# Supreme Court of Louisiana

FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE #005

FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

The Opinions handed down on the 30th day of January, 2019 , are as follows:

PER CURIAM :

2018 -K K -0 711 STATE OF LOUISIANA v. MELVIN MIGUEL (Parish of Orleans)

Finding that the totality of the circumstances present here gave
the detective probable cause to believe the prescription bottle

contained contraband, we find the plain view exception to the

warrant requirement applies. Accordingly, we reverse the court of appeal, reinstate the district court’s ruling that denied

defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence, and remand to the district court for further proceedings.

REVERSED AND REMANDED

JOHNSON, C.J., dissents and assigns reasons.
GENOVESE, J. , dissents fo r th e reason s assigned by th e cour t of appeal and for the reasons assigned by Chief Justice Johnson.01/30/19

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

No. 201 8

- K K

- 0711

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

MELVIN MIGUEL

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL
, FOURTH CIR CUIT, PARISH OF ORLEANS

PER CURIAM

Defendant was the driver of a vehicle that was stopped becau se it had a

cracked windshield. D efendant was driving with a suspended driver ’ s license and a

fraudulent license plate

. In addition, defendant admitted he had been smok ing

marijuana

. Before asking defendant to exit his vehicle, a detective scanned the

inte rior and noticed an orange prescription bottle, with the name on the label

peeled off, sitting in the broken driver ’ s side door handle. Defendant and his

passengers disclaimed ownership of the bottle.

Defendant exited the vehicle, was handcuffed and Miran dized , and placed

inside a police vehicle. The detective then retrieved the pill bottle, opened it, and

discovered five Hydrocodone pills. Defendant was arrested and charged with

possession of a controlled dangerous substance , La.R.S. 40:967 . He was also c ited

for several traffic violations.

Defendant moved to suppress the evidence on several grounds, including

that the pill bottle was not immediately apparent as contraband to justify a

warrantless search and seizure. The district court denied the motion to suppress

after conducting a hearing and reviewing the detective ’ s body camera video. The

court of appeal found the district court erred in denying defendant ’ s motion to2 suppress

. S tate v. Miguel , 18

- 0233 (La. App. 4 Cir. 4/26/18) (on reh ’ g) (unpub ’ d).

R elying on State v. Meichel , 290 So.2d 878 (La. 1974), the majority found the

plain view exception did not apply because the incriminating character of the bottle

was not immediately apparent

. The court of appeal erred.

The plain view doctrine renders a war rantless search reasonable: (1) if the

police officer is lawfully in the place from which he views the object; (2) where the

object ’ s incriminating character is immediately apparent; and (3) the officer has a

lawful right of access to the object. State v. Gray , 13

- 1326, p. 2 (La. 6/28/13), 122

So.3d 531, 533 (citing Horton v. California , 496 U.S. 128, 110 S.Ct. 2301, 110

L.Ed.2d 112 (1990)). The only controversy in the present case is whether the

prescription bottle’s incriminating character was immediately apparent.

The “immediately apparent” aspect of the plain view exception is better

stated as probable cause to believe the item in question is or contains contraband,

as clarified in Texas v. Brown , 460 U.S. 730, 103 S.Ct. 1535, 75 L.Ed.2d 502

(1983). In B rown , the United States Supreme Court stated, “ Decisions by this

Court since [ Coolidge v. New Hampshire

, 403 U.S. 443, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L.Ed.2d

564 (1971)] indic ate that the use of the phrase ‘immediately apparent’ was very

likely an unhappy choice of words, since it can be taken to imply that an unduly

high degree of certainty as to the incriminatory character of evidence is neces sary

for an application of the ‘plain view’ doctrine. ” Id. , 460 U.S. 741, 103 S.Ct. at

1543. In the present case, the court of appeal similarly required an unduly high

degree of certainty

— beyond probable cause

— as to the incriminatory character of

the evidence.

Regarding probable cause in the context of the plain view exception, the

United States Supreme Court stated in Brown :3 [P] r obable cause is a flexible, common

- sense standard. It merely requires that the facts available to the officer would “warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief,” Carroll v. United States , 267 U.S. 132, 162, 45 S.Ct. 280, 288, 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925), th at certain items may be contraband or stolen property or useful as evidence of a crime; it does not demand any showing that such a belief be correct or more likely true than false. A “practical, nontechnical” probability that incriminating evidence is invo lved is all that is required. Brinegar v.
United States , 338 U.S. 160, 176, 69 S.Ct. 1302, 1311, 93 L.Ed. 1879 (1949). Moreover, our observation in United States v. Cortez , 449 U.S. 411, 418, 101 S.Ct. 690, 695, 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981), regarding “particular ized suspicion,” is equally applicable to the probable cause requirement:

“The process does not deal with hard certainties, but with probabilities. Long before the law of probabilities was articulated as such, practical people formulated certain

common

- se nse conclusions about human behavior; jurors as factfinders are permitted to do the same

— and so are law enforcement officers. Finally, the evidence thus collected must be seen and weighed not in terms of library analysis by scholars, but as understood by t hose

versed in the field of law enforcement.”

Brown , 460 U.S. at 742, 103 S.Ct. at 1543

.

During oral argument, defendant contended that the fact that the name was

torn from the label alone was insufficient to give the detective probable cause to

believe the bottle contained contraband. That circumstance did not appear in

isolation, however. The officer was also aware that defendant was driving with a

suspended driver’s license, the vehicle had a fraudulent license plate, defendant

and his passengers discl aimed ownership of the bottle, and defendant admitted he

recently smoked marijuana (while claiming he consumed it all and thus implying

none would be found in the vehicle) . These circumstances, in conjunction with the

suspicious ly torn label, when weighed by an experienced law enforcement officer,

provided probable cause to believe the prescription bottle contained contraband.

Defendant cites State v. Meichel , 290 So.2d 878 (La. 1974) as being directly

applicable and requiring suppression of the evidence. I n Meichel , a town marshal4 approached the defendant’s vehicle as he was having car trouble. According to the

marshal, he observed a pill bottle on the passenger’s seat. The bottle of pills in

question was labeled as being habit forming and that dispensing w ithout a

prescription was prohibited. Two sheriff’s deputies subsequently arrived and

searched the trunk, where they found marijuana. The state argued that the plain

view seizure of the pills established probable cause for a search of the automobile,

but t his c ourt disagreed:

In the instant case the testimony of the officer making the seizure is clearly to the effect that he did not know the nature of the pills until after he had picked up the bottle and examined it. He did not know at the time he saw the p ills that there was a probability that they were contraband and probably evidence. This seizure does not fall within the plain view exception to the warrant requirement. As such the

seizure violated defendant ’ s constitutional rights and was illegal.

Meich el , 290 So.2d at 880

. In Meichel

, however, there were no t the additional

circumstances, present here, to justify the seizure and subsequent search of the pill

bot tle

.

Finding that the totality of the circumstances present here gave the detective

probable cause to believe the prescription bottle contained contraband, we find the

plain view exception to the warrant requirement applies. Accordingly, we reverse

the court of appeal, reinstate the district court’s ruling that denied defendant’s

motion to suppres s the evidence, and remand to the district court for further

proceedings.

REVERSED AND REMANDED0 1 / 3 0 / 1 9

SUPREME COURT OF LOUI SI ANA

No . 2 0 1 8-CJ -1 2 71

STATE OF LOUI SI A NA I N THE I NTEREST OF A.L.D. AND L.S.D.

ON W R I T OF CERTI ORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL,

SECOND CI RCUI T, PARI SH OF CADDO

J OHNSON, Chi ef J us ti ce

W e gran t ed a wri t i n th is t erm i n at i o n o f p aren t al ri g h t s cas e t o d et erm i n e i f t h e

co u rt o f ap p eal erred i n rev ers i n g a d i s t ri ct co u rt ju d g m en t t erm i n at in g t he p aren t al

ri gh t s o f th e fat h er, C.K.D. Aft er rev i ewi n g t h e reco rd an d t he ap p li cab l e l aw, we fi n d

n o m an ifes t erro r i n t h e di st ri ct co u rt ’ s ru l i n g t h at t erm i n at i o n was s u pp o rt ed b y cl ear

an d co n v i n ci n g ev i d en ce an d t h at t erm i n at io n was in t h e b es t i n t eres t s o f t h e ch i l d ren

.

Th u s, w e rev ers e t h e ru l i n g o f t h e co urt o f ap peal an d rei n s t at e t he d i s t ri ct co urt ’ s

ju d g m en t

, t erm i n at i n g C.K.D.’ s p aren t al ri g h t s as to A .L.D. an d L.S.D. p u rs u a n t to

Lo u is i an a Ch i l d ren ’ s Co d e art icl e 1 0 1 5 (6 ).

