STATE OF LOUISIANA IN THE INTEREST OF v. << (2025)

M.T.C. and J.N.C. appeal the judgment of the trial court terminating their parental rights to their child, A.N.C., and certifying A.N.C. for adoption.¹ For the following reasons, we reverse, in part, and remand.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

M.T.C. and J.N.C. are the biological parents of A.N.C., a girl born on May 16, 2023. On June 20, 2024, the Louisiana Department of Children and Family Services (referred to as either “DCFS” or “the State”) filed a Petition for Termination of Parental Rights and Certification of Minor Child for Adoption against M.T.C. and J.N.C. The petition alleged DCFS removed A.N.C. from the physical custody her parents on October 16, 2023, and that A.N.C. was adjudicated as a Child in Need of Care (“CINC”) on December 21, 2023, “in the case bearing Juvenile Docket No. 23-CC-103[.]” The petition further alleged, in pertinent part, that J.N.C. and M.T.C. (footnote added):

[H]ave failed and/or refused to adequately participate in services provided to her [sic]; and/or has failed/refused to substantially comply with the case plans for services which would have been previously filed by the Department and approved by this Honorable Court as necessary for the safe return of their minor children [sic].

[ ]

In addition, [J.N.C. and M.T.C.] have failed to provide significant contributions to the care and support of their minor child the entire time that said minor child have [sic] been in the care, custody and control of [the State] to wit; said period of time being well in excess of six consecutive months. This demonstrates their intention to permanently avoid parental responsibility within the meaning of [La.Ch.Code art.] 1015(5)(b) [sic].[2]

[ ]

In addition, [J.N.C. and M.T.C.] have not had significant contact with the minor child by visiting them [sic] or communicating with them [sic] for a period of six consecutive months. This demonstrates the intention to permanently avoid parental responsibility within the meaning of [La.Ch.Code art.] 1015(5)(c) [sic].[3]

A trial on the State's petition for termination was held on August 28, 2024. After hearing testimony from three witnesses—the case worker who was assigned to this matter, J.N.C., and M.T.C.—the trial court granted DCFS's petition, finding the State had proven by clear and convincing evidence that termination of parental rights was appropriate and that termination was in the best interest of A.N.C.⁴

The judgment terminating the parental rights of M.T.C. and J.N.C. was signed on September 18, 2024. On October 3, 2024, A.N.C.’s father, M.T.C., filed a motion for appeal, which the trial court granted on October 7, 2024. On October 7, 2024, A.N.C.’s mother, J.N.C., filed a motion for appeal, which the trial court granted on October 8, 2024.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

On appeal, M.T.C. assigns three errors:

1) The court manifestly erred by finding clear and convincing evidence was presented to establish that M.T.C․ had not substantially complied with his case plan, that DCFS provided reasonable efforts to assist M.T.C․ to complete his case plan, and that there was no reasonable expectation of a significant improvement in the near future.

2) The court manifestly erred by finding that the State proved by clear and convincing evidence that termination of M.T.C.’s parental rights was in the best interests of A.N.C.

3) The court manifestly erred when it improperly considered the CINC record, including the case plans and other documentation, for other children of the parents in evaluating the merits of the present case.

In her appeal, J.N.C. presents two issues for review:

1. Whether the trial court erred when it terminated parental rights without a court approved case plan being admitted into evidence.

2. Whether the trial court erred in terminating the parental rights of the biological mother under Louisiana Children's Code Article 1015(4)(b) and (c) and (5).

DISCUSSION

We begin by addressing the third error assigned by M.T.C. and the first issue presented by J.N.C. Both allege that the CINC record, 2022-CC-78, which was entered into evidence at the termination trial, pertains to biological siblings of A.N.C. As noted in the State's petition, the CINC record which pertains to A.N.C. bears docket number 2023-CC-103. M.T.C. and J.N.C., therefore, argue that the trial court improperly considered evidence which was not properly before it when it arrived at its decision to terminate their parental rights.

M.T.C. and J.N.C. also allege that although the CINC record bearing docket number 2022-CC-78 was entered into evidence during the trial in this matter, the State was inexplicably allowed to correct its evidence on October 9, 2024.⁵ They argue the CINC record under docket number 2023-CC-103, which contains a court approved case plan for A.N.C., was not considered by the trial court and should not be considered by this court, despite its improper inclusion as an exhibit in the record of this appeal.

In response, the State argues the trial court's statement regarding docket number 2022-CC-78 was not a substantive error which materially affected its ruling. The State asserts the trial court referred to the wrong docket number of the CINC record it sought to introduce, which was corrected by a minute entry dated October 9, 2024. The State alleges the trial court considered the correct CINC record before rendering its decision in this matter; thus, the correct CINC record was properly included as an exhibit in the record of this appeal. We disagree.

In Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 1394–95 (1982), the United States Supreme Court recognized, “The fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care, custody, and management of their child does not evaporate simply because they have not been model parents or have lost temporary custody of their child to the State.” The Supreme Court went on to acknowledge, “[P]ersons faced with forced dissolution of their parental rights have a more critical need for procedural protections than do those resisting state intervention into ongoing family affairs. When the State moves to destroy weakened familial bonds, it must provide the parents with fundamentally fair procedures.” Id. at 753–54 (footnote omitted).

