Court Opinion

ID: 9961755
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-19 18:06:14.75822+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:47.153314
License: Public Domain

STATE OF LOUISIANA

                              COURT OF APPEAL

   Uv""
                               FIRST CIRCUIT

                                2023 CJ 1269

                          STATE OF LOUISIANA
                 IN THE INTEREST OF S. F. AND R.B.

                                           JUDGMENT RENDERED:      APR 19 2024

                         Appealed from the Juvenile Court
Twenty -Second Judicial District • Parish of Washington * State of Louisiana
                     Docket Numbers J- 22- 31 and J- 22- 57

                 The Honorable Scott Gardner • Presiding Judge

 Douglas Lee Harville                               COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT
 Contract Attorney for the                          MINORS' MOTHER— L.F.
 Louisiana Public Defender Board,
 Child in Need of Care Appellate Project
 Shreveport, Louisiana
    and

 John T. Thomas
 Franklinton, Louisiana

 Rebecca F. Henderson                               COUNSEL 1' OR APPELLEES
 Mental Health Advocacy Service ( MHAS),            MINOR CHILDREN— S. F. and R.B.

 Child Advocacy Programa
 Mandeville, Louisiana

 Kimberly E. DeBrock                                COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE
 Covington, Louisiana                               The Louisiana Department of
                                                    Children and Family Services
                                                    DCFS)

              BEFORE: WELCH, WOLFE, AND STROMBERG, JJ.

                                                 w,
  v.      e
WELCH, J.

           The mother of two minor children appeals a judgment that terminated her

parental rights and freed her two minor children for adoption.'                      For the following

reasons, we affirm.

                         FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

           L.F. is the biological mother of S. F. ( born August 19, 2018) and R.B. ( born

February 1, 2022). L.F. and the children' s father, K.B., Z have a history of domestic

violence, substance abuse, and mental health issues. The Louisiana Department of

Children and Family Services (" DCFS") became involved with the family and

opened an investigation due to R.B.' s birth as a drug -affected newborn. When R.B.

was born, she was premature, in respiratory distress, and tested positive for THC,

methamphetamines, and amphetamines. Throughout the investigation, L.F. and K.B.

were cooperative with DCFS and showed a willingness to do whatever necessary for

the two minor children to remain in the home. L.F. admitted to using THC and Xanax

during the investigation, as well as chronically using THC to self m
                                                                   - edicate her

bipolar disorder. Due to the children' s ages and vulnerability, an initial safety plan

was put in place with the children' s paternal grandparents'                      designated as safety

monitors who would check in with the family multiple times throughout the day.

  The same August 9, 2023 judgment terminated the father' s ( K.B.' s) parental rights as well;
however, the father has not appealed. The judgment is final as it relates to the termination of the
father' s parental rights. See State in Interest of A.B., 2023- 0655 ( La. App. 151 Cir. 1/ 19124),
So. 3d ,          n. 2, 2024 WL 205495, * 1 n.2, writ denied, 2024- 00221 ( La. 3/ 7/ 24), _          So. 3d
     2024 WL 1066953.

Z K.B. is listed as the father on R.B.' s birth certificate, but not on S. F.' s birth certificate. The State
of Louisiana, Department of Health' s putative father registry indicated that no one is registered as
the putative father of either child. The Twenty -Second Judicial District Clerk of Court' s Office
and the Twenty -First Judicial District Clerk of Court' s Office indicates that no one has filed any
act of acknowledgment as it relates to either child. However, through the Child in Need of Care
  CINC") proceedings, K.B. admitted that he was the father of both minor children.

3 This matter began as a CINC without custody case, which was assigned docket number J- 22- 31.

4 The children' s paternal grandparents are S. B. and R.B.

                                                     2
           On February 21, 2022, DCFSS made referrals for substance abuse treatment,

mental health treatment, and parenting education classes.' L.F. was recommended

for participation in Family Preservation Court (" FPC"),'           with outpatient level of care

supported by random drug screens, attendance of recovery support groups, and

completion of individual and couple' s treatment to address codependency, domestic

abuse, and recovery. L.F. was also recommended for parenting classes and clinical

treatment for her mental health needs.'

           A Family Team Meeting was held on April 5, 2022.9 DCFS discovered that

L.F. was non-compliant with her treatment since her initial assessment on March 25,

2022, and had not followed up on referrals for parenting classes and mental health

services. L.F. also failed to attend her FPC orientation.

           DCFS developed and finalized a case plan on April 5, 2022 that set forth the

basic requirements for each parent to maintain custody of S. F. and R.B. The case

plan required L.F. to ensure that the home environment was safe, stable, and healthy;

     Lydia Godbolt was the DCFS caseworker ( and Family Services worker) assigned to this matter.

6 This program within DCFS is called " Family Services," which are social services provided to
families and children in their own homes in order to address problems of abuse/neglect and
promote the safety of the children within the family unit for a time- limited period, generally six
months. See Department of Children &          Family Services, Child Welfare, " Family Services,"
https:// www.dcfs.Iouisiana.gov/page/ 112 ( last accessed March 18, 2024).