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HI STORY

On o r ab o u t M ay 4

, 2 0 1 6

, t h e m i no r ch i l d A.L.D. was rem o ved fro m t h e care

o f h i s m o t h er, N.M .L

. , an d h is fat h er, C.K.D. On May 3 1

, 2 0 1 6

, t h e Dep art m en t o f

Ch i ld ren an d Fam i ly Serv i ces fo r t h e St at e o f Lo u i s ia n a (“ DCFS”) fi l ed a p et i t i o n

al l eg in g t h at A.L.D. was a ch i l d i n n eed o f care (“ CINC”). Du ri n g t he co u rs e o f t h e

i n v es t i g at i o n , o n e-y ear-o ld A.L.D. t es t ed p o s i t i v e fo r m et ham p h et am i n es

. On J u n e

1 0

, 2 0 1 6

, N.M .L. g av e b i rt h t o L.S.D., al so C.K.D.’ s ch i ld

. At t h e CINC t ri al o n J u l y

1 3

, 2 0 1 6

, t h e p aren t s s t i p u lat ed t h at A.L.D. w as in n eed o f care. Th e p aren t s were

d ru g -t es t ed

, an d bo t h t es t ed p o s i t i v e fo r m et h am p h et am i n es

. L .S.D., a o n e-m o n t h -o ld

1i n fan t at t h e t i m e, al s o t es t ed p o s i ti v e fo r m et h am p h et am i n es . On Au g us t 2 3 , 2 0 1 6,

DCFS fi l ed a p et i t i o n reg ard i n g L.S.D., an d t h at ch i l d was al s o ad ju d i cat ed CINC. 1

D C F S d ev el o p ed a cas e p l an fo r t h e p aren t s , wh i ch w as ap p ro v ed b y t h e

d i s t ri ct co u rt

. A s it rel at es to C.K.D., t h e p l an req u i red h im

, am o n g o t h er t hi n g s , to

rem ai n d ru g free, m ai n t ai n a s afe an d s t ab l e h o m e th at m e t t h e b a s i c n eed s o f h i s

ch i l d ren , co m

p l et e ran d o m d r u g s creen s , an d o b t ai n a l eg al so u rce o f i n co m e to

s u p p ort h i s ch i l d ren

. Th e p l an was am en d ed t o req u i re t h at C.K.D. co m p l et e

p aren t i n g cl as s es , an g er m an ag em en t

, a n d m en t al h eal t h co u n s el i n g an d t o p ay

$ 2 5 / m o n t h p er ch il d t o DCFS fo r t h e s u p p o rt o f h i s ch i l dren

.

DCFS i n i ti al l y

p l aced th e ch i ld ren wi th C.K.D.’ s m o t h er, D.D. In M ay 2 0 1 7,

DCFS recei v ed rep o rt s th at C.K.D. was i m p ro perl y l i v i n g w i t h D.D., an d t h at D.D.

was p o s s i b l y u s i n g d ru g s w h il e car i n g f o r t h e ch i l dren

. C.K.D., D.D., an d b o th

ch i l d ren t es ted p o s i t iv e fo r d ru g s

. As a res u l t

, DCFS rem o v ed t h e ch i l d ren fro m

D.D.’ s h o m e an d p l aced t h em i n n on -rel at i ve fo s t er care wi th G.B.

DCFS fi l ed a p et i t i on t o t erm i n at e b o t h p aren t s ’ p aren t al ri g h ts o n Oct o b er 9,

2 0 1 7

. As t o C.K.D., t h e p et i t i o n al l eg ed h e s tru g g led to co m p l y wi t h t h e req ui rem en t s

o f h i s co u rt -ap p ro v ed cas e p l an

. Sp eci fi cal l y , DCFS al l eg ed th at al t h o u g h h e

p art i ci p at ed i n Act i v e Reco v ery an d recei v ed a cert i fi cat e of co m p l et i o n fo r Ph as e I

o f s u b st an ce ab u s e t reat m en t i n No v em b er 20 1 6

, h e t es t ed p o si ti v e fo r co cai n e an d

m et h am p h et am i nes i n Decem

b er 2 0 16

. DCFS as s ert ed h e co n t i n ued t o t es t p o s i t i v e

fo r t h o s e s u b s t an ces an d m ari ju an a i n May 2 0 17

, an d t hat h e s t ru g g l ed to m ai n t ai n

co m p l ian ce wi t h t reat m en t fo r s u b s tan ce ab u s e o r m en t al h eal th co u n sel i ng d es p i t e

1 N.M.L

. has three additional children, G .P., A.P., and, T. P

., who were r emoved from the

home as well. G.P. and A.P. a re the children of T

. P

. , wh o at the time o f these proceeding s was serving sentences in the L ouisiana State Penitentiary for one c ount of indecent behavior with juveniles, o ne c o unt o f molestation of a juvenile u nder the ag e o f 13, and one count of pornog raphy involving juveniles. Th e third child, T.P., was initially a part of these proceeding s, b ut was later

determined to be the biolog ical child of another man, and DCF S’s custody to that child was vacated on October 20, 2016.

2s o m e i n i t i al su cces s

. D CFS fu rt h er al l eg ed t h at C.K.D. h ad n o t m ai n tai n ed a s afe an d

s t ab l e h o m e t h at co u l d s up p o rt t h e ret u rn o f h i s ch i l d ren , an d h e h as n o t m ai n t ai n ed

co n tact wi t h t h e ag en cy

. Th e p et i t i o n al s o al l eg ed C.K.D. fai l ed t o p ay $ 2 5 per ch i ld

p er m o n t h i n co n t ri b u t i o ns t o t he care o f h i s ch i l d ren as req u i red b y hi s cas e p l an an d

t h at h e h ad n o co n t act wi t h t he ch i l d ren s i nce M ay 2 0 17

.

N.M .L. fi l ed a m o t i o n t o g ran t g u ard ian s h ip t o h er u n cl e, D.L., an d t h e m at t ers

were co n s o l i d at ed fo r a Decem b er 1 1

, 2 01 7

, t ri al

. Du ri n g a t wo -d ay t ri al

, t h e d i s t ri ct

co u rt h eard t es t i m o ny an d co n s id ered ev i d en ce o n b o t h i s s u es , to o k ju d i ci al n o t i ce o f

t h e n o n -h ears ay p o rt i o n s of t he CINC p ro ceed i n g s, an d u l t i m at el y en t ered ju d g m en t

t erm i n at i n g b o t h N .M .L.’ s an d C.K.D.’ s p aren t al ri g h t s as to A. L

. D

. an d L.S.D. 2

N.M

. L.’ s m o t i on to g ran t g u ard i an s h ip to D.L. was d en i ed

, p res u m ab ly as m o o t

. 3 Th e

d i s t ri ct co u rt s t at ed t h at C.K.D.’ s p aren t al ri g h ts were t erm in at ed pu rs u an t t o La. Ch

.

C

. a r t

. 1 0 1 5 (6 ). C.K.D. fi l ed a m o t i o n fo r n ew t ri al

, w h i ch was d en i ed

. C. K

. D

.

ap p eal ed t h e ju d g m en t

. 4

Th e co u rt o f ap p eal rev ers ed t h e term i n at i o n o f C.K.D. ’s p aren t al ri g h t s an d

rem an ded t h e cas e t o t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt fo r fu rt h er p ro ceed in g s , o rd eri n g t h at DCFS

m ai n t ai n cu s t o dy o f t h e ch i l d ren , t h e CINC p ro ceed i n g b e rei ns t at ed

, an d t h e ch i l d ren

rem ai n p laced wi t h t h ei r great -u n cl e, D.L. 5 S t a t e i n In t er es t o f A.L.D.

, 5 2 ,2 3 9 (La.

A p p

. 2 C i r

. 6 / 2 7/ 1 8 ), 2 51 So

. 3 d 5 5 4 (2 0 1 8). Th e co u rt o f ap p eal co n cl ud ed t h at

DCFS d id n o t m eet i t s bu rd en o f p ro v i n g t h e el em en t s req u ired fo r t erm i n at i o n u n d er

La. Ch

. C. art

. 1 0 1 5 (6 ) by cl ear an d co n v in ci ng ev id en ce. Th e co u rt r eas o n ed t h at

2 The district court also terminated N .M.L .’s parental rig hts as to her other child r e n in the same proceeding

.

3 Althoug h an order deny ing the motion for g uardianship d oes not appear in the record, the parties all ag r ee that the motion was denied.

4 Neither N.M.L . nor the children appealed the judg ment.

5 According to all parties, D.L

. was c ertified a s a f o s t er p a r ent p ost-trial and DCF S subsequently

placed the children with him.

3C.K.D. s u ffi ci en t l y d em on s t rat ed “ substa ntia l pa r e nta l c om

plia nc e ” w ith the cas e p l an

an d fo u n d t h ere was n o t cl ear an d co n v i nci n g ev i d en ce at tri al t o i n d i cat e th ere was

n o reas o n a b l e ex p ect at i o n o f s i g n i fi can t i m p ro v em en t i n C.K.D.’ s co n d i t i o n o r

co n du ct i n t h e n ear fu tu re, p art i cu l arl y co n s i d eri n g t h e s h o rt l en g t h of t i m e b et ween

t h e t i m e t h e p et i t i o n fo r t erm in at i o n was fi l ed an d t h e t ri al

. Id . at 5 60 -6 1. Th e co u rt

o f ap p eal al s o n o ted th at al t h o ug h t h e ch i l d ren d i d n o t ap p eal t h e t erm i n at i o n , t h ei r

ap p el l at e co u n sel ap p eared an d a r gue d tha t the dis t ri ct co urt was m an i fes t ly erro n eo u s

i n i t s ju dg m en t an d t h at t h e ch i l d ren are bo n d ed wi t h t h ei r fat h er, wh o has m ad e

s t ri d es t o ward s p res erv i n g t he paren t -ch il d rel at i on s hi p an d i t was th e p os i t i o n o f t h e

ch i l d ren ’ s ap p el l at e co u n s el t h at t erm i n at i o n was prem at u re an d no t i n t h ei r b es t

i n t eres t s

. Id

. at 5 6 1

.

DCFS fi l ed a wri t ap pl icat i o n i n t h i s co u rt

, wh i ch we g ran t ed

. St a t e i n In t er es t

o f A.L.D. , 1 8 -1 2 7 1 (La. 9 / 2 1 / 1 8 ), 2 5 2 So . 3 d 4 90

.

