State ex rel. C.K.T.

345 So.3d 523

STATE of Louisiana IN the INTEREST OF C.K.T.

State of Louisiana in the Interest of C.L.T.

54,762-JAC

54,763-JAC

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.

Judgment rendered August 10, 2022.

THE HARVILLE LAW FIRM, LLC, By: Douglas Lee Harville, Counsel for Appellant, N.T., Father

JOHN FITZGERALD BELTON, District Attorney, Counsel for Appellee, State of Louisiana

MONROE REGIONAL ATTORNEY DCFS, By: Susan Elizabeth Skidmore, Monroe, Counsel for Appellee, State of Louisiana DCFS

ACADIANA LEGAL SERVICES CORP/LANL, By: Lakeisha J. Johnson, Monroe, Counsel for Appellees, C.K.T. and C.L.T., Children

LAW OFFICES OF DAWN D. FRASIER, By: Dawn Dannette Frasier, Farmerville, Counsel for Appellee, S.T., Mother

Before COX, STEPHENS, and HUNTER, JJ.

COX, J.

This consolidated juvenile appeal arises from the Third Judicial District Court, Union Parish. N.T., the biological father of C.K.T. and C.L.T., appeals a judgment terminating his parental rights and certifying the minor children for adoption for failure to substantially comply with his case plan as contemplated by La. Ch. C. art. 1015(6). For the following reasons, we affirm the trial court judgment.

FACTS

C.K.T. was born on December 5, 2015, to S.T., the biological mother, and N.T., the biological father. On December 8, 2015, the Department of Child and Family Services ("DCFS") removed C.K.T. from the home after he tested positive for exposure to drugs and placed him in the certified foster home of Kyle and Tammy Spinks (the "Spinks") until November 6, 2017, when S.T. and N.T. completed their case plan for reunification. On May 6, 2019, DCFS received a report that C.K.T. was a victim of neglect or "dependency" after S.T. and N.T. were arrested for domestic violence. N.T. and S.T. then agreed to a safety plan whereby a safety monitor was required to visit the home multiple times a week and N.T. and S.T. were required to attend substance abuse and mental health assessments.

After both parents failed to comply with the goals of the safety plan and N.T. tested positive for amphetamines, oxycodone, and methamphetamines, an instanter order was issued on October 3, 2019, and C.K.T. was adjudicated a child in need of care and placed back into foster care with the Spinks. On December 10, 2019, DCFS submitted, and the trial court approved, a case plan whereby the permanency goal was reunification with a concurrent goal of adoption. On February 4, 2020, an adjudication hearing was held and the trial court extended C.K.T.’s status as a child in need of care and continued his custody under DCFS.

On February 12, 2020, S.T. gave birth to C.L.T. After DCFS received a report that C.L.T. was considered a drug-affected newborn, another safety plan was implemented on February 14, 2020, and another safety monitor was issued. In accordance with their safety plan, S.T. and N.T. completed intensive outpatient treatment on March 17, 2020. On April 15, 2020, both parents were subject to a random hair follicle drug screen, and after both S.T. and N.T. screens yielded a positive result, an instanter order was issued on April 29, 2020, whereby C.L.T. was removed from the home, placed into foster care with the Spinks, and adjudicated a child in need of care.

On May 10, 2021, DCFS filed a petition for involuntary termination of N.T.’s and S.T.’s parental rights. DCFS asserted that both S.T. and N.T. failed to substantially comply with their case plan and to show significant measurable progress with respect to: 1) maintaining a safe, adequate, and stable home; 2) maintaining adequate income; 3) paying court-ordered child support; 4) attending and completing treatment for mental health and substance abuse; 5) completing parenting classes; 6) maintaining consistent visitation; and 7) completing domestic violence treatment and marital therapy.

At the hearing on July 6, 2021, Amanda Marcel ("Marcel"), a child welfare specialist and caseworker for N.T. and S.T. since October 2019, detailed the progress N.T. and S.T. made with respect to each of the case plan goals as follows:

With respect to housing, Marcel testified that N.T. and S.T. initially lived together in a mobile home in Farmerville, Louisiana and that there were no issues with respect to physical safety; however, sometime in February 2021, N.T. informed Marcel that he had been evicted from the home in Farmerville. Marcel stated that on February 24, 2021, sometime after S.T. was released from inpatient treatment, S.T. informed her that she moved out of the home with N.T. and was living in a camper with her girlfriend, Hope Haddock ("Haddock"). Marcel stated that although S.T. is required to keep her abreast of her current living conditions, she has not had an opportunity to either see or inspect the camper and that to her knowledge, S.T. is still living there but isn't sure because she has not spoken to S.T. since June 18, 2021.

