Case Name: STATE of Louisiana, in the Interest of J, K AND T
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1991-05-16
Citations: 582 So. 2d 269
Docket Number: No. CJ 90 0371
Parties: STATE of Louisiana, in the Interest of J, K AND T.
Judges: Before COVINGTON, C.J., LANIER, SHORTESS and WATKINS JJ., and VIAL LEMMON , J. Pro Tern.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 582
Pages: 269–285

Head Matter:
STATE of Louisiana, in the Interest of J, K AND T.
No. CJ 90 0371.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.
May 16, 1991.
Stay Order Denied; Writ Denied June 21,1991.
Janice L. Kazmier, Bureau of Gen. Counsel, New Orleans, for appellee.
James H. Looney, Asst. Public Defender, Covington, for appellant, mother K.P.
Before COVINGTON, C.J., LANIER, SHORTESS and WATKINS JJ., and VIAL LEMMON , J. Pro Tern.
Judge Mary Ann Vial Lemmon is serving as judge pro tempore by special appointment of the Louisiana Supreme Court to fill the vacancy created by the death of Judge Steve A. Alford, Jr.

Opinion:
MARY ANN VIAL LEMMON, Judge Pro Tern.
KP appeals from a judgment terminating her parental rights to three of her children.
The father of the children, T.P., has voluntarily relinquished his parental rights. The issue on appeal is whether the court committed manifest error in its determination that termination of K.P.'s parental rights is appropriate under R.S. 13:1601 because it was shown by clear and convincing evidence that she has "shown no significant substantial indication of reformation and is unlikely to reform."
The children who are the subject of this suit came into State's custody in October, 1986 by emergency order issued at the request of the mother. She was pregnant with her fourth child and felt unable to care for the children. She planned to move into a maternity home to await the birth of her child. The State worked diligently with her toward the goal of reuniting her with her children until November, 1989 when it filed a Petition to Terminate Parental Rights. All three children have been in foster care continuously since the State obtained custody, except for T., who was placed with his mother on a trial basis from October 31, 1988 to March 29, 1989. Each of the three sets of foster parents has indicated its intention to adopt its ward if termination is granted.
The testimony reveals that after the children were taken into custody the mother was unable to provide for her own well-being. She was involved in an unhealthy relationship with T.P., was unable to perform basic hygienic and nutritional tasks, moved numerous times, was unable to maintain steady employment, and did not successfully conform to the goals set by the State in order to achieve reunification. The brief trial reunification with T. was unsuccessful, and the State removed him simultaneously with its removal of another child not subject of the hearing.
As of the time of trial there were indications of some improvement in K.P.'s ability to provide for her own well-being. She had been steadily employed as a waitress for nine months. She had a prospect of receiving training for a managerial job with the same employer. She was attending data processing classes and had proved by testing to be drug free. She was not yet in an independent living arrangement, although she had severed the relationship with T.P.
This case" presents the delicate issue of balancing of the interests of parents in a continuation of a family unit and the interests of the children to be freed for adoption into a stable loving home life.
Federal guidelines, set forth in the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-272), require that States make reasonable efforts at reunification of the parent and child. Where there is no reasonable probability of reunification, the State must develop an alternative permanency plan. Included in that mandate is the termination of parental rights so that a child may be freed for adoption. The intent of the Act was to combat the foster care limbo to which so many of the nation's abused and neglected children were being subjected. Shotton, Making Reasonable Efforts in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases: Ten Years Later, 26 Cal.W.L.Rev 223, 253 (1989-1990).
Though the guidelines for foster care and development of a permanency plan were meticulously complied with in this case, the State is required to include safeguards of due process and establish the conditions of R.S. 13:1601 for termination of K.P.'s parental rights by clear and convincing evidence. Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982).
In his report of July 10, 1989 Dr. Scuddy F. Fontenelle, Ph.D., made the following recommendation based on his June 16, 1989 evaluation:
I suggest that KP be given six to eight months in an attempt to live independently and autonomously, pursue increased independence from TP. I recommend that she be given contact with her children at least two visits' per month, preferably afternoon visits of three to four hour duration, at a convenient St. Tammany Parish location. I do not recommend overnight or extended visits with her children. If K is able to maintain improved social and living arrangement in her life during the next six to eight months I would recommend gradually increasing contact with her children and having social service staff work with K to gain skills in child rearing and parenting. If K demonstrates that she is unable to live independently and cannot separate herself from TP, it is imperative that the children be given opportunity to continually bond with foster parents and reduce contact with KP.