DI SCUSSI ON

Perm an en t t erm i n at i o n o f t h e l eg al r e l a t i o n s h i p ex i s t i n g bet ween n at u ral

p are n t s a n d ch i l d ren i s on e o f t h e m o s t d ras t i c act i o n s th e s t at e can t ak e ag ai n s t i t s

c i t i z e n s

. Ho wev er, t h e p ri m ary co n cern o f t h e co u rt s an d th e st at e rem ai n s t o

d et erm i n e an d i n s u re t h e b es t i n t eres t o f t h e ch i l d, wh i ch in cl u d e s t e r m i n a t i o n o f

p aren t al ri g h t s i f ju s t ifi ab l e s t at u t o ry g ro un d s ex i s t an d are p ro ven b y th e s t at e. S t a t e

ex rel

. J.M.

, 0 2 -2 0 8 9 (La. 1/ 2 8 / 0 3 ), 8 3 7 S o

. 2 d 1 2 4 7

, 1 2 5 4

. L o u i s i an a Ch i l d ren ’ s

Co d e art i cl e 1 0 1 5 s et s fo rt h t he g ro u n d s fo r wh i ch p aren t al ri g h t s m ay b e t erm i n at ed

.

To t erm i n at e p aren t al ri g h t s , t he s t at e h as th e b u rd en of p ro v i n g o n e of t h e st at u t o ry

g ro u nd s fo r t erm i nat i o n b y cl ear an d co n v i n ci n g ev i den ce. La. Ch

. C. art . 1 0 3 5 (A).

“ ‘ Cl ear an d co n v i n ci n g ’ ev id en ce req u i res m o re t han a ‘ p rep o n deran ce,’ b u t l es s t h an

‘ bey o n d a reas o n ab l e d o ub t .’ Un d er t h e ‘ cl ear an d co n vi n ci n g ’ s t an d a r d, the ex i s t en ce

4o f t h e d i s p u t ed fact m u st be h i g h l y p r o b a b l e o r m u ch m o re p ro b ab l e t h an i t s

n o n ex i s ten ce.” In r e L.M.M., Jr

. , 1 7 -1 9 8 8 (La. 6 /2 7 / 1 8 ), -- So . 3 d --, n . 1 3 (i n t ern al

ci t at i o n rem o v ed ). If a g ro u n d fo r t erm i n at i o n i s fo u n d

, t h e d i s t ri ct co u r t m u s t t h en

d et erm i n e wh et h er th e t erm i n at i o n i s i n t h e b es t i n t eres t o f t h e ch i l d. La. Ch . C. art

.

1 0 3 9 ; St a t e ex r el . L.B. v. G.B.B. , 0 2 -1 71 5 (La. 1 2 / 4 / 0 2 ), 8 3 1 So . 2 d 9 1 8 , 9 2 2

.

Th e d i s tri ct co u rt t erm i n at e d C

. K. D

. ’ s p aren t al ri g h ts o n t h e b as i s o f Art i cl e

1 0 1 5 (6 ), wh i ch p ro v i d es :

Un l es s s o o n er perm i t ted b y t h e co u rt

, at leas t o n e y ear has el ap sed s in ce

a ch i l d was rem o v ed fro m t h e paren t’ s cu s t o dy p u rs u an t t o a co u rt o rd er;

t h ere h as b een n o s u b s t an t ial p aren t al co m p l i an ce wi t h a cas e p lan fo r

s erv ices w hi ch h as b een p rev i o u s l y fi l ed b y t h e dep art m en t an d

ap p ro v ed b y

t h e co urt as n eces s ary fo r t h e s afe ret u rn o f t he ch i l d ; an d

d es p i t e earl i er i n t erv en t i o n , t h ere i s n o reas o nab l e ex pect a t i o n o f

s i gn i fi can t im

p ro v em en t i n t h e p aren t ’ s co n d i ti o n o r co n d uct i n t h e n ear fu t u re, co n s i d eri n g t he c h i l d ’ s ag e an d h i s n eed fo r a safe, s t ab l e, an d

p erm an en t h om e.

Th u s, u n der t hi s Art i cl e, DCFS h ad t o p ro v e t h ree el em en t s : (1 ) i t had b een o n e y ear

s i nce th e ch i l d ren h ad b een rem o v ed ; (2 ) C.K.D. had n o t su b st an t i al l y co m p li ed wi th

t h e cas e p l an fo r s erv i ces ; an d

, (3 ) t h ere i s n o reas on ab l e ex p ect at io n o f s i g n i fi can t

i m p ro v em en t i n C.K.D.’ s co nd it i o n o r co n du ct i n t h e n ear fu tu re. Th e d i s p u t e i n t h i s

cas e cen t ers o n el em en t s t wo an d t h ree.

La ck o f Subs ta nti al Co m pl i a nce w ith Ca se Pl a n

Ch i l dren ’ s Co de art i cl e 1 0 3 6 p ro vi d es t h at l ack o f p aren t al co m p l ian ce wi t h a

cas e p l an u n d er A rt i cl e 1 0 1 5 (6 ), m ay b e ev id en ced b y o n e or m o re o f t h e fo l l o wi n g:

(1 ) Th e p aren t’ s fai l u re t o at t en d co u rt -ap pro v ed sch ed u l ed vi s i t at i o n s wi t h t he ch i l d

.

(2 ) Th e p aren t ’ s fai lu re t o co m m un i cat e wi t h t h e ch i l d

.

(3 ) Th e paren t ’ s fai l u re t o k eep t h e d ep art m en t ap p ri sed of t h e p aren t ’ s wh ereab o u t s an d s i g n i fi can t ch an ges affect in g t h e p a r e n t ’ s ab i l i t y t o

co m p ly wi t h t h e cas e p l an fo r s erv ices

.

(4 ) T h e p aren t ’ s fai l u re t o co n t ri b u t e to t h e co st s o f t h e ch i l d ’ s fo s t er

5care, i f o rd ered t o d o s o b y t h e co u rt wh en ap p ro v i n g t he cas e p l an

.

(5 ) Th e p aren t ’ s rep e a t e d fai l u re to co m p l y wi t h t h e req ui red p ro g ram

o f t reat m en t an d reh ab il i t at i o n s erv i ces p ro v i d ed i n t h e cas e p l an

.

(6 ) Th e p aren t ’ s l ack o f s ub s tan t i al im p ro v em en t i n red res s in g th e

p ro b l em s p rev en t i n g reu n i fi cat i o n

.

(7 ) Th e p ers i st en c e o f c o n d i t i o n s t h at l ed t o rem o v al o r s i m i l ar

p o t en t i al l y

h arm fu l co n d i t i o ns

.

(8 )(a) Th e p a r e n t ’s f

ai l u re t o p ro v i d e a n eg at i v e tes t res u l t fo r al l

s y n t h et i c o r o t h er co n t ro l l ed d an g ero us s ub s tan ces , ex cep t fo r an y d ru g fo r wh i ch t h e p aren t h as l awfu l l y recei v ed a pres cri p t io n , at th e

co m p let i o n o f a reas o n ab l e cas e p l an

.

(b ) Fo r p u rp o s es o f t h i s Art i cl e, “ co n t ro l l ed d an gero u s s ub s tan ce” sh al l

h av e t he m ean in g as cri b ed i n R.S. 4 0 : 9 6 1

.

At t ri al , Ti ffan y Al l en fro m DCFS t es t i fi ed s h e i s t h e cas e m an ag er as s i g n ed t o t h i s

cas e. Al t h o u g h sh e h ad p ers o n al l y o n l y b een i nv o lv ed i n t he cas e s i nce Ap ri l 2 0 1 7,

s h e h ad rev iewed an d was fam il i ar wi t h al l ag en cy reco rd s an d i n fo rm at i o n

co n cern in g t h e p aren t s. Reg ard i n g C.K

. D. ’s cas e p l an co m p l i an ce, s h e t es t i fi ed h e

h ad s u b m i t t ed t o ran d o m d ru g t es t s , b ut n o ex t en d ed peri o d o f s o b ri et y h ad b een

ex h ib i t ed . Sh e h ad n o co n t act wi t h C.K.D. fro m t he en d o f M ay

2 0 1 7 u n t i l Oct o b er

2 0 1 7

. Du ri n g t h at t i m e, C.K

. D. d i d n o t s ee h i s ch i l d ren

. Sh e at t em p t ed t o v i s i t

C .K

. D

. ’s h o m e m o re t h an o n ce, b u t was u nab le to fi n d h i m t h ere. Sh e tes t i fi ed t h e

h o u s e ap p eared ab an d o n ed w i t h a lo t o f d eb ri s an d t ras h i n t he y ard

, an d h er

p h o t o g rap h s o f t h e ex t eri o r o f t he h o m e w ere i n t ro d u ced i n t o ev id en ce. Sh e h as n ev er

b een ab l e to a c c e s s t h e i n t eri o r o f C.K.D.’ s h o m e. Ms

. A l l en fu rt h er t es ti fi ed t h at

co n si s t en cy wi t h m en t al h eal t h t reat m en t h as b een an i s s u e, an d t hat p at t ern h ad n ot

ch an ged as o f t h e ti m e o f t ri al

. Ad d i ti o n al l y , C.K.D. h ad n o t m ad e t he req u i red

co n tri b u t i o n s t o h i s ch i l d ren ’ s care. M s

. Al l en v eri fi ed t h at th e m o st s i g n i fi can t

p r o b l em i n t h is cas e has b een s u b s t an ce ab u s e an d w h et h er s o b ri et y was b e i n g

m ai n t ai n ed

. In s u m , sh e t es t i fi ed C.K.D. h ad co m p li ed wi t h th e part s o f t h e cas e p l an

6req u i ri n g h im t o o b tai n a l eg al s o u rce o f in co m e, recei v e co u n s el i n g, an d co m p l y wi th

ran d o m d ru g t es t i n g

. H o we v e r , s h e t es ti fi ed C.K.D. h ad n ot b een co m p li an t wi th

p aren t al co n t ri b u t io ns , m ai n t ai n i n g a s e c u re an d s afe h o m e, an d h e w as s t i l l

s t ru g g l i n g wi t h s u b s t an ce ab us e i s s ues

.

