In the Interest of B. A.

The mother completely failed to comply with her reunification case plan for over one year.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

The mother of B. A. appeals the termination of her parental rights, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. She argues that the State failed to prove either parental unfitness or that termination of her parental rights would be in the child’s best interest. Finding the evidence sufficent, we affirm. On appeal from a termination of parental rights, we defer to the juvenile court’s factfinding and do not weigh the evidence or determine the credibility of witnesses.1 Our role is to determine whether “any rational trier of fact could have found by clear and convincing evidence that the natural parent’s rights to custody have been lost.”2 Viewed in this manner, the record reflects that in October 2005, B. A., who was then three years old, and her brother, P. S., then eight years old, entered the custody of the Department of Family and Children Services “DFCS” based on allegations of emotional abuse, lack of stable housing, domestic violence in the home, and drug use by the mother. A reunification case plan was entered; however, as of February 2006, a citizen review panel found that the mother had not taken any steps to comply with her case plan.

The DFCS case plan required the mother to: undergo a substance abuse assessment; attend and complete a drug and alcohol treatment program; submit to random drug screens; remain drug and alcohol free; attend and successfully complete parenting classes; have a source of income and sufficient housing; and obtain childcare services or otherwise ensure proper supervision of the children. In August 2006, a citizen review panel again found that the mother “had made no effort to work her case plan.” On November 16, 2006, the juvenile court held a non-reunification hearing and granted DFCS’s motion for non-reunification. The juvenile court found that the mother had made no progress on her case plan, was unemployed, had refused drug screens, had avoided receiving DFCS services, and had no electricity, water, or telephone in her home, which was in the foreclosure process. That order was not appealed.

In the Interest of B. A.

The mother completely failed to comply with her reunification case plan for over one year.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report