     The Twenty -Second Judicial District Court' s FPC is a special program designed to help parents
recover from substance abuse by participating in treatment, frequent drug testing, and monthly
judicial  monitoring. See " Family Preservation Court," https:// online.22ndjdc. org/ fatnily-
preservation- court ( last accessed March 18, 2024).

     Chris Russell with TRUTH 180 assessed L.F. on March 25, 2022. TRUTH 180 serves St.
Tammany and Washington Parishes by providing individual, group, and family therapy to all those
mandated by the courts or other entities to receive these services. See " Clinical Adult Services,"
https:// truthl80.org/ ( last accessed March 18, 2024).

9"
  Family Team Meetings bring together a family and interested people, like friends, neighbors
and community members, with resources from child welfare, mental health, schools, and other
helping agencies. These interested parties work together to learn what the family hopes to
accomplish, set realistic and important goals, recognize and encourage the family' s strengths,
identify what the family needs, find solutions that build on the family' s strengths and lead to
necessary changes, make a plan for who will do what and when it will be done, and agree on the
next steps. The purpose of Family Team Meetings is to keep children safe, promote children' s
well-being, and support families," See Department of Children & Family Services, Child Welfare,
 Family Team Meetings," https:// www.defs.louisiana.gov/ page/ 365 ( last accessed March 18,
2024).
complete     substance     abuse    assessment   and   treatment— including    submitting to

random drug screens and attending recovery support groups; complete individual

and couple' s treatment for domestic abuse; cooperate with DCFS for home visits

and   telephone   calls;    complete     a mental      health   assessment   and   follow   any

recommendations made; and not engage in domestic violence. The case plan also

required L.F. to attend parenting classes.

       During home visits in April and early May 2022, DCFS reported that L.F. had

failed to follow up with any of her treatment recommendations and failed to

complete her FPC orientation. L.F. failed to contact any of her treatment supervisors

or respond to their efforts to communicate with her. DCFS stressed to L.F. the

importance of complying with the case plan, remaining clean and sober, and

following up with her treatment recommendations. After L.F. finally completed FPC

orientation in mid-May 2022, FPC representatives reported to DCFS that L.F. was

more interested in the children' s father' s role with treatment than in her own

treatment.   On May 18,        2022, TRUTH 180 reported that L.F. failed to attend

treatment and failed to take a scheduled drug test. At a juvenile court hearing on May
20, 2022, DCFS stressed the importance of L.F.' s compliance with all of her

recommended       treatment,       otherwise the     children   could enter DCFS      custody.

Likewise, at L.F.' s first FPC hearing on May 26, 2022, the court stressed to L.F. that

if she did not comply with her case plan, the children would be placed in DCFS

custody. After the FPC hearing, L.F. met with DCFS workers, who recommended

that she submit to a drug test that day, make an appointment with her mental health

provider, make an appointment with her primary care doctor to evaluate a newly -

observed leg injury, and schedule a substance abuse treatment session.

       The next day— May 27, 2022— DCFS confirmed that L.F. failed to comply

with any of the previously -recommended treatment or the April 5, 2022 case plan.

L.F. admitted to using methamphetamines and smoking marijuana, which is why she

                                                 4
refused to take a drug test the previous day. DCFS indicated that the paternal

grandparents had previously asked to be relieved of their duty as safety monitors

because there was turmoil between them and L.F. When law enforcement conducted

a welfare check on L.F. and K.B.' s home, officers discovered the " filthy" children

wearing dirty clothes and found the home in disarray with clothes and trash spread

throughout.

       Due to the children' s ages, vulnerability level, and risk of harm, the State took

S. F. and R.B.   into custody on May 27, 2022 by instanter order and placed the

children in the care of their paternal grandparents. In the affidavit in support of the

instanter order, the DCFS caseworker stated that L.F.               had a history with the

agency ---she was investigated      in 2015 for dependency and lack of supervision of

two older children. During that case, L.F. moved to Mississippi, where Mississippi' s

child protective services agency ultimately removed those two older children from

her care, and she has never regained custody of them. DCFS also stated that both

parents had extensive criminal histories and a history of domestic violence.

       The juvenile court adjudicated the children in need of care on June 13, 2022,

pursuant to stipulations by the parents without admissions to the supporting

allegations.

       After another Family Team Meeting, DCFS developed and finalized a case

plan on June 24, 2022 that set forth the basic requirements for each parent to achieve

                                                        1°
the goal of reunifying the children with them.               The case plan required L.F. to

maintain stable housing and provide a safe and nurturing home for her children;

comply with substance abuse treatment; address her mental health issues; maintain

contact with DCFS and be open and honest; and complete the RENEW program.

The case plan also required L.F. and K.B. to " pay a total of $20.00 in child support

  The juvenile court approved the June 24, 2022 case plan in an order signed on July 29, 2022.

                                               E
for their children[.]" The DCFS caseworker later testified that L.F. and K.B. were

obligated to pay $ 20. 00 per month, per child ($40. 00 total) in child support. The case

plan further required L.F. and K.B. to apprise DCFS of their whereabouts and

circumstances.   DCFS indicated the children were placed with their paternal

grandparents, with whom the children were bonded, and who provided the most

appropriate and least restrictive family -like setting for the children.