As of the hearing date of January 3, 1990 K.P. had made significant strides toward fulfilling the goals set by Dr. Fonte-nelle. Although all experts agreed that the best interests of the children mandate that they remain in the homes of their foster parents with whom they are psychologically bonded, that removal of the children under these circumstances would be psychologically harmful to each of the children, and that it is unlikely that K.P. will ever possess the maturity for maintaining an appropriate parent-child relationship, since she has made steps in the right direction toward achieving that goal, she should be given the chance to continue her efforts. The State must follow the recommendations of Dr. Fontenelle to gradually increase contact with her children and have its social service staff work with K.P. to gain skills in child-rearing and parenting.
In the event she regresses in her attempts or fails to continue strides toward reunification, another action for termination may be brought so the best interests of the children in being freed for adoption may be protected under the new set of circumstances then in existence. Based on this record the trial court was manifestly erroneous in finding the State had established by clear and convincing evidence that K.P. has "shown no significant substantial indication of reformation and is unlikely to reform" as of the date of this hearing.
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court judgment of termination. The custody of the three minor children, T., K., and J. will remain in the State.
REVERSED.
LANIER, J., concurs and assigns reasons.
SHORTESS and WATKINS, JJ., concur for reasons assigned by LANIER, J.
COVINGTON, C.J., dissents.
. K.P. was 23 years old at the time of this hearing in January, 1990. She has given birth to the following children:
T: DOB 12/7/83 Subject of this suit.
K: DOB 12/28/84 Subject of this suit.
J: DOB 10/31/85 Subject of this suit.
D: DOB 6/5/87 Given up for adoption to the foster parents of J.
C: DOB 1/7/88 In foster care since March, 1989 but not subject of this suit.
She has undergone a tubal ligation.
. The relevant federal guidelines, found in 42 U.S.C.A. 627 and 42 U.S.C.A. § 675, must be complied with in order to be eligible for foster care funding.
. A review of the record reveals that the State has complied with both state and federal foster care review guidelines. See R.S. 46:2411 et. seq. and 42 U.S.C.A. § 627 and 675.
A case review system was instituted, which included the preparation and filing of a case plan every six months. The case plans are dated 10/15/87, 4/28/88, 10/26/88, 4/19/89, and 10/4/89. While all of the previous case plans stated reunification as the goal, the final plan (dated October 4, 1989) recommended adoption of the three children by their respective foster parents, with whom they had resided since they were taken into custody in October of 1986. Each case plan sets forth the objectives and permanency plan, as well as "a plan for assuring that the child receives proper care and that services are provided to the parents, child, and foster parents in order to improve the conditions in the parents' home, facilitate return of the child to his own home or the permanent placement of the child, and address[es] the needs of the child while in foster care, including a discussion of the appropriateness of the services that have been provided to the child under the plan," as set forth in 42 U.S.C.A. § 675(1).
Each case plan outlines provisions for parental visitation and includes a "Team Conference Confirmation." All of the team conferences, with the exception of one, were attended by K.P., the case manager, case supervisor, Family Service worker, Administrative Reviewer, Foster Care worker and a foster parent for each child.
In addition to the case plan review system, this case was subjected to judicial review a minimum of once every six months prior to the filing of the Petition for Termination of Parental Rights.
Including the initial court order removing the children from the parents' home and prior to the Petition for Termination, the case was reviewed by the court on 10/9/86, 10/14/86, 12/4/86, 5/21/87, 12/8/87, 6/14/88, 11/16/88 and 5/17/89. On May 17, 1989, the court ordered a "bonding assessment," apparently to determine whether the children view the biological parents or the foster parents as their psychological parents. This court order was issued after the filing of both a case plan and a letter from the State child welfare agency (DSS) recommending adoption rather than reunification and outlining the reasons for the recommendation.