Background
P.M. entered Department of Children and Family Services custody in August 2023 after his mother, T.N., left him with a nonparent who lacked legal authority to make medical and educational decisions for him. T.N. stipulated that P.M. was a child in need of care, and the court-approved case plan required her to obtain stable housing and employment, complete substance-abuse and mental-health assessments, submit to drug screens, attend proceedings and visits, complete parenting education, and undergo a psychological evaluation.
DCFS sought termination in June 2025. It alleged that T.N. had not visited or otherwise communicated with P.M. since shortly after he entered custody, had not substantially complied with the plan, and was not likely to improve soon. At the termination hearings, evidence showed T.N.’s last documented visit was October 10, 2023. She began completing or pursuing some plan requirements only after the September 2025 hearing began and had not educated herself about P.M.’s serious mental-health needs.
The Court’s Holding
The First Circuit affirmed the judgment terminating T.N.’s parental rights and certifying P.M. for adoption. It held that clear and convincing evidence supported termination for abandonment under Louisiana Children’s Code article 1015(4)(c): T.N. failed to maintain significant contact with P.M. through visits or communication for more than six consecutive months.
The court also upheld termination under article 1015(5). It found no manifest error in the trial court’s determinations that T.N. had not substantially complied with her case plan and that there was no reasonable expectation of significant improvement in her conduct in the near future. Her late efforts did not establish a meaningful change in her ability to meet P.M.’s physical, emotional, and mental-health needs. The record also supported the finding that termination served P.M.’s best interests.
Key Takeaways
- A parent’s failure to visit or communicate with a child for six consecutive months can establish abandonment.
- Partial or late case-plan efforts do not preclude termination when the parent has not shown a meaningful ability to meet the child’s needs.
- Only one statutory ground is necessary, but the court found both abandonment and lack of case-plan compliance.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that termination proceedings focus on the child’s need for safe, stable, and permanent care. Here, the mother’s prolonged lack of contact and delayed compliance supported the conclusion that reunification was not reasonably likely in the near future.
It also confirms that, even where a particular task is not expressly listed in a case plan, a parent’s failure to understand and address a child’s serious needs may bear on whether the parent can safely resume care.