      In August 2022, DCFS reported that the caseworker had been unable to assess

L.F.' s home in the previous three months. DCFS also indicated that L.F. had not

maintained contact with DCFS or kept the agency informed of her whereabouts and

circumstances, nor had she made any child support contribution payments. DCFS

reported that despite having twenty- four opportunities to visit her children, L.F. had

only visited five times.

      DCFS reported that L.F. was discharged from FPC for non- compliance. On

August 17, 2022, L.F. tested positive for amphetamines and methamphetamines.

After a September 9, 2022 meeting with DCFS, where she was confronted with her

lack of participation in her case plan, lack of visitation with her children, and lack of

understanding of what was required of her, L.F. stated,that she had no money for the

 7. 00 drug tests or gas to attend visitations. DCFS informed her that if she would

have maintained regular contact with DCFS, the agency would have attempted to

provide her with transportation. While L.F. did complete parenting classes, DCFS

noted that she had not visited her children consistently enough to exhibit what she

had learned. DCFS completed an application on behalf of L.F. to secure her a place

in the sober living home, Grace House; however, L.F. did not check in to Grace

House.

      DCFS developed and finalized a case plan on October 26, 2022 that set forth

the continuing requirements for each parent to achieve the goal of reunifying the

                                            Cl
children with them."
                        The case plan again required L.F. to maintain stable housing

and provide a safe and nurturing home for her children; comply with substance abuse

treatment; address her mental health issues; and maintain contact with DCFS and be

open and honest. The case plan also required L.F. and K.B. to " pay a total of $20.00

in child support for their children[.]" The DCFS caseworker later testified that L.F.

and K.B. were obligated to pay $ 20.00 per month, per child ($ 40. 00 total) in child

support. The case plan further required L.F. and K.B. to apprise DCFS of their

whereabouts and circumstances.

         In February 2023, DCFS reported that L.F. completed substance abuse and

mental health treatment at Fontainebleau Treatment Center on January 11, 2023.

There,    she was diagnosed with cannabis dependence,               stimulant   abuse,   post-

traumatic stress disorder, low body mass index, and nicotine dependence. L.F. was

referred for follow-up treatment with Bogalusa Behavioral Health Clinic and

TRUTH 180, but DCFS could not verify that L.F. attended any follow-up treatment.

L.F. was readmitted to FPC in January 2023; however, she missed her FPC hearing

on January 19, 2023. Since her discharge from treatment at Fontainebleau, DCFS

indicated that L.F. participated in two visits with the children. At these visits, L.F.

relied on the caretaker' s diaper bag to change and feed R.B. DCFS encouraged L.F.

to bring her own diaper bag and supplies. DCFS                stated that while L.F. had

maintained contact with her DCFS caseworker since her treatment, she had not made

her home available for DCFS to inspect. L.F. had not made any parental contribution

payments.

         DCFS developed and finalized a case plan on February 1, 2023 that set forth

the same continuing requirements for each parent to achieve the goal of reunifying

  The juvenile court approved the October 26, 2022 case plan in an order signed on December 19,
2022.

                                              7
the children with them.' 2 The case plan again required L.F. to maintain stable

housing and provide a safe and nurturing home for her children; comply with

substance abuse treatment; address her mental health issues; and maintain contact

with DCFS and be open and honest. The case plan also required L.F. and K.B. to

 pay a total of $20.00 in child support for their children[.]" The DCFS caseworker

later testified that L.F. and K.B. were obligated to pay $ 20. 00 per month, per child

  40. 00 total) in child support. The case plan further required L.F. and K.B. to

apprise DCFS of their whereabouts and circumstances.

       In April 2023, DCFS reported that L.F. attended a mental health services

appointment at Bogalusa Behavioral Health Clinic on February 23, 2023, where

medical providers recommended she engage in medical management services, attend

a psychiatric appointment, and obtain a new primary care doctor. L.F. underwent a

psychological evaluation on February 10, 2023 at the Washington Parish DCFS

office with Dr. Rafael Salcedo. Dr. Salcedo diagnosed L.F. with anxiety, depression,

and   personality    disorder   with    paranoid    and   anti -social   traits.   Dr.   Salcedo

recommended that L.F.         be closely monitored since she was taking multiple

psychotropic medications. He suggested that L.F. could benefit from continued

substance abuse treatment as well as cognitive behavioral psychotherapy to address

unresolved issues from her childhood causing her depression and anxiety.

       DCFS noted that since first becoming involved with this case, L.F. had resided

with K.B. in the family home in Mount Hermon; however, as of April 2023, DCFS

reported that K.B. was three to four months behind on rent payments and that the

family was due to be evicted. L.F. told DCFS that she was recently hired at Winn-

Dixie; however, she did not provide proof of income or documentation to verify her

employment.     DCFS      further indicated that L.F.        had not made any parental

  The juvenile court approved the February 1, 2023 case plan in an order signed on March 1, 2023.
contribution payments. DCFS reported that L.F. did not confirm a scheduled visit

nor did she actually visit her children during February 2023. In March 2023, L.F.

tested positive for THC and methamphetamines after a random hair drug test.