C.K.D. al s o t es t i fi ed at t ri al

. He ex p l ai n ed t hat h e h ad b een wo rk i n g f o r

Val v o l in e fo r t wo week s , al t h o u g h h e w as p rev i o u s l y w o r k i n g fo r Ro s h d o e

Fo u n d at i o n Rep ai r fo r 7 m o nt h s p ri o r. 6 He ad m i t t ed t h at h e h as u s ed d ru gs o n an d o ff

fo r t h e l as t 2 0 y ears (s i n ce h e was 1 8 y ears o l d ) an d h i s l o n g es t p eri o d o f so b ri et y h as

b een 19 m o n t hs

. C.K.D. tes ti fi ed t h at h e co m p l et ed Ph as e 1 o f Act i v e Reco v ery

s u b s t an ce ab u s e t reat m en t i n No v em b er 2 0 1 6

, b u t ad m i t ted h e rel ap s ed i n Feb ru ary

2 0 1 7

. Aft er h e t es t ed p o si t iv e fo r d ru g s in M ay 2 0 1 7, h e cu t o ff co n t act wi t h DCFS

an d h i s c h i l d r e n fo r fear h e wo u l d b e arres t ed fo r d ru g u s e. He d id n o t b eg i n to

p art i ci p at e i n p ro g ram s erv i ces ag ai n un t il t h e en d of Oct o b er 2 0 1 7

. C.K.D. ad m i t t ed

h e h ad n o t p ai d t h e req u i red co n t ri b u t i o n fo r t h e care of h is ch il d ren , b u t t es t i fi ed h e

d i d co n t ri b u t e t o t h ei r s u p po rt d u ri n g t h e ti m e t h ey were p laced wi t h hi s m o t h er.

C.K.D. co n ced ed t h at h e was l i v i n g w i t h h i s m o t h er i n M ay 2 0 17 wh en th e ch i l d ren

were p l aced t h ere, an d t h at t h e ch i l d ren t es t ed p o si t i v e fo r d ru gs d uri n g t h i s t i m e. He

s t at ed h e “ cau sed co nt am i n at i o n p ro b ab l y .” He ad m it t ed t hat h e h ad no t co m p l et ed

al l co m p on en t s o f th e cas e p l an an d n eed ed 3-6 m o n t h s to co m p l et e i t

. He fu rt h er

ad m i t t ed t h at h e h ad no t m ai n t ai n ed a s t ab l e h o m e e n v i ro n m en t fo r s i x m o n th s ,

cl ai m i ng t hat w hat DCFS w o ul d co n s i d er a s t ab l e h o m e an d wh at h e co n s i d ered

l i vab l e are t wo d i fferen t th i n g s

. C.K.D. had s o m e di ffi cu lt y ex p l ai n i n g t h e co n d i t i o n

o f t h e h o u s e, b u t d es cri b ed i t as ou t d at e d a n d c l u tt ered

. H e s t at ed th e ho u s e i s a

fam i l y h o m e t h a t o ri g i nal l y b el o n g ed t o h i s g ran d m o t h er, an d i s n o w o wn ed b y h i s

6 C.K.D. ex plained it w as his understanding from the court that h is I RS 1099 reported income

from Roshdoe was not sufficient and he needed to obtain employ ment with reported W -2 income.

7m o th er. He t es t ifi ed t h e h o u se h ad i s s u es fro m b ei ng un l ev el

, s o m e o f wh i ch h e

cl ai m ed h ad b een rep ai red

. H e t es t i fi ed t h e li v i n g ro o m was “ l i k e a s to rag e u n i t ” an d

s t ack ed wi t h b ox es

. He ad m i t ted t h ere was a lo t o f fu rn i t u re o ut s i d e on t h e s i d e o f t h e

h o u s e. He cl ai m ed t h e h o u s e was l i v ab l e, b u t n o t u p to DCFS s t an dard s , an d t h at i t

was 9 0 % co m

p l et e. C.K.D. t es t i fi ed h e h ad b een l i v i n g i n t h e ho u s e fo r fi v e m o n t h s

at t h e t i m e o f t ri al

, b u t t h at t h e h o u s e had b een ab an do n ed s i n ce 2 0 1 3

. He ad d i t i o n al l y

t es t i fi ed t h at i f t he h o u se was d eem ed u n fi t b y DCFS, h e wo u l d o b t ai n an ap art m en t

.

C.K.D. tes t i fi ed h e was cu rren t l y en ro l l ed in Act i v e Reco v ery fo r s u b s t a n c e ab u s e

t reat m en t

, p aren t i ng cl as s es an d an g er m an ag em en t cl as s es

. He c l a i m ed h e h ad n ot

u s ed dru g s s i nce J u n e 2 0 1 7

.

C.K.D. al s o i n t ro d u c e d i n t o ev i d en ce a l et t er fro m Act i v e Reco v ery d at ed

1 2 / 5 / 1 7 co n fi rm i n g h e was cu rren t l y en ro l l ed i n i n t en s i v e o u t p at i en t su b st an ce ab u s e,

p aren t i n g , an d an g er m an ag em en t p ro g ram s, an d t h at h e was at t en d i n g co n s i s t en t l y

an d p art ici p at i n g i n a p ro d u ct i ve m an n er. Th e l et t er s t at ed th at C.K.D. was as s es s ed

fo r t h e p ro g ram o n 1 0 / 3 0 / 1 7, an d as o f 1 2 / 5 /1 7 h e h ad co m p l et ed 1 4 o f 2 4 su b s t an ce

ab u se co un s el i ng s es s i o n s, 4 o f 1 0 p aren t i n g s es s i o n s an d 5 o f 1 0 an g er m an ag em en t

s es s i on s

.

Th e s t at e in t ro du ced C.K.D.’ s d ru g screen in g res u l t s fro m Co m p an y Cl i n i c o f

Lo u is i an a, refl ect i n g t h e fo l l owi n g :

• 7 / 1 3 / 1 6 : h a i r s p e c i me n p o s i t i v e f o r a mp h e t a m i n e ,

m et h am p h et am i ne an d m ari

ju an a

• 7 / 1 3 / 1 6 : u r i n e s a m p l e p o s i t i v e f o r a m p h e t a m i n e ,

m et h am p h et am i ne, b en zo d i azep i n es an d m ari j u an a

• 1 2/ 29 / 1 6 : u r i n e s a mp l e p o s i t i v e f o r a mp h e t a mi n e ,

m et h am p h et am i ne an d co cai ne

• 1 2 / 2 9 / 1 6 : h a i r s p e c i m e n p o s it i ve fo r am ph et am i n e ,

m et h am p h et am i ne, b en zo y l ecg on i ne an d co cai n e

8• 5 /1 8/ 1 7 : h a i r t e s t p o s i t i v e f o r a m p h e t a m i n e ,

m et h am p h et am i ne, b en zo y l ecg on i ne, co cai n e, an d m ari j u an a

• 5 / 1 8 / 1 7 : u r i n e s a m p l e p o s i t i v e f o r a m p h e t a m i n e ,

m et h am p h et am i ne, co cai ne, an d m ari ju an a

• 1 0/ 19 / 1 7 : u ri n e t es t n eg at i ve

• 1 1/ 17 / 1 7 : h ai r t es t p o s i ti v e fo r co cai n e

• 1 1/ 17 / 1 7 : u ri n e t es t n eg at i ve

Fo l l owi n g th e cl o s e o f ev i d en ce an d aft er h eari ng arg u m en t fro m co u n s el

, t h e

d i s t ri ct co u rt i s s ued a v erb al ru l i n g t erm in at i n g C.K.D.’ s p aren t al ri g h t s :

Th e Co u rt : Th e C o u r t i n t h i s cas e d o es fi n d t hat t h e ev i d en ce

war r a n t s a t erm i n at i o n o f p aren t al ri g ht s as t o each

o f t he

... ch i l dren as t o each o f t h e p aren t s

. T h e s t at e h as es t ab l i s hed b y cl ear a n d co n v i n ci n g ev i d en ce

t h at t h e s t at e i s en t i tl ed t o t erm i n at i o n o f [N.M .L’ s ]

ri g h ts an d [C.K.D.’ s ] ri g h t s an d th e ch il d ren ’ s reci p ro cal ri g ht s t o t h ei r p aren t s

.

An d t h e Co u rt al s o fi nd s p art i cu l arl y t hat

t erm i n at i o n of t h e p aren t al ri g h t s in res p ect t o [A.L.D. an d L.S.D.] i s i n each of th o s e ch il d ren ’ s b es t in t eres t

.

* **

[C.K.D.’ s at t orn ey ] : Y o u r Ho n o r, can y o u s p eci fy wh i ch g ro un d s ?

Th e Co u rt : I can

. * * * W i t h res p ect t o t h e f a t h e r , i t i s u n d e r 1 01 5 (6 ).

