## Facts

- The State of Louisiana, through the Office of Community Services (OCS), became involved with a family of five boys whose ages ranged from a teenager to preschool-age twins.
- The children’s mother (identified by initials in the opinion) was unemployed but received monthly child support, Social Security benefits for one child, and substantial food-stamp benefits—income that, with basic budgeting, could have met the children’s needs.
- OCS received and validated a report that the children lacked adequate food and that the mother sold food-stamp benefits for cash to play bingo.
- During home visits, OCS workers found recurring problems, including very limited food in the home, strong foul odors, and unsanitary conditions.
- Workers also observed dangerous conditions and items accessible to small children, along with poor household cleanliness (including trash, dirty diapers, and dirty laundry).
- The mother moved residences frequently, often connected to rent problems; at least one visit occurred when the electricity was not in service.
- The children at times lacked clean or adequate clothing.
- School-related neglect was documented: school-aged children accumulated numerous unexcused absences and tardies.
- The younger children were routinely cared for by an older sibling who was approximately 10 years old; when the mother went out (including to play bingo multiple times per week), responsibility for the younger children could shift down to the 10-year-old.
- OCS knew that two children had serious medical conditions (including a seizure disorder and a congenital heart defect requiring multiple surgeries), increasing the need for reliable supervision and follow-through.
- For months, OCS attempted to stabilize the situation through services such as transportation assistance, budgeting help, referrals, and intensive in-home services, but the mother made no meaningful or lasting changes.
- After a juvenile-court hearing, the mother was ordered to cooperate with a plan to improve care, but she failed to comply; OCS then received a complaint that she was leaving the children alone to go play bingo.
- The district attorney filed a petition seeking removal. The juvenile court adjudicated the four youngest children in need of care and removed them from the mother’s custody, placing two children with relatives and placing the twins with their biological father; the order addressed custody and placement and did not terminate the mother’s parental rights.
- The mother appealed the adjudication and removal order.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence supported adjudicating the four younger children as children in need of care based on ongoing neglect, including unsafe and unsanitary home conditions, inadequate food and clothing, inadequate supervision, and school attendance problems.
2. Whether the juvenile court properly removed the four younger children from the mother’s custody after attempts at in-home services and court-ordered planning did not correct the conditions.

## Decision

- The Louisiana Second Circuit affirmed the juvenile court’s judgment adjudicating the four younger children to be in need of care.
- The court also affirmed the disposition removing those children from the mother’s custody and approving placements with relatives and the twins’ father.
- Applying the manifest error/clearly wrong standard, the court deferred to the juvenile court’s credibility calls and fact-based findings regarding the home conditions, supervision, and the mother’s lack of improvement despite services.

## Legal Principles

- A child may be adjudicated in need of care when a parent’s acts or omissions create a substantial risk to the child’s health or welfare, including failure to provide adequate food, shelter, clothing, supervision, medical care, or schooling.
- Poverty alone does not establish neglect, but a parent’s failure to use available resources to meet basic needs may support a neglect finding.
- When the State proves ongoing harmful conditions and shows that reasonable in-home efforts have not corrected them, removal from parental custody may be warranted to protect the child.
- In child-in-need-of-care proceedings, appellate courts review factual findings for manifest error and generally will not disturb the juvenile court’s determinations absent clear error.

## Conclusion

State ex rel. LM affirmed a juvenile court’s child-in-need-of-care adjudication and removal of four of five children where the evidence showed recurring unsanitary and unsafe living conditions, insufficient food and clothing, inadequate supervision tied in part to the mother’s frequent bingo outings and reliance on a 10-year-old caregiver, and significant truancy, all continuing despite months of agency services and a court-ordered plan; the resulting custody placements with relatives and the twins’ father were upheld as a protective measure that did not terminate the mother’s legal status as parent.


State ex rel. LM, 57 So. 3d 518 (2011)