However, her urine drug test was negative, and she denied any drug use.

       DCFS developed and finalized a case plan on April 4, 2023, which changed

the permanency goal for the children from reunification with the parents to the new

stated goal of adoption. 13 The case plan indicated that the paternal grandparents had

become certified and agreed to adopt the children if the rights of the parents were

terminated. The case plan stated that the home of the paternal grandparents was the

most appropriate and least restrictive family -like setting for the children. The case

plan required L.F. to maintain stable housing and provide a safe and nurturing home

for her children; comply with substance abuse treatment; address her mental health

issues; and maintain contact with DCFS and be open and honest. The case plan also

required L.F. and K.S. to " pay a total of $20.00 in child support for their children[.]"

The DCFS caseworker later testified that L.F. and K.B. were obligated to pay $ 20. 00

per month, per child ($ 40.00 total)       in child support. The case plan further required

L.F. and K.B. to apprise DCFS of their whereabouts and circumstances.

       On June 20, 2023, DCFS filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of

L.F. and K.B. and certify the children for adoption. 14 DCFS alleged two grounds for

the termination of L.F.' s parental rights. First, DCFS alleged that L.F.' s parental

rights should be terminated pursuant to La. Ch. Code art. 1015( 5)( b), 15 for failing

 to provide significant contributions to the child[ ren]' s care and support for any

  The juvenile court approved the April 1, 2023 case plan in an order signed on May 11, 2023,

14 The petition to terminate parental rights was assigned docket number J- 22- 57.

15 The juvenile court decided this matter under the prior version of La. Ch. Code art. 1015, before
its amendment by 2023 La. Acts No. 271, § 1 ( eff. June 9, 2023). The amendment renumbered La.
Ch. Code art. 1015( 5)( b) to La. Ch. Code art. 1015( 4)( b); the substance of this subsection of the
statute has not changed.

                                                 0
period     of   six   consecutive   months" (    one    of the "   abandonment"       grounds     for

termination). DCFS claimed that L.F. ( and K.B.)              were required to pay $ 20.00 per

month, per child ($ 40. 00      total) in child support, but L.F. ( and K.B.) had made no

payments since the initial date of custody, May 27, 2022. Second, DCFS alleged that

L.F.' s parental rights should be terminated pursuant to La. Ch. Code art. 1015( 6), 16

for her failure to substantially comply with the case plans and there being " no

reasonable expectation of significant improvement" in L.F.' s condition or conduct

in the near future ( the " substantial compliance with the case plan" ground for

termination). 17

         The termination of parental rights hearing was held on August 4, 2023. Lydia

Godbolt, the DCFS caseworker assigned to this matter, testified at the hearing.

Regarding L.F.' s substance abuse, she indicated that L.F. was still participating in

substance abuse treatment through FPC, at the phase two level ( of four total phases),

after eight months of participation in FPC. At the time of the termination hearing,

L.F. had only been sober for approximately five months. Prior to January 2023, Ms.

Godbolt stated that L.F. did not meaningfully participate in any kind of substance

abuse treatment. Since readmission to FPC in January 2023, L.F.' s compliance with

her substance abuse treatment did not become consistent until around April 2023.

Prior to April 2023, Ms. Godbolt testified that L.F.' s drug test results continued to

show stalled and diluted results, which did not demonstrate her consistent sobriety.

16 As stated above in FN 15, 2023 La. Acts No. 271, § 1 ( eff. June 9, 2023) renumbered La. Ch.
Code art. 10 15( 6) to La. Ch. Code art. 1015( 5); the substance of this subsection of the statute has
not changed.

  The petition alleged that the father' s ( K.B.) parental rights should be terminated based on the
same two grounds: ( 1)     abandonment under La. Ch. Code art. 1015( 5)( b) ( failure to provide
significant contributions to the children' s care and support for any period of six consecutive
months);   and ( 2) substantial case plan compliance under La. Ch. Code art. 1015( 6) ( failure to
substantially comply with the case plan and there being no reasonable expectation of significant
improvement in the parent' s condition or conduct). Since K.B. has not appealed the juvenile
court' s August 9, 2023 judgment, we will not detail the testimony adduced at the hearing on which
the juvenile court based its decision to terminate K.B.' s parental rights.

                                                  10
Ms.   Godbolt indicated that this concerned DCFS due to L.F.' s long history of
substance abuse.

       As to L.F.' s mental health treatment, Ms. Godbolt testified that L.F. received

medication management through Bogalusa Behavioral Health Clinic. Ms. Godbolt

reported that L.F. was compliant with her mental health treatment.