* **

[DCFS at t o rn ey ] : Yo u r H o n or, d o t h e ch i l dren rem ai n i n t h e cu s t o d y

o f DCFS?

Th e Co u rt : Th ey are co n t i n u ed i n t h e cu s t o d y o f t h e d ep art m en t

wi t h n o reco m

m en d at i o ns as to p l acem e n t

. I’ m l eav i n g t h at i n t h e d ep art m en t ’ s d i s cret io n . * * *

Th e d is t ri ct co u rt d i d n o t p ro v i d e wri t t en reas on s fo r i t s ru l i n g

.

In rev ers i n g t h e d i st ri ct co urt ’ s ru l i n g , t h e co u rt of ap p eal n ot ed t h e “ l a c k o f

p rec i s e r e a s o n in g ” b y t h e d is t ri ct co u rt

. A s t o wh et h er C.K.D. h ad “ su b s t an t i al l y

9co m

p l ied ” wi t h t h e cas e p l an , t h e co u rt o f ap peal s t at ed :

Reg ard i n g C.K.D.’ s “ s u b s t an t i al ” co m p l i an ce wi t h hi s cas e p l an , p ro b ab l y t h e m o s t seri o u s as p ect w o u l d b e h i s su b s t an ce ab us e.

... C.K.D. t es t i fi ed t h at h e co m p l et ed “ ph as e o ne ” o n Act iv e Reco v ery

reg ard i n g h i s s u b s t an ce ab u s e. At t h e t i m e o f t h e h eari n g , h e was b ack

at Act i v e Reco ver y as an o u t p at ien t recei v i ng s erv ices fo r p aren t i n g ,

an g er m an ag em en t

, an d s u b s t a n ce ab u s e. A DCFS cas e wo rk er al s o

t es t i fi ed t h at C

. K.D. was co m p l i an t wi t h h er req u es t s fo r ran d o m d ru g

t es t s , a s p eci fi c co m

p o nen t o f h i s cas e p l a n

. W h i l e C.K.D.’ s co n d i t i o n i s o f g rea t c o n c e r n , we d o n o t b el i ev e t h e t ri al co u rt g av e en o u g h

em p h as is t o t he p ro g res s C.K.D. h as m ad e t o wa rd b ei ng d ru g -free,

p art i cu l arl y h i s “ s u b s t an t i al ” co m p l i an ce. Cl earl y , C.K.D. has n o t
d i s reg ard ed t h e i s s u e. In t ak i n g ran d o m d ru g s creen s an d p u rs u i n g

co n s i s t en t s u b st an ce ab us e t r e a t m en t

, C.K.D. i s ex h ib i t i n g s u b s tan t i al

effo rt t o o verco m e h i s h ab i t an d s u bs t an ti al ly co m p l y wi t h hi s cas e p l an

. As t o p r o v i d i n g a h o m e fo r t h e ch i l d ren , i t i s ev i d en t t h at t h e h o u s e

ap p eared in di sarray an d d i s rep ai r wh en a DCFS cas e w o r k e r v i s i t ed

. Ho wev er, t he h o us e h as b el on g ed t o hi s fam i l y fo r s o m e t i m e , wh ich

w e i g h s in h i s fav o r, an d h e h as s t at ed h e k no ws it m u s t b e i m pro v e d

. Ag ai n

S h e m ad e an effo rt fo rward i n t hi s reg ard an d h as n o t t o t al l y d i s reg ard ed t he cas e pl an ’ s req u i rem en t s

. So m e co ns i d erat i o n sh o u l d be

m ad e fo r an at t em

pt t o co m p l y , es p eci al l y wh ere s u ch a d ras t i c act i on i s i n co n s i d erat i o n

. Fi n al l y , h e h ad wo rk ed s ev en m on t h s fo r a h o u s e fo u n d at i o n rep ai r c o m

pan y , b u t h ad recen tl y s ecu red p erm an en t

em p l o y m en t

, w h i ch h e e x p r e s s ed was t h e d es i re o f th e co u rt

. Al l o f

t h es e act io n s , al t h o u g h ad m i t t ed l y n o t p erfect ad heren ce, were i n fu rt h eran ce o f hi s cas e p l an an d s h ow an at tem p t t o co m p ly

. No t ab l y , th e

s t at u t e d o es n o t req ui re “ p erfect paren t al co m p li an ce,” b ut “ s u b s tan t i al

p aren t al co m

pl i an ce.”

A.L.D. , 2 5 1 So . 3 d at 5 6 0 -6 1

.

In t h i s co u rt

, DCFS arg ues t h e reco rd s up p o rt s t he d i s t ri ct c o u r t ’ s ru l i n g an d

i t i s cl ear C.K.D.’ s co m

p l i an ce wi t h t he cas e p l an was s t i l l an i s s ue at t h e t im e o f t ri al

.

T h e d i s t ri ct co u rt was act i v el y en g ag ed at t ri al an d h eard al l t h e wi t n es ses an d w a s

g i v en an o p p o rt u n i t y t o wei g h t h ei r t es t i m o ny , an d t h e co u rt of ap p eal erred by

rei n t erp ret in g t h e ev i d en ce an d en g ag in g i n a d e n o vo rev i ew. D CFS p o i n t s o u t

C.K.D.’ s l o n g -t erm d ru g u s e an d l i m i t ed p eri o ds o f s o b ri et y , as w el l as h i s co n t i n u ed

p o s i t i ve d ru g s creen s

. DCFS arg u es t h at al t ho u g h C.K.D. d en i ed d ru g u s e aft er J u n e

2 0 1 7

, h e o ffered n o ev i den ce t o co n t rad i c t hi s po s it i ve d ru g s creen fo r co cai n e in

No v em b er 2 0 1 7

. Fu rt h er, C.K.D. h as fai l ed t o p ro v i d e ad eq uat e h o u s in g fo r t h e

10ch i l d ren

. Al t ho u g h h e cl ai m ed t o h a v e a h o m e, C.K.D. o ffered n o ev i d en ce to

d em o n s t rat e wh en , i f ev er, i t wo u l d b e ap p ro p ri at e fo r t h e ch i l d ren

. M s

. Al l en was

n ev er al l o w e d t o v i ew th e in si d e o f t h e h om e, an d co u l d n o t d et erm i n e wh et h er

C.K.D. act u al l y res i d ed in t h e h o m e b ecau s e i t ap peared ab an d o n ed fro m t h e o u t s i de.

DCFS arg u es C.K.D. h as n ev er p ai d th e n o m i n al co n t ri b u t i o n s t o t h e c a r e o f h i s

ch i l d ren as req u i red b y h is cas e p l an , d es p i te t h e fact t h at h e h as p u rp ort ed l y o b t ai n ed

em pl o y m en t

. An d, C.K.D. ad m i t t ed t h at he h ad n o co n t act wi t h t h e ch i l d ren fro m

M ay 2 0 1 7 u n t i l so m et im e i n Oct o ber 2 0 17

, aft er t h e t erm i n at i o n o f p ar e n t al ri g h t s

p et i t i o n was fi led

. DCFS arg u es an y o n e of t hes e fai l u res s u p p o rt s t he d i st ri ct co urt ’ s

d et erm i n at i o n t hat th ere h ad b een a l ack o f p aren t al co m p li an ce pu rs u an t to Art i cl e

1 0 3 6 (C).

By co n t ras t

, C.K.D. arg u es t h e reco rd an d l aw s u p po rt s th e co u rt o f a p p e al ’ s

d eci s i o n

. He arg u es t h at h e h as co m p l i ed w it h s ev eral as pect s o f h i s cas e p l an , wh i ch

i n t h e t o t al i t y o f ci rcu m s tan ces , am o un t s t o “ s ub s tan t i al p aren t al co m p l i an ce” o n h i s

p art

. C.K.D. n ot es t h e di st ri ct co u rt d i d no t o rd er no m i n al co n t ri b u ti o n s fo r t h e co s t s

o f t h e ch i l d ren ’ s fo s t er care u n t i l l at e Oct o b er 2 0 1 7. T h u s , b y t he t i m e o f tri al h e h ad

m i s s ed o n l y o n e co u rt -o rd ered p ay m en t (i .e., h i s $ 5 0 p ay m en t fo r No v em b er 2 0 1 7 ).

Fu rt h er, C.K.D. ci t es t o hi s t ri al t es t i m o n y t hat h e h ad n earl y co m p l et ed t h e

ren o v at i o n s o n h i s fam i l y h o m e n eed ed t o m eet DCFS’ s s t an d ard s , an d al so i n d i cat ed

h i s wi l l i n g n es s t o m o v e i n t o an ap art m en t i f n eed ed

. Fu rt h er, th e ev id en ce s ho wed h e

s u b s t an t i al l y co m

p l i ed w i t h s ev eral o t h er as p ect s o f h i s cas e p l an : h e m a i n t ai n ed

g ai n fu l em

p l o y m en t t hro ug h o u t t h e cas e; he was co m p l y i n g w i t h ran d o m d ru g

s creen s ; he co m

pl et ed a s u b s t an ce ab u s e p ro g ram an d re-en ro l l ed aft er rel ap s e; an d

h e was co m

p l yi n g wi th n ewl y ad d ed p ro v i si o n s o f h i s p l an req u i ri n g paren t i n g

cl as s es , an g er m an ag em en t

, an d m en t al h eal t h co u n s el i ng

. W h i le t h e co urt o f ap p eal

11n o t ed s om e ev i d en ce o f “ l ack o f p aren t al co m p l i an ce,” C.K.D. arg u es it co rrect l y

p o i n t ed o u t t hat t h e p l ai n l an g uag e o f Art i cl e 1 0 1 5 (6 ) req u i res “ su b s t an t i al ”

co m p l ian ce, n ot “ perfect ” p aren t al co m pl i an ce.

