Summary
The Louisiana Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, affirmed a judgment terminating the parental rights of M.H.’s biological father under Louisiana Children’s Code article 1015(5). The court held that the father had not substantially complied with his case plan, that there was no reasonable expectation of significant improvement in the near future, and that termination was in the child’s best interest. The court also rejected the father’s argument that the Department of Children and Family Services failed to consider relative placement.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court manifestly erred in finding that S.T. failed to substantially comply with his case plan and that there was no reasonable expectation of significant improvement in his condition or conduct in the near future.
- Whether termination of S.T.'s parental rights was in M.H.'s best interest.
- Whether DCFS was required to consider placement with S.T.'s relatives before seeking termination of his parental rights, and whether that issue was supported by evidence and preserved for appeal.
Holdings
- The trial court did not manifestly err in finding by clear and convincing evidence that more than one year had elapsed since removal, S.T. had not substantially complied with his case plan, and there was no reasonable expectation of significant improvement in his condition or conduct in the near future.
- The trial court did not manifestly err in finding that termination of S.T.'s parental rights was in M.H.'s best interest.
- The relative-placement assignment did not warrant reversal because placement with S.T.'s parents was unsafe on the record, there was no evidence supporting placement with his sister, and S.T. did not properly preserve a challenge to the trial court's exclusion of the sister's testimony.
- S.T. could not assert the reasonable-efforts issue for the first time on appeal because he did not raise it in the trial court.
Key quotations
“The termination of parental rights is a two-pronged inquiry.” (3)
“The interests of the parent must be balanced against the child’s interest, but the child’s interest is paramount.” (10-11)
Factual background
M.H. was born in May 2023 and was removed from the parents' custody shortly afterward because of neglect, dependency, medical neglect, and inadequate supervision. The child remained in DCFS custody with foster parents who provided a safe and stable home and were willing to adopt. S.T. did not obtain adequate housing, did not provide DCFS with a requested mental-health safety plan or financial documentation, and continued to experience serious mental-health symptoms affecting his ability to maintain employment and exercise parental responsibilities. The home where S.T. lived with his parents was described as a hoarding situation and was found unsafe for a young child.
Procedural history
M.H. was removed from the parents' custody in May 2023 and adjudicated a child in need of care. DCFS later petitioned for involuntary termination of both parents' rights under Louisiana Children's Code article 1015(5). After a November 17, 2025 termination hearing, the Fifteenth Judicial District Court terminated the parents' rights and certified M.H. for adoption. Only S.T. appealed, asserting that he substantially complied with his case plan, that DCFS failed to make reasonable efforts, that termination was not in the child's best interest, and that DCFS failed to consider relative placements.