       Ms. Godbolt testified that the case plans obligated L.F. ( and K.B.) to pay

 20. 00 per month, per child ($ 40.00 total) in child support. Ms. Godbolt indicated

that the parents had made only four parental contribution payments— dated June 14,

2022, August 5, 2022, May 5, 2023, and June 16, 2023— each in the amount of $10,

for a total of $40. 00. The exhibit introduced by DCFS during the hearing that lists

the parental contribution payments appears to show that four payments of $10. 00

each, per child, for a total of $40. 00 per child ($ 80. 00 total), were made; however,

the exhibit does not indicate which parent made the payments.

       Ms. Godbolt testified that after L.F. and K.B. were evicted from their home in

Mount Hermon, they secured another place to live in Franklinton; however, they had

not demonstrated the ability to maintain stable housing for a significant length of

time. L.F. and K.B. had only resided at their current address in Franklinton for

approximately five months at the time of the termination hearing.

       From February 2022 to March 2023, DCFS was not provided with proof of

employment for either parent. Ms. Godbolt testified that L.F. reported she had

become employed at Winn- Dixie in March 2023; however, L.F. did not provide

proof of income to DCFS until June 2023. Ms. Godbolt stated that L.F. had not

produced a current pay stub for the past two months at the time of the termination

hearing.

       Regarding visitation,   Ms.   Godbolt stated that L.F.     was   scheduled   for

supervised visits with the children at the DCFS office; however, L.F. had not always

maintained her visitation schedule. For example, the week of the termination

                                          11
hearing, L.F. did not confirm or show for the scheduled visitation. Since the children

were taken into DCFS custody on May 27, 2022, Ms. Godbolt testified that L.F. had

only visited the children consistently for a period of approximately six months—

February 2023 through August 2023 ( until the missed visit prior to the termination

hearing).

      Ms. Godbolt testified that DCFS sought the termination of L.F.' s parental

rights on the basis that she had not demonstrated that she was able to maintain

sobriety over an extended period of time. Due to L.F.' s history of substance abuse,

Ms. Godbolt indicated that DCFS would have wanted to see L.F. work her case plan

and maintain her sobriety for much longer than six months before considering that

L.F. was stable and sober. Furthermore, DCFS found that the children were placed

in the care of their paternal grandparents where their needs were being met. Ms.

Godbolt testified that the children were in a placement with relatives, who to the best

of her knowledge were " not trying to completely take the children" away from L.F.

As long as she remained sober, Ms. Godbolt believed that L.F. would be able to

maintain a relationship with the children.

      Although the children recognized L.F. and K.B. as their parents and had a

bond with them, Ms. Godbolt testified that the children did not recognize their

parents     as   their   primary   caregivers;    the   children   identified   their   paternal

grandparents as their primary caregivers. Ms. Godbolt stated that in her opinion, it

would be detrimental to the children at this point in their lives to disrupt their

placement since they had developed a strong bond with their paternal grandparents

and had been placed in their home for over a year and a half. Ms. Godbolt stated that

the children had been placed with their paternal grandparents since May 27, 2022

and were thriving daily. She reiterated that the grandparents were certified and

willing to adopt S. F. and R.B. should the children be freed for adoption.

                                                 12
      The Court Appointed Special Advocates (" CASA") volunteer assigned to the

case, Claire McGuire, similarly acknowledged the children were " blossoming" and

 comfortable"
                in their grandparents' care, where she believed they would continue

to thrive. Ms. McGuire expressed concern as to the stability of any home the parents

might provide; specifically, whether the children' s home life and education would

continue as is, with a caregiver able to sit and help the children reinforce at home

what they learned in school. Ms. McGuire testified that during supervised visits with

L.F. and K.B., she observed the parents play with the children, but not necessarily

talk to them. She observed L.F. hold R.B. and sometimes read to her.

      L.F. also testified at the termination hearing. Regarding proof of employment

and income, L.F. stated that Winn- Dixie did not provide her with a paper or

electronic pay stub, but that all of her employment information goes through her

banking app, which she is unable to access on her phone. She confirmed that she did

not willfully fail to provide proof of income or employment to DCFS. As to her

mental health treatment, L.F. stated that she sees Dr. Maurine Ladner at Bogalusa

Behavioral Health Clinic once every three months. She testified that she is

prescribed and takes the following medication: Celexa, Caplyta, Amitriptyline,

Buspar, and Klonopin. L.F. testified that she missed the last visitation immediately

prior to the termination hearing because she had been under a lot of duress and stress

due to working, the upcoming termination hearing, and the anniversary of her

father' s death. L.F. confirmed that she loved her children " more than life itself' and

was absolutely dedicated to maintaining her sobriety and working the case plans.

      At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court granted DCFS' s petition

to terminate the parental rights of L.F. and K.B. The juvenile court found that DCFS

proved the grounds for terminating their parental rights under La. Ch. Code art.

1015( 5)( b) and. La. Ch. Code art.   1015( 6) by clear and convincing evidence. The

juvenile court held:

                                           13
                Alt least one year has elapsed since the [ children were]
                removed,    and   there' s    been      no    substantial    parental

                compliance with the case plan for services, which has been
                previously filed, and no reasonable expectations of any
                improvement in the parent' s condition or conduct in the
                near future.

                       I do acknowledge that the parents have, perhaps,
                very much after they needed to, had some minimal
                compliance,    and,   in    particular,      they' ve demonstrated
                commitment to the court program for sobriety.