An ap p el l at e co u rt rev iews a d i s t ri ct co u rt ’ s fi n d i n g s as t o wh et h er p aren t al

ri gh t s s ho u ld b e term in at ed acco rd i n g t o t h e m an i fes t erro r s t an d ard

. S t a t e ex r el

. K.G.

a n d T.G.

, 0 2 -2 8 8 6 (La. 3 /1 8/ 0 3 ), 8 4 1 So

. 2 d 7 5 9

, 7 6 2

. Bas ed o n o u r rev i ew o f t h e

reco rd

, we co n cl u d e t h at t h e s t at e s at i sfi ed i ts b u rd en o f p ro v in g th at C.K.D. h as n ot

substa n t i al l y co m

p li ed wi t h t h e cas e p l an

. A l th o u g h C.K.D. m ad e s o m e effo r ts tow a r d

h i s cas e p l an g o a l s , we d o n o t fi n d th o s e effo rt s su ffi ci en t to reg ai n cu s t o d y o f h i s

ch i l d ren

. Th e co nd i t i o ns th at l ed t o rem o v al o f t h e ch i l d ren h av e n o t been rem ed i ed

.

S ee S ta t e In In t er es t

o f C.F. , 1 7 -1 0 5 4 (La. 1 2 / 6 / 1 7), 2 35 So . 3 d 1 06 6

, 1 0 7 3

.

Un q ues ti o n ab l y t h e p ri m ary co n d i t i o n t h at led to th e ch i l d ren ’ s rem o v al i n t h i s

cas e was p aren t al s ub s t an ce ab u s e. Bo t h p aren t s t es t ed po s it i v e fo r d ru g s at t h e t i m e

t h e ch i l d ren were rem o v ed

. Ev en m o re t ro ub l i n g i s t h e fact t h at b o t h ch i l d ren t es t ed

p o s i t i ve fo r d r u g s

. Aft er t he ch i l d ren were rem o v ed

, C.K.D. h ad a po s i t i v e d ru g

s creen i n J u l y 2 0 1 6 in co n ju n c t i o n w i t h t h e CINC t ri al

. Des p it e t h e cas e p l an

req u i ri n g s o b ri et y , C.K.D. co nt in u ed t o h av e p o s i t i v e d ru g s creen s i n D e c e m be r 2 0 1 6,

M ay 2 0 1 7 an d No v em

b er 2 0 1 7. At t ri al i n Decem b er 2 0 1 7, C.K.D. t es t i fi ed h e h ad

n o t u s ed dru gs s i n ce Ju n e 2 0 1 7

, an d t h at h e was cu rren t l y part i ci p at i ng i n su b s t an ce

ab u se t reat m en t

. Ho wev er, t h ere was ev i d en ce o f a p o s i t i v e h ai r fo l l i cl e d ru g s creen

i n No v em

b er 2 0 1 7 wh erei n C

. K

. D

. t es t ed p o si ti v e fo r co cai n e. A l t ho u g h C.K.D.

t es t i fi ed h e u n d e r s t o od h e wo u l d “ t es t d i rt y ” fo r t h ree m o n th s aft er d ru g u s e, h e

p res en t ed n o ev i d en ce at tri a l t o e x p l a i n t h e po s i t i ve h ai r fo l li cl e t es t i n No v em b er

2 0 1 7

S fi ve m o n t hs aft er h i s l as t ad m i t t ed d ru g u s e. Bas ed on o ur rev i ew o f t h e reco rd

,

we fi n d t h e s t at e p ro v ed b y c l e a r a n d co n vi n ci n g ev i den ce t h at C.K.D.’ s su b s t an ce

12ab u se i s s u es rem ai n

.

Th e reco rd al so s u pp o rt s a fi n d i n g t h at C.K.D. h as fai l ed t o su b s t an t i al l y

co m p l y w i th h i s cas e p lan req u i rem en t t o p ro v i d e ad eq u at e h o u s i n g fo r t h e ch i l d ren

.

D C F S p r e s en t ed ev i d en ce th at t h e h o u s e ap p eared ab an d o ned an d was i n a s t at e o f

d i s rep ai r, an d t h at M s

. A l l en was n ev er ab l e t o g ai n acces s t o t h e i n t eri o r of t h e h o m e.

Ot h er t han h i s o wn s el f-s erv i n g t es t i m o n y t h a t r en o v at i o n s t o t h e h o u s e were 90 %

co m p l et e t o m eet i n g DCFS’ s s t an d ard s , C.K.D. p res en t ed n o ot h er te s t i m o n y o r

p h o t o g rap h s t o d em o n st rat e t h e co n d i t i o n o f t he h o u s e.

Fi n al l y , we fi n d th e s t at e m et i t s bu rd en of p ro v i n g C.K.D. fai l ed to

s u b s t an t i al l y co m

p l y wi t h t h e cas e p lan req u i rem en t t o p ro v i de s up p o rt t o h i s

ch i l d ren

. Al t h ou g h C.K.D. cl ai m ed at t ri al h e co nt ri b u t ed t o t h e care o f h i s ch i l d ren

d u ri n g t h e t i m e t h ey were pl aced wi t h h i s m o t h er, h e ad m i t t ed t h at h e h ad n o t p ai d t h e

req u i red s u p p o rt to t he s tat e aft er t h e ch il d ren were pl aced i n fo s t er care. In b ri ef

b efo re t h is co u rt

, C.K.D. at t em p t s t o m i n i m i ze t h i s fai l ure b y ex p l ai n i n g t he p ay m en t

req u i rem en t was n o t ad d ed to t h e cas e p l an un t i l Oct o b er 2 0 1 7

, an d t h us h e h ad o n l y

m i s s ed o n e s u ch p ay m en t at t h e t i m e o f t ri al

. W e decl i n e to p l ace m u ch val u e o n t h at

arg u m en t

. It i s wo rt h n o ti n g th at d u ri n g o ral arg um en t b efo re t h i s co u rt in Decem b er

2 0 1 8

, co un s el fo r C.K.D. ad m it t ed t hat C.K.D. h ad s t i l l n o t m ad e a s in g l e req u i red

p ay m en t u n d er t h e p lan

.

In s u m , t h e c h i l d ren were rem ov ed fro m t h ei r p aren t s’ care i n M ay an d J u l y

2 0 1 6

. Al t h o u g h C.K.D. i n i t i al l y p art i ci p at ed i n s u b s t an ce ab u s e t reat m en t an d

co m p l et ed t h e fi rs t p h as e i n No v em b er 2 01 6

, h e ad m i tt ed t o rel ap s e i n Feb ru ary 2 0 1 7.

C.K.D. t o o k no act i o n o n h i s cas e p l an fro m M ay 2 01 7 un t i l Oct o b er 2 0 17

S h e d i d n ot

p art i ci p at e i n serv i ces ; h e d i d no t vi s it h i s ch i l d r e n ; h e m ad e n o effo rt s to p ro v i d e

fi nan ci al co n tri b u t i o n s t o t h ei r care; an d h e cu t off al l co n t act wi th DCFS. A l t h o u g h

13C.K.D. dem o n s t rat ed h e was p ar t i c i p at i n g in s u b s t an ce ab u se t reat m en t

, paren t i n g

cl as s es , an d an ger m an ag em en t cl as s es at th e t i m e of t ri al i n Decem ber 2 0 1 7

, h e d id

n o t en ro l l i n t h es e p ro g ram s u n t i l t h e e n d o f Oct o ber 2 01 7

. An d

, C.K.D. s t i l l h ad a

p o s i t i ve dru g s creen in N o v em ber 2 0 1 7

. Fu rt h er, t h e cl ear an d co n v i nci n g ev i d en ce

at t ri al p ro v ed C.K.D. h as b een u n ab le t o p ro v i d e ad eq u at e h o u s i n g fo r t h e ch i l d ren

.

Th e fact rem ai ns t h at C.K.D. h as n o t su b s tan t ial l y co m p l i e d wi t h h is cas e p l an an d

t h e co n d i t i o n s t hat l ed t o th e ch i l d ren ’ s rem o val p ers i s t

.

No Rea so na bl e Ex pecta ti o n o f Si g ni fi ca nt I m pro v em ent i n the Nea r Future

Ch i l dren ’ s Co d e art i cl e 1 0 36 (D) pro v i des t h at u n d er Art i cl e 1 0 15 (6 ), l ack o f

an y reas on ab le ex pect at io n o f si g n i fi can t i m p ro v em en t i n t h e p aren t ’ s co n d u ct i n t h e

n ear fu t u re m ay b e ev i d en ced b y o ne o r m o re o f t he fo l l owi n g:

(1 ) An y p h y s i cal o r m en t al i l l n es s, m en t al d efi ci en cy , s u b s tan ce ab us e,

o r ch em i cal d ep en d en cy t h at ren d ers t h e p aren t u n ab l e or i n cap ab l e o f

ex er c i s i n g p aren t al res p o n s i b i li t ies wi t h o ut ex p o s i n g t h e ch i l d to a

s u b s t a n ti al ri s k o f s eri o u s h arm , bas ed u p o n ex p ert o p in io n o r b as ed

u p o n an es t ab l i s h ed p at tern o f b eh av i or.

