Background
K.P. (born December 2019) and S.P. (born September 2021) were removed from their mother Ka.P.’s care in September 2024 after the father reported finding the home filled with trash and Ka.P. absent for approximately two weeks, leaving the young children unsupervised. Both parents had prior DCFS involvement related to narcotics use, and this was not the first time K.P. had been in state custody. The children were placed with their paternal grandparents, where they remained throughout the proceedings. Both children presented with significant developmental delays, were non-verbal, and were not potty trained upon removal; K.P. was subsequently diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder and required extensive dental work including crowns and root canals.
DCFS developed a reunification Case Plan requiring both parents to maintain stable housing for at least six months, secure employment and transportation, make monthly parental contributions of $25 per child, complete parenting and substance abuse programs, attend all court appearances and family team meetings, and refrain from associating with individuals with criminal backgrounds. The father, Ke.P., remained incarcerated for most of the proceedings and ultimately sought to surrender his rights. Ka.P. made some progress — achieving sobriety by March 2025, completing parenting classes, and obtaining a driver’s license in November 2025 — but case managers and the CASA volunteer found her overall compliance insufficient.
In October 2025, DCFS petitioned to terminate both parents’ rights under La. Ch. C. art. 1015(4)(b) (failure to provide financial support) and (5) (failure to substantially comply with the Case Plan with no reasonable expectation of improvement). Ka.P. cross-moved to change the permanency goal back to reunification. After a December 10, 2025 hearing, the trial court granted the termination petition and certified both children for adoption with the paternal grandparents, who wished to adopt them. Ka.P. alone appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The First Circuit affirmed the termination of Ka.P.’s parental rights in full, finding no manifest error in any of the trial court’s factual determinations. The appellate court agreed that Ka.P. did not substantially comply with the Case Plan: she never secured six consecutive months of stable housing, made no parental contributions despite earning $300 per week, continued a relationship with a fiancé whose criminal history violated her Case Plan, missed scheduled visits with her children in November and December 2025, and never attended any of the children’s numerous medical appointments or school events.
The court also rejected Ka.P.’s argument that DCFS failed to make reasonable efforts toward reunification. The record showed DCFS made multiple service referrals — including substance abuse treatment, parenting classes, Family Preservation Court, psychological evaluations, and low-cost transportation assistance — satisfying the “ordinary diligence and care” standard of La. Ch. C. art. 603(26). As to the prospect of future improvement, the court found no manifest error in the trial court’s conclusion that no reasonable expectation of significant improvement existed in the near future, noting that over 16 months had elapsed and that every witness — including the case managers, paternal grandmother, and CASA volunteer — testified that Ka.P. had not demonstrated meaningful behavioral change despite partial progress.
Finally, the court upheld the independent ground of abandonment under La. Ch. C. art. 1015(4)(b), finding that Ka.P.’s complete failure to make any financial contributions to the children’s care over more than six consecutive months was established by clear and convincing evidence. Ka.P.’s explanations for non-payment — bond fees, dental bills, flooring costs, and license reinstatement — did not excuse the failure, particularly after she obtained employment.
Key Takeaways
- Partial case-plan compliance is not substantial compliance: completing parenting classes and achieving sobriety, while commendable, did not overcome persistent housing instability, zero financial contributions, missed visits, and failure to engage with the children’s medical care.
- The “reasonable efforts” requirement is satisfied by evidence that DCFS actively referred parents to available services; the agency is not required to guarantee the parent’s success in using them.
- Zero financial contribution over six-plus consecutive months independently supports an abandonment finding under La. Ch. C. art. 1015(4)(b), even when the parent offers explanations for inability to pay.
- A parent’s association with a person whose criminal history is prohibited by the Case Plan is a cognizable compliance failure that courts may weigh against reunification.
Why It Matters
This decision illustrates how Louisiana courts apply the manifest-error standard in parental-rights terminations where a parent demonstrates genuine but incomplete progress. The opinion signals that sobriety and completion of discrete case-plan tasks will not stave off termination when a parent fails to demonstrate sustained behavioral change across housing stability, financial responsibility, and active engagement in the children’s daily welfare — particularly when special-needs children are thriving in a prospective adoptive placement.
For practitioners, the case reinforces that the statutory clock under La. Ch. C. art. 1015(5) runs from removal and that courts will weigh the children’s need for permanency against incremental parental improvement made late in the proceedings. It also confirms that the failure-to-contribute ground under art. 1015(4)(b) can stand independently of the case-plan compliance ground, giving DCFS a dual-track basis for termination petitions when financial non-support is clear.