                      I find that reasonable efforts have been made by the
                department to prevent removal, reunite the family to
                achieve permanency, and to place the siblings together. I
                find that a need for permanence predominates, based upon
                the dates of custody, the goal change, and the date that the
                petition to terminate parental right[ s] was filed.

                       I find that there is a strong caretaker -child bond, and
                the danger of removal to the long term -health and well-
                being of the two children, would be devastating. Both of
                these children have been in their grandparent[ s']           care for
                much, if not all, of their lives. They know no other home.
                To remove them at this point, we know, based upon
                current science and these children' s situation through the

                testimony, would be devastating to them.

                       I suspect even the parents know that. I find that it' s
                in the best interest of the children.

       The juvenile court thereafter issued written reasons, finding that DCFS proved

two grounds for terminating L.F.' s parental rights— under La. Ch. Code art.

1015( 5)( b),   L.F.   abandoned      her    children
                                                          by failing    to   provide    significant

contributions to the children' s care for a period of six consecutive months— and

under La. Ch. Code art. 1015( 6), for her failure to substantially comply with the case

plans and there being " no reasonable expectation of significant improvement." The

court noted that L.F. and K.S. only made four payments ---two in 2022 and two in

2023, each for $ 10. 00, and the last payment was made more than six months prior

to the termination hearing. The juvenile court also stated that " the parents' attention

to completing their Case Plan has been lacking even in the simplest and most critical

for the protection of the children."            The juvenile court further held that the

                                                 14
termination of L.F. and .       B.' s parental rights would be in the best interests of the

children because of their " young age" and the " need for stability [ that]               adoption

provides[.]"    The court noted that the children " were placed with their paternal

grandparents at the beginning of the case where they have remained. The CASA

volunteer testified that they are thriving in that home. [ R.B.] essentially has known

no other family than her grandparents. The grandparents are committed to adopting

the [ c] hildren   if they are freed [ for adoption]." In accordance with those written

reasons, the juvenile court signed a judgment of termination of parental rights and

certification for adoption on August 9, 2023.

       L.F. filed a motion for new trial.' s DCFS filed an objection to L.F.' s motion

for new trial. In an order signed on August 9, 2023, the juvenile court granted

DCFS' s objection and denied L.F.' s motion for new trial." L.F. now appeals the

August 9, 2023 judgment terminating her parental rights.20

18 L.F.' s motion for new trial was accompanied by a proposed order requesting that the motion be
set for hearing. See La. District Court Rules, Rule 9. 8. Although the juvenile court set a
contradictory hearing for September 21, 2023 on L.F.' s motion for new trial, based on the record,
the juvenile court denied L.F.' s motion without holding a contradictory hearing. The juvenile court
committed no error, as there is no absolute right to a contradictory hearing on a motion for a new
                                                                                                  1s'
trial. Newman v. Chamber of Commerce of Kentwood, 462 So. 2d 299, 300 n. l ( La. App.
Cir. 1984), writ denied, 463 So. 2d 1319 ( La. 1985).

19 After the record on appeal was lodged with this court, we issued a show cause order, noting that
the juvenile court signed a ruling on August 9, 2023 relating to L.F.' s motion for new trial. It was
 unclear from the ruling whether the Motion for New Trial was granted, making this appeal
premature, or whether the Motion for New Trial was denied[.]" It is well settled in Louisiana law
that an appeal taken while a timely motion for a new trial is pending is premature and subject to
dismissal because the motion suspends the operation of the final judgment being appealed. See La.
C. C. P. arts. 2087 and 2123; Crescent Real Estate Equities/ 1100 Poydras v. Louisiana Tax
Comm' n, 2001- 1434 ( La. App. I" Cir, 9128/ 01), 809 So. 2d 394, 396. In a response to the show
cause order, L.F. filed a brief with this court, agreeing with our observation and requesting that we
dismiss this matter as premature and remand to the juvenile court to issue an order granting or
denying the motion for new trial. On February 7, 2024, this court issued an interim order,
remanding this matter to the juvenile court for the limited purpose of instructing the juvenile court
to sign an amended order granting or denying the motion for new trial. On February 16, 2024, the
juvenile court signed an " Amended Order" stating that in response to L.F.' s motion for new trial,
DCFS had filed an objection. The juvenile court indicated that its August 9, 2023 " Order" granted
DCFS' s objection and denied L.F.' s motion for new trial. The juvenile court supplemented the
record on appeal with its amended order. After reviewing, we find that the amended order clarified
and corrected the alleged deficiencies. Accordingly, we maintain this appeal.