* * * ( 3 ) A n y o t her co nd i t i o n o r co n d uct t h at reas o n ab l y i n d i cat es t h at t h e

p aren t i s u n ab l e or u n wi ll i n g t o p ro v i d e an ad eq uat e p erm an en t h o m e fo r

t h e c h i l d

, b as ed u p o n ex p ert o pi n i o n or b as ed up o n an es t ab l i s h ed

p at t ern o f b eh av i o r.

T h e co u rt o f ap p eal fo u n d t h ere was n o t cl ear an d co n vi nci n g ev i d en ce at t ri al to

i n d i cat e t h at th ere was n o r e a s o n ab l e ex p ect at i o n o f s i g n i fi can t i m p ro v em en t in

C.K.D.’ s co n d i ti o n o r co n d u ct i n th e n ear fu t u re. A.L.D

., 2 5 1 So

. 3 d at 5 6 1

. In s o

ru l i n g, t h e co u rt o f ap p eal s p eci fi cal l y n o t ed “ t h ere w as n o ex p ert t es t i m o n y o ffered

b y th e s t at e t en d i ng t o s h o w C.K.D. h as n o p o ss i bi l i t y o f i m p ro v em en t ,” an d fu rt h er

s t at ed t hat “ wi t h n o art i cu l at ed s p eci fi c reas o n s b y t h e d is t ri ct co u rt on t h i s i s s u e, we

m u st det erm i n e i t s co n cl u s io n was m an i fes t l y erro n eo u s.” Id

. Th e co u rt fo cu s ed o n

t h e “ s h o rt p eri o d o f t i m e” th e p ro ceed i n g s h ad b een on g o i n g , an d po i n t ed o u t

C.K.D.’ s effo rt s t o o b t ai n m o re rel i ab l e em p lo y m en t

, t o at t ai n s ecu re h o u s i ng fo r t h e

14ch i l d ren , an d t h at h e ap p eared t o b e w o rk i n g o n h i s su b st an ce ab u s e p ro b l em

. Th e

co u rt o f ap p eal fo u n d C.K.D.’ s effo rt s were “ m o re po s it i v e in n at u re an d t en d t o s h o w

a m o re p o s i t i v e t ren d th an n eg at i v e,” an d fo u n d i t m o re reas o n ab le t h an n o t t h at h e

wo u l d m ak e s i gn i fi can t i m p ro v em en t i n t h e fu t u re. Id

.

DCFS as s ert s th e co u rt o f ap p eal erred i n co n cl u d i n g t he s t at e h ad fai l ed to

es t ab l i s h a l ack o f reas o n ab l e ex p ect at i o n o f s i g n i fi can t i m pro v em en t i n C.K.D.’ s

co n di t i o n o r co n d u ct i n t h e n ear fu t u re. Co n t rary t o t h e co u rt o f ap p eal ’ s ap p aren t

s u g g es t i o n t h at th e s t at e n eed ed t o p ro d uce ex pert t es t i m o n y t o s h o w C.K.D. h ad n o

p o s s i b i l i ty o f i m

p ro v em en t

, DCFS arg u es t h at t he p l ai n l an g u ag e o f Art i cl e 1 0 3 6 (D)

p erm i t s th e s t at e t o es t ab l i s h a l ack o f an y reas o n ab l e ex p ect at i o n o f s i g n i fi can t

i m p ro v em en t i n t h e n ear fu t ure t h ro u g h ei t her ex p e r t t es ti m o ny o r an es t ab l i s h ed

p at t ern o f b eh av i o r. DCFS p o i n t s o u t C.K.D.’ s l o n g h i s t ory o f d ru g u s e an d l i m i t ed

p eri o d s o f s o b ri et y , an d d et ai l s h is co n ti n u ed d ru g u s e d u ri n g t h e co urs e o f t h es e

p ro ceed in g s

. At t ri al

, C.K.D. d en i ed d ru g u s e b et ween J u l y an d Decem b er 2 0 1 7

, b ut

o f f e r e d n o ev i d en ce t o ex p l ai n h i s p os i t i v e d ru g s creen in No v em b er 2 0 1 7

. Bo t h

ch i l d ren t es t ed p os i t i v e fo r d ru g s w h i l e i n C.K.D.’ s care. C.K.D. ab s en t ed h i m s el f

fro m th e ch i l d ren ’ s l i v es bet ween M ay 2 01 7 an d O ct o b er 2 0 1 7

. DCFS arg ues t h i s i s

t h e es t ab li s h ed p at t ern o f C.K.D.’ s beh av i o r an d co n d u ct

. He m ay “ wo rk on t h i n g s ”

b u t h e n ev er acco m

p l i sh es a ch an g e i n h i s s i t u at i o n o r b eh av i or. He s t il l u s es d ru g s

an d s ti l l h as n o s afe h o m e fo r t h e ch i l d ren

.

C.K.D. arg u es th e co urt o f ap p eal co rrect l y ap pl i ed t h e m an i fes t erro r s t an d ard

t o co n cl ud e t h at D CFS fai led t o p ro v e b y cl ear an d co n v i n ci ng ev i d en ce th at t h ere

was n o reas o n ab l e ex pect at io n o f i m p ro v em en t i n hi s co n d i t i o n o r co n d u ct i n t h e n ear

fu t u re. C.K.D. arg u es t h e ev i d en ce s h o ws h e wa s a dd res s i n g h i s s u b s t an ce ab u s e

i s su es ; h e h ad recen t l y s ecu red s t ab l e em p l oy m en t wi t h a rep o rt ab l e i n co m e; h e h as

15n earl y co m

p l et e d t h e ren o v at i on s o f h i s h o u s e n eed ed t o p ro v i d e a s afe an d s t ab l e

h o m e fo r t h e c h i l d r e n; an d h e h ad s t art ed wo rk i n g h i s n ewl y ad d ed cas e p l an

p ro v is i o n s b y at t en d i ng p aren t i n g cl as s es , an g er m an ag em en t, an d m en t al h eal th

co u ns el i n g

. C.K.D. arg u es t h at i n t h e ab s en ce o f ex p ert o p i n io n , t h e co u rt o f ap p eal

co u ld di s cern fro m t h e reco r d n o es t ab l i s h ed p at t ern o f b eh av i o r si n ce th e t i m e o f

rem o v al i n d i cat i n g t h at he was u n ab l e o r i n cap ab l e o f ex erci s i n g p aren t al

re s p o n s i b i l i t i es

. C.K.D. arg u es t h at i n t h e s h o rt t i m e fram e s i n ce rem o v al

, h e h as

m ad e s u b s t an t i al effo rt s to o verco m e h i s d ru g h ab i t, ev i den ced by h i s t wo m os t recen t

u ri n e s creen s fro m

Oct o b er 2 0 17 an d No v em b er 2 0 1 7

.

Aft er rev iew o f t h e reco rd

, we f i n d t h e c o u rt of ap p eal erred in rev ers i n g t h e

d i s t ri ct co u rt ’ s d et erm i n at io n

. Fi rs t

, an y su g ges t i o n b y th e co urt o f ap peal t h at ex p ert

t es t i m o ny was n eces s ary t o p ro v e th ere i s n o “ reas o nab l e ex p ect at io n o f i m p ro v em en t

i n t h e n e a r fu t u re,” i s n eg at ed b y Art i cl e 1 03 6 (D) w h i ch s p eci fi cal l y al l o w s p ro o f

“ b as ed up on ex p ert o p i n i o n o r b as ed u p on an es t ab li s hed p at tern o f b eh av i o r.”

Fu rt h er, al t h ou g h w e ack n owl ed g e wri t t en o r v erb al det ai led reas o n s fro m t he d i s t ri ct

co u rt are cert ai n l y b en ef i c i a l i n t h e s e cas es , t h ere i s no m an d at e fo r t h e co u rt to

p ro v id e su ch r e a s o n s

. An d

, C.K.D. co u l d h av e req u es t ed reas o ns fro m t h e d i s t ri ct

co u rt as p erm i t t ed b y

La C.C.P. art 1 9 1 7 (A). 7

Th e reco rd d o es n o t s u p p o rt a fi n d in g t h at C.K.D. wi ll be ab le t o rem ai n d ru g

free an d p ro vi de s u it ab l e, s afe, an d s t ab l e h o u s i n g i n th e n ear fu t u re. If we co n s i d er

h i s es t ab l i s h ed p at t ern o f b eh av i o r, C.K.D. h as b een u s i n g d ru g s fo r twen t y y ears wi th

o n l y i n t erm i t t en t p eri o d s o f s o b ri et y

. Al t h o u g h h e co m p l et ed t h e fi rs t p h as e o f d ru g

t reat m en t d u ri n g t h e pen d en cy o f t h i s cas e, h i s s o b ri et y was s h o rt -l i v ed

. C.K.D. h as

7 L a. C.C.P. art. 1917(A) provides: “I n all appealable contested cases, o ther than those tried by a jury , the court when requested to do so by a party shall g ive in writing its finding s of fact and

reasons for judg ment, provided the request is made not later than ten day s after the mailing of the notice of the sig n ing of the judg ment.”

16co n ti n u ed t o t es t p os i t iv e fo r dru g s. W e reco g n ize C.K.D. tes t i fi ed t o h is des i re to

ch an ge, h o wev er h i s t es ti m o n y d em o n s t rat ed an u n real i st i c an d i n fl at ed vi ew o f h i s

ab i l i t i es

. Fo r i n s t an ce, i n tes t i fy i n g t h at h e d es erv es a s eco n d ch an ce, C.K.D. s t at ed :

“ I h av e n ev er n o t fo l l o wed t h ro u g h wi t h s o m e t h in g

.... W h en I p ut m y m i n d to

s o m e t h i n g , I d o i t...

