Justice Calogero on Personal Responsibility
From Judgepedia
- Justice Calogero concurred in majority opinion of Justice Jeffrey P. Victory, which held, over the dissent of Justices Chet D. Traylor and Jeannette Theriot Knoll, that the State of Louisiana Department of Social Services was required to "make reasonable efforts to assist [a] parent in finding suitable housing before it may seek to terminate parental rights."
ISSUES:
The issue before the cout was whether the State, though the Department of Social Services, was required to help a mother who had refrained from providing any kind of support for her three children obtain housing prior to terminating her parental rights.
HOLDING:
The Majority held that that because the Louisiana Department of Social Services is statutorily charged with the task of taking "reasonable efforts" to remove impediments to the reunification of biological parents and children that it has taken into its custody, it was bound to assist the mother in finding housing.
The Dissent, comprised of Justice Chet D. Traylor and Jeannette Theriot Knoll concluded that the Department of Social Services set up a reunification plan for the mother and her children that required her to obtain suitable housing, but that the mother failed to obtain such housing, and further, that the Department of Social Services was under no obligation to essentially provide such housing to the mother.
MAJORITY REASONING:
- (1) OCS never undertook reasonable efforts at reunification after the children were taken into state custody. * * * [N]o rehabilitative services were offered to Ms. A to assist her in obtaining suitable housing after the children were taken into custody in October of 2002, yet this was the main, if not sole, impediment to reunification cited continuously by OCS.
- (2) "Further, poverty, and thus lack of support, cannot be the sole reason for terminating parental rights, there must be willful neglect in the failure of a parent to support his or her children."
- (3) “'Reasonable efforts' as defined by La. Ch. C. art. 603(17) does not require the state to provide rent-free housing to parents whose children are removed due to lack of adequate housing. It does mean, however, that the State must at least direct parents toward appropriate agencies that may be able to assist them in obtaining their own housing. Because the record fails to show that the State undertook efforts to assist Ms. A in obtaining adequate housing after she turned the children over to the State, the court of appeal was correct in ruling that termination under La. Ch. C. art. 1015(5) was erroneously ordered by the trial court."
- (4) "Further, based on this record it is impossible to discern whether Ms. A was unable to provide adequate housing because of lack of adequate assistance or was simply unwilling to provide adequate housing. This is significant because clearly if she was simply unwilling, grounds for termination would exist."
DISSENT'S REASONING:
- (1) "While acknowledging the mother was not a “cruel” or “bad” person and she had good intentions and loved her children, the court noted that love and intentions were not enough and the mother needed to “put some actions behind her love.” Although noting the mother had made sporadic attempts to comply with the case plan, the court concluded these attempts did “not rise to the level of substantial compliance as required by Article 1015(4) and (5).” The record clearly supports this conclusion."
- (2) In October 2002, the mother informed OCS she could no longer care for her children as she was being evicted and her electricity was being turned off and she had **2 little food and no transportation. At the time, the mother was unemployed, separating from her husband, and was in the process of being evicted from her residence. Consequently, OCS was granted custody and placed the children in foster homes. Thereafter, the mother went to live with her mother in a two-bedroom mobile home, a home in which the children were not allowed to reside.
- (3) "As noted by the district court, the mother essentially only had to get a house and to prove she could provide the basic necessities of life for her children. This mother never got past step one."
- (4) "[T]he mother was only able to hold a series of short-term jobs. Significantly, she has never voluntarily supported her children, but rather paid child support only by way of garnishing her salary."
- (5) While I do not question this mother's love for her children, the overriding issue in my view has to be the best interest of the children. The record does not establish how the mother's circumstances have materially changed since the relinquishment to demonstrate that it would now be in the best interest of the children for the mother to retain her parental rights.
- (6) While OCS is obligated to make reasonable efforts to reunite the family, OCS was under no obligation to make the mother comply with the case plan. The burden rather was on the parent to either comply with the plan or object to it. The mother in this case simply did neither. Accordingly, I would reverse the court of appeal and reinstate the trial judge's judgment terminating this mother's parental rights.