20 L.F. filed a motion for a suspensive appeal on September 25, 2023. The juvenile court signed an
order of appeal on September 26, 2023, notice of which was transmitted by the clerk of court to
the parties on September 26, 2023. In accordance with La. C. C. P. arts. 2127 and 2128, L.F.
designated portions of the record to constitute the record on appeal. See Uniform Rules, Courts of

                                                 15
                                   LAW AND DISCUSSION

       Termination of the legal relationship between natural parents and children is

one of the most drastic actions the State can take against its citizens. State in

Interest of A.L.D., 2018- 1271 ( La. 1/ 30/ 19), 263 So. 3d 860, 863. The potential loss

to the parent is grievous, perhaps more so than the loss of personal freedom caused

by incarceration. State ex rel. J.A., 99- 2905 ( La. 1112/ 00), 752 So -2d 806, 811. See

also State in Interest of A.B., 2024- 00221 ( La. 317124),                  So. 3d , ,          2024

 VL   1066953, * 1 (      Chrichton, J., concurring). The interests of the parents and

children must be balanced; however, the paramount consideration is the best interest

of the children. State in Interest of C.F., 2017- 1054 ( La. 1216/ 17), 235 So. 3d 1066,

1075. Thus, rather than simply protecting parental rights, our judicial system must

protect the rights of children to thrive and survive in a safe, secure environment and

to be reared by someone capable of caring for them. Id. To protect children whose

parents are unwilling or unable to provide safety and care adequate to meet their

physical,    emotional,     and mental health needs, the Louisiana Children' s Code

provides a judicial process for terminating the parents' rights and responsibilities

and certifying the children for adoption. La. Ch. Code art. 1001.

       Louisiana Children' s Code article 1015 enumerates the grounds for the

involuntary termination of parental rights. The State must prove the elements of at

least one of the statutory grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence.

See La. Ch. Code art. 1035( A); State in Interest of C.F., 235 So. 3d at 1072. That

is, the State must prove that the existence of the ground for termination is highly

probable or much more probable than its nonexistence— more than proof by a

preponderance of the evidence, but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In re

L.M.M., Jr., 2017- 1988 ( La. 6/ 27/ 18), 319 So. 3d 231, 244 n. 13.

Appeal, Rules 2- 1 —   2- 1. 17. See also Bezet v. Original Library Joe' s, Inc., 2001- 1586 ( La. App.
1St Cir. 6/ 21/ 02), 835 So. 2d 472, 475.

                                                   16
       If the court finds that the State has met its burden of proving one of the

grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence, the court must then

determine whether termination is in the best interests of the children. La. Ch. Code

art. 1039; State in Interest of A. L.D., 263 So. 3d at 863. To summarize, involuntary

termination of parental rights is a two-pronged inquiry. First, the State must prove

by clear and convincing evidence the existence of at least one of the eight statutory

grounds for termination under La. Ch. Code art. 1015. Second, after the ground for

termination is found, the court must determine whether the termination is in the

child' s best interests. La. Ch. Code art. 1039; State ex rel. L.B. v. G.B.B., 2002-

1715 ( La. 1214102), 831 So. 2d 918, 922.

       These factually -intense determinations are reviewed on appeal under the

manifest error standard. State ex rel. H.A.B., 2010- 1111 ( La. 10119110), 49 So. 3d

345, 368; State in Interest of A.D., 2020- 1298 ( La. App. 1St Cir. 6/ 4/ 21), 327 So. 3d

1032, 1034. The issue to be resolved by the reviewing court is not whether the trier

of fact was right or wrong, but whether the factfinder' s conclusion was a reasonable

one. Zito v. Advanced Emergency Medical Services, Inc., 2011- 2382 (La. 518112),

89 So.3d 372, 375 ( citing Stobart v. State, Dep' t of Transp, and Dev., 617 So. 2d

880, 882 ( La. 1993)). If the factual findings are reasonable in light of the record

reviewed in its entirety, a reviewing court may not reverse even though convinced

that had it been sitting as the trier of fact, it would have weighed the evidence

differently. Zito, 89 So. 3d at 375 ( citin    Stobart, 617 So. 2d at 882- 83).

       In this case, the juvenile court found that DCFS proved two statutory grounds

for terminating L.F.' s parental rights— abandonment for failure to make child

contribution payments for any period of six consecutive months under La. Ch. Code

art. 1015( 5)( b) 21 and failure to substantially comply with the case plan under La. Ch.

21 After its amendment by 2023 La. Acts No. 271, § 1 ( eff. June 9, 2023), this ground is now set
forth in La. Ch. Code art. 1015( 4)( b); the substance of this subsection of the statute has not
changed. See FN 15, supra.

                                               17
Code art. 1015( 6). 22 Louisiana Children' s Code article 1015( 5)( b)"                            provides for

                          f-
termination on the basis of

                5)5)   Abandonment of the child[ ren] by placing [ them] in
               the physical custody of a nonparent, or the [ custody of the
                     or by otherwise leaving [ them] under circumstances
               state],

               demonstrating an intention to permanently avoid parental
               responsibility by any of the following:

                b) As of the time the petition is filed, the parent has failed
               to provide significant contributions to the child[ ren]' s care

               and support for any period of six consecutive months.

       To prove abandonment on the basis of failing to provide significant

contributions to the children' s care and support, DCFS need not prove that the parent

voluntarily placed the children in state custody. State ear rel. A.T.W., 2009- 2274

La. App.       1St     Cir.        3126110),    2010    WL       1170262, *    2(     unpublished).     Rather,

abandonment may be proven by establishing that the parent left the children under

circumstances          demonstrating            an     intention     to   permanently        avoid     parental

responsibility by failing to provide significant contributions to the children' s care

and support for any consecutive six-month period. Id.

