J.F.S. III v. Mobile County Department of Human Resources

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 11/20/09 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 2080774 J.F.S. I I I v. Mobile County Department o f Human Resources Appeal from Mobile J u v e n i l e Court (JU-05-439.93) THOMAS, J u d g e . J.F.S. I I I ("the f a t h e r " ) appeals from the Mobile J u v e n i l e C o u r t ' s judgment t e r m i n a t i n g h i s p a r e n t a l r i g h t s t o A.S. ("the c h i l d " ) . 1 We a f f i r m . T h e c h i l d h a s an o l d e r s i s t e r . B e c a u s e t h e s i s t e r was a b l e t o be p l a c e d w i t h a r e l a t i v e r e s o u r c e , t h e M o b i l e C o u n t y D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s d i d n o t p e t i t i o n t o t e r m i n a t e t h e f a t h e r ' s p a r e n t a l r i g h t s as t o t h e s i s t e r . 1 2080774 Facts The and P r o c e d u r a l History M o b i l e C o u n t y D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s f i r s t became i n v o l v e d w i t h t h e f a m i l y i n 2005. the child and h i s custody. returned DHR sister were implemented removed services from ("DHR") At that their time, parents' and, i n October the c h i l d r e n t o t h e i r parents. 2006, On J a n u a r y 22, 2007, DHR p e t i t i o n e d t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t f o r c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d r e n , alleging that t h e mother h a d abandoned t h e c h i l d r e n . p e t i t i o n a l s o a l l e g e d t h a t the c h i l d had e x t r a o r d i n a r y needs t h a t r e q u i r e d s p e c i a l a t t e n t i o n . juvenile court petitioned parental hearing, not g r a n t e d DHR's p e t i t i o n . the juvenile rights court to the c h i l d . 4 3 for the hearing; medical On May 6, 2008, DHR t o terminate The j u v e n i l e the father's court held The o n l y mention o f t h e f a t h e r c u s t o d y was t h a t t h e f a t h e r ' s c u r r e n t P r i s o n (Name a n d A d d r e s s Unknown)." a The f a t h e r was h o w e v e r , he was r e p r e s e n t e d 2 The On t h e same day, t h e a t which i t h e a r d ore tenus e v i d e n c e . present 2 by i n the p e t i t i o n f o r a d d r e s s was " F e d e r a l T h e c h i l d s u f f e r s f r o m a n g e l m a n syndrome, a n e u r o l o g i c a l d i s o r d e r t h a t causes i n t e l l e c t u a l and developmental delay, a l o n g w i t h o t h e r p h y s i c a l symptoms s u c h a s s e i z u r e s . 3 DHR a l s o p e t i t i o n e d t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t t o t e r m i n a t e t h e mother's p a r e n t a l r i g h t s t o t h e c h i l d . The j u v e n i l e c o u r t g r a n t e d t h e p e t i t i o n as t o t h e m o t h e r ; h o w e v e r , s h e i s n o t a party t o t h i s appeal. 4 2 2080774 counsel. 5 judgment child. viable parental terminating the father's parental rights to the The j u v e n i l e c o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e f a t h e r h a d b e e n convicted no On O c t o b e r 28, 2009, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t e n t e r e d i t s o f and i m p r i s o n e d f o r a f e l o n y and t h a t t h e r e a l t e r n a t i v e s to the termination rights. The father of the subsequently appealed were father's to this court. Issues The f a t h e r r a i s e s two i s s u e s the i n h i s appeal: juvenile court had sufficient determination that the father imprisoned f o r a felony; e r r e d by d e t e r m i n i n g the termination that and had evidence been (1) w h e t h e r to support i t s convicted of (2) w h e t h e r t h e j u v e n i l e and court no v i a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s e x i s t e d t o of the father's p a r e n t a l rights. The j u v e n i l e c o u r t h a d i s s u e d an o r d e r d i r e c t i n g t h e M o b i l e County S h e r i f f ' s Department t o t r a n s p o r t the f a t h e r from the B i b b County C o r r e c t i o n a l F a c i l i t y t o the h e a r i n g . I t a p p e a r s , however, t h a t a t t h e time o f t h e h e a r i n g t h e f a t h e r h a d been r e l o c a t e d t o t h e S h e l b y C o u n t y j a i l where he was awaiting transport to a federal corrections f a c i l i t y . The j u v e n i l e c o u r t judge s t a t e d a t the s t a r t of the h e a r i n g t h a t he h a d no a u t h o r i t y t o o r d e r t h e t r a n s p o r t o f a f e d e r a l prisoner. 