In cases involving the termination of parental rights, Louisiana courts are guided by a value for family as being “the most fundamental unit of human society” as set forth in the preamble of the Louisiana Children's Code, which further states, in pertinent part:

[T]he role of the state in the family is limited and should only be asserted when there is a serious threat to the family, the parents, or the child; and that extraordinary procedures established by law are meant to be used only when required by necessity, and then with due respect for the rights of the parents, the children, and the institution of the family, and only to the extent that such procedures are not prohibited by the Louisiana Constitution of 1974, as amended.

La.Ch.Code art. 101. As stated by the Louisiana Supreme Court in State ex rel J.A., 99-2905, p. 8 (La. 1/12/00), 752 So.2d 806, 810, “due process requires that a fundamentally fair procedure be followed when the state seeks to terminate the parent-child legal relationship[.]” In order to adhere to these principles, “when the [s]tate seeks to terminate the parent-child legal relationship, actions to terminate must be scrutinized very carefully.” State ex rel. G.J.L., 00-3278, p. 7 (La. 6/29/01), 791 So.2d 80, 85.

Our review of the trial transcript establishes that, during the testimony of the caseworker who was assigned to this matter, the State “ask[ed] that the entire CINC file be admitted into evidence[.]” No objections were lodged, and the following discussion resulted:

BY THE COURT:

So ordered. That will be, I guess, S-1, in globo, but it consists of - - for the record, two volumes and that is 2022-CC-78, Volume 1 and Volume 2. Just - - we'll make it clear for the record.

BY THE COURT REPORTER:

Do you want it by reference, Ms. Freeman? Do you want it by reference?

MS. FREEMAN:

Yes.

The official minutes of court confirm the above, stating:

[THE] STATE REQUESTED THAT THE COURT TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE, PURSUANT TO CHILDREN'S CODE, ARTICLE 1036.1, AND ADMIT THE ENTIRE CHILD IN NEED OF CARE RECORD IN DOCKET NUMBER AS TO “2022-CC-78” AS EVIDENCE. ADMITTED. COURT REFERRED TO THE CINC RECORD AS EXHIBIT “S-1”, BEING TWO FILE VOLUMES.

However, the official minutes of court then conclude with the following entry:

10/09/24 MINUTE ENTRY AMENDED.

STATE REQUESTED THAT THE COURT TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE, PURUSANT TO CHILDREN'S CODE, ARTICLE 1036.1, AND ADMIT THE ENTIRE CHILD IN NEED OF CARE RECORD IN DOCKET NUMBER “23-CC-103” AS TO “[A.N.C.]” AS EVIDENCE. ADMITTED. MINUTE ENTRY AMENDED TO CORRECT DOCKET NUMBER.

Our review of the exhibit envelope which was transmitted with the appellate record in this matter purportedly contains S-1, the State's sole evidentiary offering at trial. The pages are unbound and unnumbered, and the first few pages are minutes of the CINC proceeding held in A.N.C.’s case. Our review of this exhibit, however, does not clarify whether this is the exhibit which was actually considered by the trial court. Simply put, despite its inclusion as an exhibit in the record of this appeal, we are unable to discern whether the trial court had the benefit of the CINC record under docket number 2023-CC-103, which pertains to A.N.C., or whether the trial court had the CINC record under docket number 2022-CC-78, which pertains to biological siblings of A.N.C.

For us to review the exhibit which was transmitted with the appellate record would undermine the “fundamentally fair procedure” required by our Supreme Court. State ex rel J.A., 752 So.2d at 810. As a reviewing court, we are called to examine record evidence alone, and consideration of the evidence transmitted with the appellate record in this matter without certainty that it is, in fact, the evidence which the trial court considered would breach our duty to “render any judgment which is just, legal, and proper upon the record on appeal.” La.Code Civ.P. art. 2164. Therefore, the trial court's termination of M.T.C. and J.N.C.’s parental rights as to A.N.C. and its certification of A.N.C. as eligible for adoption must be set aside.

Considering the above, we need not address the remaining assignments of error. Having found merit in the challenges to the efficacy of the appellate record and evidence therein urged by M.T.C. and J.N.C., their remaining assignments of error relating to the sufficiency of the evidence are moot.

DECREE

For the reasons stated above, the trial court's judgment rendered September 18, 2024, is partially reversed to the extent that it terminated M.T.C. and J.N.C.’s parental rights as to A.N.C. and certified A.N.C. eligible for adoption. This case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED, IN PART, AND REMANDED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The initials of the minor child and parents are used to preserve their anonymity in this confidential proceeding. See Uniform Rules—Courts of Appeal, Rules 5–1 and 5–2.

2.   Louisiana Children's Code Article 1015 was amended by 2023 La. Acts No. 271, § 1, effective June 9, 2023; thus, failure to provide significant contributions to the care and support of a minor child is found in La.Ch.Code art. 1015(4)(b).

3.   Louisiana Children's Code Article 1015 was amended by 2023 La. Acts No. 271, § 1, effective June 9, 2023; thus, failure to provide significant contact with the minor child is found in La.Ch.Code art. 1015(4)(c).

4.   Louisiana Children's Code Article 1037(B)(1) requires the trial court to “enter written findings” relating to the grounds for termination and its consideration of the best interest of the child when parental rights are terminated. Notably, La.Ch.Code art. 1037 was also amended by 2023 La. Acts No. 271, § 1, effective June 9, 2023.

5.   In their respective briefs, counsel for M.T.C. and J.N.C. allege that no notice was given of the evidentiary alteration—each seemingly learned of the post-trial change to the official minutes and record while preparing their respective appellate memoranda.

JONATHAN W. PERRY JUDGE