Marcel stated that after N.T. was evicted, he went to Lincoln Nova, a treatment center, and as of the date of the hearing, has resided in a sober living home for approximately two months where he pays approximately $125 dollars monthly. Marcel testified that, like S.T., N.T. was required to inform her about any changes in his living conditions. However, she stated that shortly before the hearing began, N.T. informed her that he obtained housing but would be unable to move into the home immediately. Marcel noted that she does not have any proof that N.T. actually obtained a new home, nor has she been able to see or inspect the home.

Marcel testified that both parents were required to have and maintain legal income sufficient to support the minor children. Marcel stated that S.T. worked on and off in 2020, and in June 2021, got another job, but stopped working there shortly after. Marcel noted that like S.T., N.T. has not had a consistent stream of income. She explained that in 2020 N.T. was employed with Public Works, but his employment ended in July 2020, in part, to his addiction. Since then, N.T. was unemployed until his most recent job with Eason Manufacturing.

Marcel then testified that the primary portion of the case plan required both parents to attend and complete treatment for mental health and substance abuse. Marcel stated that both parents agreed that they needed help managing their mental health since S.T. was diagnosed with bipolar disorder and anxiety disorder and N.T. was diagnosed with major depression disorder, anxiety disorder, and bipolar disorder. Marcel testified that S.T. initially saw Dr. Unkel for medication management and then switched to Dr. Venters to receive her medication. S.T. later received mental health counseling at La Paz rehabilitation center for approximately three months but ceased counseling there after the licensed professional counselor ("LPC") left the facility around July 2020. Marcel stated that to the best of her knowledge, since the fall of 2020, S.T. had not resumed mental health counseling at any other facility.¹ Marcel testified that like S.T., N.T. received mental health treatment at La Paz until the LPC left, and that, to her knowledge, had not received treatment at any other center for mental health services. Moreover, Marcel stated that although N.T. was prescribed medication, he failed to take the medication as prescribed.

With respect to substance abuse treatment, Marcel stated that S.T. initially worked hard to address her substance abuse issues. Specifically, Marcel testified that S.T. self-enrolled in Rayville Recovery shortly after C.K.T. was removed from the home in October 2019. Thereafter S.T. voluntarily entered into an intensive outpatient program ("IOP") with Lincoln Nova from November 2019 until March 2020. S.T. refused to attend the recommended aftercare programs after her discharge from Lincoln Nova, and on April 15, 2020, she tested positive for methamphetamines. S.T. then re-enrolled with Lincoln Nova from April 23, 2020, until May 28, 2020, and then transferred to La Paz with N.T. for substance abuse treatment until July 31, 2020, where she admitted to still using drugs while enrolled at the facility. Marcel testified that S.T. continued to enroll in multiple substance abuse programs, namely:

• September 2020: S.T. self-enrolled in Intuitive Solutions, where she refused to enroll in inpatient care.

• October 1, 2020: S.T. enrolled in Palmetto Addiction Recovery but left three days later, against medical advice, because she refused to take the detox medication recommended to her.

• Winter of 2020: S.T. re-enrolled with Lincoln Nova for IOP but was discharged for noncompliance.

• January 21, 2020: S.T. re-enrolled in Lincoln Nova and completed the program but did not follow the recommendation to reside in a sober living home.

• February 23, 2021: S.T. re-enrolled in Intuitive Solutions and was due to start services in March but did not comply with the program.

• March 2021: S.T. refused to take a drug screen and admitted that she would test positive for marijuana.

• April 2021: S.T. enrolled in Pecan Haven Addiction Recovery Center with Haddock but was asked to leave.

• May 4, 2021: S.T. re-enrolled with Lincoln Nova for inpatient care but left before her discharge against medical advice.

Marcel also noted S.T. refused to follow recommendations to reside in sober living homes because she claimed that she was unable to live in sober living and work at the same time. In addressing N.T.’s substance abuse, Marcel testified that N.T. self-enrolled in Lincoln Nova from October 10, 2019, completed the program on November 8, 2019, participated in the recommended IOP for twelve weeks, and was discharged on March 17, 2020. However, Marcel noted that on April 15, 2020, N.T. tested positive for drugs and admitted that he relapsed after finding out that S.T. used drugs. Thereafter, N.T. re-enrolled in Lincoln Nova from April 27, 2020, until May 28, 2020, and then enrolled in La Paz with S.T. until July 2020. While here, N.T. admitted that he lost his job with Public Works...