to visit her home.

The record further shows that C.S. is not employed and has not been

employed throughout the course of this matter. C.S. claimed that she was

employed at the Golden Nugget Casino for a month or two during the summer of

2020; however, she never provided proof of said employment to DCFS, and there

15

is no evidence of this employment in the record. Immediately prior to trial, in

December 2021, C.S. provided proof of SSI to DCFS.

Domestic Violence Classes

According to the August 21, 2021 report prepared for the court, Sheema

Forsythe stated that C.S. completed three classes since her case plan was put in

place in the summer of 2020. At the time of that report, Mrs. Forsythe had not

heard from C.S. in two months. However, at the January 2022 trial, Ms. Wade

testified that C.S. had started going to the domestic violence classes, but she had

not been since the beginning of December 2021.

Parenting Classes

As part of her case plan, C.S. was referred to ETC for Nurturing Parenting

classes. Two negative drug tests were required in order for C.S. to begin these

classes. C.S. never provided the two negative drug tests necessary to take these

classes.

Parental Contribution

Finally, C.S. was ordered to pay $25 in parental contributions towards A.S.’s

care and support. C.S. never paid the parental contribution.

After a review of the record, the trial court found that C.S. failed to

substantially comply with her case plan for the first fourteen months that A.S. was

in the custody of the state. The trial court further found that due to the age of A.S.

and considering the need for a safe, stable, and permanent home, it was in A.S.’s

best interest to terminate C.S.’s parental rights.

A.S. has been in the custody of the state since she was nine-months-old.

This is the second time she was placed in the custody of the state in her short life.

A.S. was previously removed and returned to C.S. prior to the current placement.

16

C.S. has three other children, all of whom do not live with her. C.S. made no

progress towards her case plan for over a year. She went months without seeing

A.S. during this time. C.S. never contributed financially to A.S.’s care. Most

egregiously, C.S. never submitted to drug screenings requested by DCFS. A.S.

was removed from the home due to C.S.’s drug use, and her refusal to submit to

these drug tests during the pendency of this matter is telling. Only one ground for

termination needs to be found in order to terminate parental rights. For these

reasons, we cannot say that the trial court was clearly wrong in terminating C.S.’s

parental rights. We do not find the trial court’s factual conclusions to be

manifestly erroneous.

We find that the evidence supports the trial court’s finding that the state

proved by clear and convincing evidence that the parental rights of C.S. to her

daughter A.S. should be terminated, and that termination of parental rights is in the

best interest of the child.

CONCLUSION

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

17