NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
WELCH, J.
The mother (J.L.) and father (R.H.) of three minor children adjudicated in need of care (C.L., D.H. and M.H.) appeal the judgment of the juvenile court,1 which terminated their parental rights as to those children and freed those children for adoption.2 We affirm the judgment of the juvenile court and issue this memorandum opinion in compliance with Uniform Rules—Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-16.1(B).
On March 24, 2011, the State of Louisiana, through the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) obtained an oral instanter order removing C.L., D.H., and M.H.3 from the custody of their mother, J.L., and placing them in the custody of DCFS, based on allegations of neglect by J.L.4 According to the affidavit filed in support of the instanter order, DCFS alleged that on January 25, 2011, it had received a report that J.L. was walking around the trailer park trying to buy pills with her food stamps, that she was always high on prescription medications, that her children were dirty and their skin color could not be seen, and that the children were being left alone in the home. DCFS further alleged that a DCFS caseworker made several unsuccessful attempts to visit with J.L. at her home during the investigation, but that at each attempt to visit the home, J.L. was never at home and her friend, who was at the home, refused to allow the caseworker into the home. DCFS also stated in the affidavit that on March 23, 2011, DCFS received another report of neglect regarding J.L.'s care of her child A.W., who is not at issue in this appeal.
Following the initial removal of the children from J.L.'s custody, the children were maintained in the custody of DCFS pursuant to a continued custody order issued by the juvenile court, and on May 12, 2011, they were subsequently adjudicated in need of care.5 DCFS developed, and the juvenile court approved, an initial case plan wherein the permanent plan for the children was stated as reunification with the parents; however, approximately two years later, this goal was subsequently changed, with the approval of the juvenile court, to adoption.
After the children were adjudicated in need of care, C.L., D.H., and M.H. were initially placed in the home of R.H.'s sister, D.D. and her husband, M.D.; however, the children were removed from their home after D.D. and M.D. reported to DCFS that there had been sexual contact between C.L. and her two siblings ("the incident"). The three children were placed in separate foster homes during the investigation of the incident. C.L. was placed in a foster home, with a non-relative, J.B., and has remained in J.B.'s care since that time. D.H. and M.H. were eventually returned to the home of D.D. and M.D., but were subsequently removed and again placed in separate, non-relative foster homes. The investigation of the incident eventually resulted in R.H. being indicted and charged with molestation of a juvenile;6 however, he has not yet been tried on the charges.
On August 22, 2013, DCFS filed a petition for the termination of the parental rights of J.L. and R.H. as to the children C.L., D.H., and M.H. A hearing took place from November 12, 2013, through November 15, 2013. On December 16, 2013, the juvenile court issued extensive written reasons for judgment finding that that DCFS had proven by clear and convincing evidence that J.L. had abandoned her children within the meaning of La. Ch.C. art. 1015(4) and that both J.L. and R.H. failed to substantially comply with their case plans. See La. Ch.C. art 1015(5). After also finding that it was in the best interest of the children that they be freed for adoption, the juvenile court rendered judgment terminating the parental rights of J.L. and R.H. as to C.L., D.H., and M.H. A written judgment in accordance with the juvenile court's ruling was signed on December 16, 2013, and it is from this judgment that J.L. and R.H. separately appeal, essentially claiming that the juvenile court erred in finding that the grounds for the termination of their parental rights had been met and that the termination of their parental rights was in the best interest of the children.7
Title X of the Louisiana Children's Code governs the involuntary termination of parental rights. The grounds for termination of parental rights, as applicable to this matter, are found in paragraphs (4) and (5) of La. Ch. C. art. 1015 as follows:
(4) Abandonment of the child by placing him in the physical custody of a nonparent, or the department, or by otherwise leaving him under circumstances demonstrating an intention to permanently avoid parental responsibility by any of the following:
(a) For a period of at least four months as of the time of the hearing, despite a diligent search, the whereabouts of the child's parent continue to be unknown.
(b) As of the time the petition is filed, the parent has failed to provide significant contributions to the child's care and support for any period of six consecutive months.
(c) As of the time the petition is filed, the parent has failed to maintain significant contact with the child by visiting him or communicating with him for any period of six consecutive months.
(5) Unless sooner permitted by the court, at least one year has elapsed since a child was removed from the parent's custody pursuant to a court order; there has been no substantial parental compliance with a case plan for services which has been previously filed by the department and approved by the court as necessary for the safe return of the child; and despite earlier intervention, there is no reasonable expectation of significant improvement in the parent's condition or conduct in the near future, considering the child's age and his need for a safe, stable, and permanent home.8
In order to terminate parental rights, the petitioner must prove each element of a ground for termination of parental rights by clear and convincing evidence. See La. Ch.C. art. 1035(A). In addition, La. Ch.C. art. 1037(B) provides, in pertinent part:
When the court finds that the alleged grounds set out in any Paragraph of [La. Ch.C. art.] 1015 are proven by the evidentiary standards required by [La. Ch.C. art.] 1035 and that it is in the best interests of the child, it shall order the termination of the parental rights of the parent against whom the allegations are proven. The court shall enter written findings on both issues. The consideration of best interests of the child shall include consideration of the child's attachment to his current caretakers.
In the juvenile court's reasons for judgment, it specifically found that DCFS had proven, by clear and convincing evidence, the elements of two grounds for the termination of the parental rights of both J.L. and R.H and that it was in the best interest of the children that they be freed for adoption. Specifically, the juvenile court determined that J.L. had abandoned C.L., D.H., and M.H. pursuant to La. Ch.C. art. 1015(4) because she failed to contact the children for a period of more that six months and she did not visit the children between June 2012 and October 2013, which was a period of more than six months as of the time the petition was filed (August 22, 2013). The juvenile court also found that there was an extensive period of time when J.L.'s whereabouts were unknown to the agency and that J.L. failed to provide any significant contributions to her children's care during the 33 months that her children were in DCFS custody. Lastly, the juvenile court also found that J.L. had made no effort to substantially comply with her case plan pursuant to La. Ch.C. art. 1015(5) because she failed to obtain stable housing, complete substance abuse treatment, and stable employment, and failed to make parental contributions of $25.00 per month per child for their support, to visit regularly with her children, to maintain bonding with her children, and to keep the agency informed of her whereabouts.
With regard to R.H., the juvenile court determined that R.H. had made no substantial effort to comply with his case plan pursuant to La. Ch.C. art. 1015(5) because he failed to provide adequate housing for his children, failed to make parental contributions for C.L. for six consecutive months after she was placed in a foster home, and failed to make parental contributions for D.H. and M.H once they were placed in foster homes.9
Based on these factual findings, the juvenile court rendered judgment terminating the parental rights of J.L. and R.H. as to C.L., D.H., and M.H. After a thorough review of the record, we find the juvenile court's factual findings, as set forth above and in its written reasons for judgment, are reasonably supported by the record and are not clearly wrong.10 Therefore, the December 16, 2013 judgment of the juvenile court is affirmed.
All costs of this appeal are assessed to the appellants, R.H. and J.L.
AFFIRMED.