5 3 2080774 Standard o f Review "The j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s f a c t u a l f i n d i n g s b a s e d on evidence presented ore tenus in a judgment t e r m i n a t i n g p a r e n t a l r i g h t s a r e presumed c o r r e c t . R.B. v . S t a t e Dep't o f Human R e s . , 669 So. 2d 187 (Ala. C i v . App. 1 9 9 5 ) . The j u d g m e n t t e r m i n a t i n g p a r e n t a l r i g h t s b a s e d on t h o s e f i n d i n g s w i l l be reversed only i f the record demonstrates t h a t the d e c i s i o n i s u n s u p p o r t e d b y t h e a p p r o p r i a t e quantum of evidence, i . e . , c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g evidence, and i s p l a i n l y a n d p a l p a b l y wrong. Ex p a r t e T.V., 971 So. 2d 1, 4-5 ( A l a . 2 0 0 7 ) . " F . I . v. S t a t e Dep't o f Human R e s . , 975 So. 2d 969, 972 ( A l a . Civ. App. 2 0 0 7 ) . Analysis The f a t h e r f i r s t finding that parental present he was u n w i l l i n g o r u n a b l e responsibilities sufficient imprisoned rights argues t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t e r r e d by evidence f o r a felony. when "the parents u n w i l l i n g t o discharge child because, their that A to discharge h i s he s a y s , he h a d b e e n court may DHR to c o n v i c t e d and terminate of [ t h e ] c h i l d failed parental are unable or r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s t o and f o r t h e A l a . Code 1975, § 2 6 - 1 8 - 7 ( a ) ; s e e a l s o A l a . Code 1975, § 1 2 - 1 5 - 3 1 9 . 6 One o f t h e f a c t o r s t h a t a j u v e n i l e c o u r t B y A c t No. 2008-277, A l a . A c t s 2008, t h e A l a b a m a L e g i s l a t u r e , among o t h e r t h i n g s , amended a n d r e n u m b e r e d A l a . Code 1975, § 26-18-7, a n d e n a c t e d t h e A l a b a m a J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e 6 4 2080774 may consider in i t s determination parent's parental convicted of and rights imprisoned 2 6 - 1 8 - 7 ( a ) ( 4 ) ; see The is father, 8, this court So. 3d of his § has argument, been Code 1975, cites Human R e s o u r c e s , j u v e n i l e court a § 12-15-319(a)(4). ( A l a . C i v . App. h e l d t h a t the terminate parent a a l s o A l a . Code 1975, i n support 2009] whether to for a felony. Ala. Madison County Department of May whether [Ms. 2009). D.P. v. 2080243, In i n t h a t case d i d D.P., not have s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o d e t e r m i n e t h a t t h e f a t h e r i n t h a t c a s e had been c o n v i c t e d only evidence that the Madison the father County Madison had DHR o f and been imprisoned for a felony. County DHR presented incarcerated argued that the The i n D.P. was The for 16 months. length of the father's imprisonment p r e s e n t e d s u f f i c i e n t evidence t h a t the f a t h e r had been the convicted of M a d i s o n C o u n t y DHR a convicted correctional and imprisoned for a felony because, argued, a f e l o n y c o n v i c t i o n r e q u i r e d f e l o n serve at facility. See l e a s t one Ala. y e a r and Code 1975, one § day that in a 13A-1-2(8) A c t ( " A J J A " ) , c o d i f i e d a t A l a . Code 1975, § 12-15-101 e t s e q . The e f f e c t i v e d a t e o f t h e A J J A i s J a n u a r y 1, 2009. The q u o t e d l a n g u a g e i n t h e c i t e d Code s e c t i o n has n o t c h a n g e d i n any s u b s t a n t i a l way as a r e s u l t o f t h e e n a c t m e n t o f t h e A J J A . 5 2080774 ( d e f i n i n g a f e l o n y as " [ a ] n o f f e n s e term of imprisonment this title"). We f o r which a sentence to a i n e x c e s s o f one held that the year i s authorized length of the by father's i n c a r c e r a t i o n , by i t s e l f , was n o t s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e f a t h e r had b e e n c o n v i c t e d of a f e l o n y because i t d i d not r u l e out t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t the f a t h e r had been i n c a r c e r a t e d f o r m u l t i p l e m i s d e m e a n o r s . D.P., This c a s e , however, So. can be 3d a t . distinguished f r o m D.P. In t h i s case, i t i s apparent from the r e c o r d t h a t the f a t h e r been i n c a r c e r a t e d a t the B i b b County which penitentiary. "[n]o i s a state misdemeanor penitentiary." prisoner A l a . Code Alabama 7 may 1975, Correctional § be law Facility, i s clear sentenced 15-18-1(b). ( A l a . 2006). that to Trial j u d g e s a r e p r e s u m e d t o know t h e l a w . Ex p a r t e A t c h l e y , 2d 513, 516 had the court 936 So. Thus, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t c o u l d have concluded from the f a c t of the f a t h e r ' s i n c a r c e r a t i o n a t the Among o t h e r e v i d e n c e , t h e f a t h e r s t a t e d i n a p l e a d i n g he s t y l e d as a " M o t i o n f o r E x t e n s i o n o f Time" t h a t he was i n c a r c e r a t e d i n the B i b b County C o r r e c t i o n a l F a c i l i t y . "Itis w e l l s e t t l e d t h a t once a ' f a c t ' i s a d m i t t e d i n t h e p l e a d i n g s , i t n e e d n o t be p r o v e d a t t r i a l . " Odom v. H u l l , 658 So. 2d 442, 444 ( A l a . 