       Louisiana Children' s Code article 1015( 6) 24 provides for termination on the

basis of:

               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.

22 After its amendment by 2023 La. Acts No. 271, §                1 ( eff_June 9, 2023), this ground is now set
forth in La. Ch. Code art. 1015( 5); the substance of this subsection of the statute has not changed.
See FN 16, supra.

  See FNs 15 and 21, supra.

24 See FNs 16 and 22, supra.

                                                          IF.
      Louisiana Children' s Code article 1036( C) provides that lack of parental

compliance with a case plan under La. Ch. Code art. 10 15( 6) 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.

             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.

      Furthermore, La. Ch. Code art. 1036( D) provides that lack of any reasonable

expectation of significant improvement in the parent' s conduct in the near future

under La. Ch. Code art. 10 15( 6) 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.

                                                19
              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.

      After carefully reviewing the record, we agree with the juvenile court that

DCFS proved the statutory grounds for terminating L.F.' s parental rights under La.

Ch. Code art.      1015( 5)( b)   for abandonment on the basis of failing to provide

significant contributions to the children' s care and support for any period of six

consecutive   months,     and under La. Ch. Code art.      1015( 6)   for her failure to

substantially comply with the case plans and there being " no reasonable expectation

of significant improvement" in L.F.' s condition or conduct in the near future. DCFS

presented clear and convincing evidence that despite L.F. having had over a year and

a half since DCFS first presented her with a case plan to maintain custody of the

children and accomplish the case plan goals, there has been a lack of substantial

compliance under each of the elements listed in La. Ch. Code art. 1036( C). In

addition, DCFS presented evidence of " an established pattern of behavior" that

indicates that there is " no reasonable expectation of significant improvement in the

parent' s condition or conduct in the near future." See La. Ch. Code art. 1036( D) and

La. Ch. Code art. 1015( 5)( b).

      However, proof of any of the statutory grounds for termination of parental

rights under La. Ch. Code art. 1015 does not give rise to a presumption that

termination is in the child' s best interests. State in Int. of T.M.P., 2013- 1006 ( La.

App. 4th Cir. 10123113), 126 So. 3d 741, 758. After a statutory ground for termination

under La. Ch. Code art. 1015 is found, the court must determine whether termination

is in the child' s best interests. State ex rel. L.S., 831 So. 2d at 926; State in Int. of

                                             20
C.A.C., 2011- 1315 ( La. App. 4th Cir. 2/ 1/ 12), 85 So. 3d 142, 147, writ denied, 2012-

0388 ( La. 317112), 83 So. 3d 1048. The law poses the best interest determination as a

separate consideration and envisions examination of any special conditions or

exceptional circumstances that may exist. State in Interest of A.B.,             So. 3d at

     2024 WL 205495 at * 6; State in Interest of D. G. v. Danny G., 30, 196 ( La.

App. 2"    Cir. 10129197), 702 So. 2d 43, 45.

      In this matter, the record before us contains facts that support a finding that

the juvenile court did not err in granting DCFS' s petition to terminate parental rights

and certify the children for adoption. The evidence shows that the children have been

in the care of relatives— their paternal grandparents— since May 27, 2022 and that

the children have bonded with the grandparents. The paternal grandparents have

become certified and agree to adopt the children if the rights of the parents are

terminated.

      The DCFS caseworker and CASA volunteer testified about the children' s

progress in their grandparents' home as well as the efforts the grandparents have

made to ensure that the children have flourished. In its oral reasons, the juvenile

court stated that the need for permanence in these children factored into its

termination ruling. The juvenile court found that the best interests of the children

were served by permanence and stability, which was best achieved by remaining in

their grandparents' home in which the children had been thriving. The juvenile court

noted the children had established bonds with their grandparents and had considered

the danger of removal to the health and well-being of each child. In its written

reasons,   the juvenile court indicated that the children needed the stability that

adoption provides.

       Given the children' s young ages ( S. F. is five years old; R.B. is two years old),

the fact that they have spent much of their lives with their paternal grandparents, and

L.F.' s lack of interest in and/ or her ability to comply with her case plans, it is in the

                                            21
children' s best interest to terminate L.F.' s parental rights so that the children may be

adopted by their paternal grandparents, who have provided them with a " safe, stable,

and permanent home"      since May 27, 2022. See La. Ch. Code art. 1015( 5)( b). We

find that the evidence supports the juvenile court' s finding that DCFS proved by

clear and convincing evidence that the parental rights of L.F. to her children S. F. and

R.B. should be terminated, and that termination of L.F.' s parental rights is in the best

interest of the children. Thus, we affirm the judgment of the juvenile court.

                                       DECREE

      Based on the foregoing, we affirm the juvenile court' s August 9, 2023

judgment. All costs of this appeal are assessed to the appellant, L.F.

       AFFIRMED.

                                           22