. I wi l l n ev er fai l an o t h er d ru g t es t

, ev er. Ev er. M ark i t d o wn ,

wri t e i t, I d o n’ t care. I p ro m is e y o u

. Co m e b ack t en y ears fro m n o w, I b et y o u I d o n ’ t

fai l a d ru g t es t .” C.K.D. fu rt h er t es t i fi ed th at h e o n ly n eed ed an ad d i t i o nal 3 -6 m o n t h s

t o co m p ly wi t h h i s cas e p l an : “ I’ l l h av e i t al l do n e. Ev ery t h i n g. Bi g g er an d b et t er t h an

y o u wan t .” C.K.D. cl ai m ed at t ri al t h at h e h ad o n ly fai l ed t wo d ru g t es t s an d t h at h e

h ad “ d o n e ev ery s in g l e t hi n g to t h e T t h at y o u wo u l d wan t or need an d m o re.” W h i l e

d i rect l y q u es t io n i n g C.K.D., th e d i s t ri ct co u rt s p e c i f i c a l l y as k ed h i m i f h e was

fam i l i ar wi t h t h e t erm “ g ran di o s i t y ” an d wh et her th at was an is s u e fo r h i m

. It i s cl ear

t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt d i d n ot g i v e m u ch cred en ce t o C.K.D.’ s t es t i m on y an d o verb l o wn

p ro m i s es

. W e ag ree w i t h D CFS t h at d e s p i t e s o m e act i o n s t ak en b y C.K.D. t o ward s

h i s cas e p l an g o al s , t h ere i s n o b as is i n t h i s reco rd o n w h i ch t o co n cl u d e hi s co n d u ct

wi l l s i g ni fi can t l y i m

p ro v e i n t h e n ear fu t u re. T he s t at e p ro v ed b y cl ear an d co n v i n ci n g

ev i d en ce C.K.D. had an e s t a b l i s h e d p at t ern of beh av i or o f dru g u se an d fai l u re to

fo l l o w t h i n g s th ro u g h t o co m pl et i o n t h at h as per s i s t e d e v en aft er rem o v al o f t h e

ch i l d ren

.

Bes t I nteres ts o f the Chi l dren

W e fu rt h er fi n d t he co u rt o f ap p eal fai l ed t o ad eq u at el y f o c u s o n t h e b es t

i n t eres t s o f t he ch i l d r e n , w h i ch t h e d is tri ct co u rt fo u n d wo u l d b es t b e s erv ed by

t erm i n at i n g C.K.D.’ s p aren tal ri g h t s

. Th e p u rp o s e o f a term i n at i o n of paren t al ri g h t s

p ro ceed in g i s t o “ p ro t ect ch i l d ren wh o s e p aren ts are u nwi l l i n g o r u n ab le t o p ro v i d e

s afet y an d care ad eq u at e t o m eet t h ei r p h y s i cal

, em o t i on al

, an d m en t al h eal t h n eed s ,

17b y p ro vi d i n g a ju d i ci al p ro ces s fo r t h e term i n at i o n of al l p ar e n t al ri g h t s an d

res p o n s i b i l i t ies an d fo r t h e cert i fi c a t i o n o f t he ch i l d fo r ad o p ti o n .” La. Ch

. C. art

.

1 0 0 1 . Th i s co u rt h as ex p l ai n ed :

In al l p ro ceed i n g s , t h e p ri m ary co n cern i s t o secu re t h e b es t i n t eres t o f

t h e ch i l d i f a g ro u n d ju s ti fy i ng t erm i n at i o n o f paren t al ri g h t s i s p ro v ed

. Term i nat i o n o f p aren t al ri g h t s i s t o b e co n s i d ered t h e fi rs t s t ep t o ward

p erm an en t p l acem en t o f t h e ch i l d in a s afe an d su i t ab l e h o m e, an d i f

p o s s i b l e, t o ach iev e th e ch i l d ’ s ad o p t i o n

. T h e i n t eres t s o f t h e paren t

m u s t b e b al an ced ag ai n s t t h e ch i l d ’ s i n t eres t

, bu t t h e ch i l d ’ s i n t eres t i s

p aram o u n t

. M o re t h an s i m p l y pro t ect i n g p aren t al ri g ht s, o u r ju d i ci al

s y s t em m u s t p ro tect t h e ch i l d ’ s ri g h t t o t hri v e an d s urv i v e. A ch i l d h as

an i n t eres t i n t h e t erm i n at i o n o f ri g ht s th at prev en t ad o pt i o n an d i n h ib i t

t h e ch i l d ’ s es tab l i s h m en t o f s ecu re, s t ab le, l o n g t erm , co n t i n uo u s fam i l y rel at io ns h ip s

. W h i l e t h e in t eres t o f a p aren t i s p ro t ect ed i n a t erm i nat i o n

p ro ceed i n g b y en fo rci n g p ro ced u ral ru l es en act ed t o i n s u re t h at th e

p aren t al ri g h t s are n ot t h o u g h tl es s l y s ev ered

, t h o se i n t eres t s m u s t

u l t i m at el y y i el d t o th e p aram o u n t i n teres t o f t h e ch i l d . Ch i l d ren h av e a ri gh t t o li v e i n a s afe, s ecu re en v i ro n m en t an d t o b e reared b y s om eo ne wh o i s cap ab l e o f cari n g fo r t h em

.

C.F ., 2 3 5 So . 3 d at 1 0 75 (i n t ern al ci t at i on s rem o v ed ).

W e reco g n i ze t h at a b o n d ex i s t s b et ween C.K.D. an d h i s ch i ld ren , an d we

ack n owl ed ge C.K.D. p res en t ed u n co n trad ict ed ev i d e n c e t o t h i s effect at t ri al

. W e

fu rt her n o t e t h e ch i l d ren ’ s at to rn ey i s s up p o rt i v e o f t h e fat h er’ s po s it i o n

. H o wev er,

we can no t i g no re t h e fact t hat C.K.D. h as d em o n s t rat ed an i n ab i l it y t o care fo r h i s

c h i l d r e n , p ri m ari ly d u e t o hi s l o n g -s t an d i n g su b st an ce ab u s e p ro b lem s. W e fi n d i t

ex t rem el y tro u b l i n g t h at b o t h ch i l d ren h av e twi ce t es ted p o s i t i v e fo r d ru g s , ei t h er

wh i le i n t h e care o f C.K.D. o r wh i l e h e w as l i v i n g i n t h e s a m e h o u s eh o l d

. It i s

p aram ou n t t h at we p l ace t h e ch i l d ren ’ s b es t i n t eres ts ab o v e t h at o f t h ei r fat her. “ Th ere

co m es a p o i n t wh en th e b es t i n t eres t s o f t h e ch i l d ren m u s t b e serv ed b y t erm i n at i n g

p aren t al ri g h t s i n o rd er to ach iev e perm an en cy an d s t ab i li t y fo r t h e c h i l d ren

. Th e

fo cu s o f an i n v o l u n tary term in at i o n p ro ceed i ng i s n o t wh et h er t h e p aren t s h o u l d b e

d ep ri v ed o f c u s t o d y , b u t wh et h er i t wo u ld be i n t h e b es t i n t eres t o f t h e ch i ld fo r al l

l eg al rel at i o ns wi t h t h e paren t t o b e t erm in at ed .” S t a t e ex r el . S .M.W

. , 0 0 -3 2 7 7 (La.

182 / 2 1 / 0 1 ), 7 8 1 So . 2 d 1 2 2 3

, 1 2 3 8

. In t h i s cas e, we d o n o t q u es t i o n C.K.D.’ s l o v e fo r

h i s ch i l d ren , h owev er t h e reco rd d o es n o t es t ab l i s h th at C.K.D.’ s ci rcu m s t an ces h av e

i m p ro v ed s u ch t h at i t wo ul d b e i n t h e bes t i n t eres t s o f t h e c h i l d ren fo r C.K.D. to

ret ai n h i s p aren t al ri g h t s

.

CONCLUSI ON

Th i s co u rt h as al way s reco g n i zed th at t h e p ri m ary co n cern o f t h e co u rt s an d t h e

s t at e i n th es e cas es i s t o s ecu re t h e b es t i nt eres t fo r th e ch i l d, i ncl u d in g t erm i n at i o n

o f p aren tal ri g h t s i f

ju s t i fi ab l e s t at u t o ry g ro u n d s ex i s t an d are p ro v en

. In t h i s cas e, t h e

s t at e p ro v ed b y cl ear an d co n v i n ci n g ev id en ce t h e g ro u n d s fo r t erm i n at io n u n d er

Lo u is i an a Ch i l dren ’ s Co d e art i cl e 1 01 5 (6 ) an d t h at t erm i nat i o n was i n t h e b es t

i n t eres t s o f t he ch i l dren . Th es e fi n d in g s are cl earl y s u p p o rt ed b y th e reco rd an d are

reas on ab l e i n l i g ht o f th e reco rd i n i t s en t i ret y

. Th e co u rt o f a p p e a l e rred by

s u b s t i t u t in g it s o wn ju dg m en t fo r t h at o f t he di s t ri ct co u rt

. Th erefo re, w e rev ers e t h e

ru l i n g o f t h e co u rt o f ap p eal an d rei n s t at e t h e d i st ri ct co u rt ’ s ru l i n g , t erm i n at i n g t h e

p aren t al ri g h t s o f C.K.D.

DECREE

REVERSED. J UDGMENT OF THE DI STRI C T C OURT REI NSTATED.

REMANDED TO THE DI STRI CT COURT FOR FU R T H E R P R OCEEDI NGS.

19