1995) ( c i t i n g R o o b i n v. G r i n d l e , 219 A l a . 417, 122 So. 408 ( 1 9 2 9 ) ; and B o a t r i g h t v. F e n n e l l , 213 A l a . 10, 104 So. 1 (1925)) . 7 6 2080774 Bibb County convicted Correctional Facility o f and i m p r i s o n e d that the father f o r a felony. j u v e n i l e c o u r t d i d n o t e r r by determining been c o n v i c t e d o f and i m p r i s o n e d The finding had been Therefore, the t h a t the f a t h e r had for a felony. f a t h e r next argues t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t e r r e d by that termination there were no of h i s parental f a i l e d t o present viable alternatives r i g h t s because, he t o the says, e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t i t h a d made attempts t o l o c a t e a v i a b l e r e l a t i v e t h a t "'DHR must p r e s e n t resource. DHR recent We have held "evidence of recent attempts t o l o c a t e v i a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s i n order t o e s t a b l i s h that termination of p a r e n t a l r i g h t s i s the l e a s t dramatic C a l h o u n C o u n t y Dep't o f Human Res., C i v . App. 2008) 710 a l t e r n a t i v e . " ' " C.T. v . 8 So. 3d 984, 987 ( A l a . ( q u o t i n g V.M. v. S t a t e Dep't o f Human R e s . , So. 2d 915, 921 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 8 ) , Bowman v . S t a t e Dep't o f Human Res., 534 So. 2d 304, C i v . App. 1988)) ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d i n V.M.). not t h e p r o s p e c t i v e investigations, unsuitability custodian custodian and i n turn 306 ( A l a . M o r e o v e r , "'DHR -¬ -- h a s t h e b u r d e n o f i n i t i a t i n g i t is o f one who quoting DHR's seeks o f a dependent c h i l d . ' " 7 burden t o be to prove considered Ex p a r t e the as t h e J.R., 896 So. 2d 2080774 416, 428 ( A l a . 2004) (quoting D.S.S. v. C l a y C o u n t y Dep't o f Human R e s . , 755 So. 2d 584, 591 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 9 ) ) . I n t h i s c a s e , t h e r e c o r d shows t h a t DHR i n v e s t i g a t e d t h e child's maternal grandmother, paternal grandmother maternal grandmother however, she d e c l i n e d rejected the maternal h i s maternal as p o t e n t i a l r e l a t i v e had custody t o take uncle of and h i s resources. the c h i l d ' s custody because uncle, The sister; of the c h i l d . he was a s i n g l e DHR father w i t h f i v e c h i l d r e n o f h i s own a n d b e c a u s e he d i d n o t f e e l he c o u l d p r o v i d e the age. paternal t h e needed care grandmother, The r e c o r d September 2008 i n o r d e r relative DHR i n part, a l s o shows t h a t v i a b l e r e l a t i v e resource. provide f o r the c h i l d . with because DHR r e j e c t e d o f h e r advanced DHR met w i t h t o make a f i n a l that the father i n effort to locate a The f a t h e r d i d n o t a t t h a t m e e t i n g t h e names of any additional potential resources. "Although DHR has a responsibility to i n v e s t i g a t e a l t e r n a t e r e l a t i v e placements f o r a c h i l d , t h a t o b l i g a t i o n does n o t e n t i r e l y a l l e v i a t e t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f t h e p a r e n t who p u r p o r t s t o oppose t h e t e r m i n a t i o n o f h i s o r h e r p a r e n t a l r i g h t s o f m a k i n g DHR s o c i a l w o r k e r s aware o f a l t e r n a t i v e placement p o s s i b i l i t i e s . " 8 2080774 B.S. v. C u l l m a n C o u n t y Dep't o f Human R e s . , 865 So. 2d 1188, 1197 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 3 ) . Because the father did not p r o v i d e DHR w i t h a n y i n f o r m a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g p o t e n t i a l r e l a t i v e resources, DHR's d u t y to initiate an i n v e s t i g a t i o n was n o t triggered. Therefore, the j u v e n i l e determining that were termination of the father's parental there court no v i a b l e d i d n o t e r r by a l t e r n a t i v e s to the rights. Conclusion The f a t h e r h a s n o t d e m o n s t r a t e d t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e erred by determining that he h a d been i m p r i s o n e d f o r a f e l o n y o r by d e t e r m i n i n g convicted o f and t h a t t h e r e were no viable a l t e r n a t i v e s to the termination of h i s parental Therefore, court rights. we a f f i r m t h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t . AFFIRMED. Thompson, P . J . , and P i t t m a n , concur. 9 Bryan, a n d Moore, J J . ,

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.