Y.N. v. Jefferson County Department of Human Resources

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 01/14/2011 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l 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 , A l a b a m a 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, 2010-2011 2090832 Y.N. v. J e f f e r s o n County Department o f Human Resources Appeal from J e f f e r s o n J u v e n i l e Court (JU-07-54206 and JU-07-54207) THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g This court. Judge. i st h e second time I n Y.N. v Resources, this Jefferson 37 S o . 3 d 8 3 6 , 8 3 7 - 3 8 matter has been b e f o r e County Department this o f Human ( A l a .C i v . App. 2009), this 2090832 court set matter as forth the procedural history and facts of follows: "On December 13, 2007, t h e J e f f e r s o n County Department of Human Resources ('DHR') filed complaints alleging that B.N. and W.N. III ( h e r e i n a f t e r t o g e t h e r r e f e r r e d t o as 'the c h i l d r e n ' ) were dependent c h i l d r e n . The d e p e n d e n c y c o m p l a i n t s a l l e g e d t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n ' s p a r e n t s , Y.N. ('the m o t h e r ' ) a n d W.N., J r . ('the f a t h e r ' ) , w e r e a b u s i n g drugs and t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n were n o t adequately supervised. On D e c e m b e r 14, 2007, t h e juvenile court e n t e r e d orders f i n d i n g the c h i l d r e n dependent and p l a c i n g them i n t h e p e n d e n t e l i t e c u s t o d y o f K.F., a cousin of the children. The record indicates that the mother and the father were ordered to submit to substance-abuse assessments and p s y c h o l o g i c a l e v a l u a t i o n s , t o s u b m i t t o random d r u g t e s t s , and t o o b t a i n and m a i n t a i n s t a b l e h o u s i n g and e m p l o y m e n t as r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r f a m i l y r e u n i f i c a t i o n . Both parents were awarded visitation with the children. "Subsequently entered review orders indicate t h a t the p a r e n t s were o r d e r e d t o comply w i t h the recommendations r e s u l t i n g from the substance-abuse assessments, which i n c l u d e d treatment f o r substanceabuse problems. The record indicates that the parents d i d not comply with the reunification requirements. "Pursuant to review orders entered i n A p r i l 2008, p e n d e n t e l i t e custody of the c h i l d r e n was changed t o p l a c e them i n t h e p e n d e n t e l i t e custody of K.F. a n d h i s m o t h e r , S.F. References i n the r e c o r d , i n c l u d i n g s t a t e m e n t s i n a DHR c o u r t r e p o r t , i n d i c a t e that the c h i l d r e n spent a g r e a t d e a l of t i m e w i t h S.F. The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t K.F. and S.F. h a v e r e s i d e n c e s on t h e same s t r e e t . 2 this 2090832 "Review orders e n t e r e d w i t h r e g a r d t o each c h i l d on A u g u s t 2 1 , 2008, s p e c i f i e d t h a t t h e p e r m a n e n c y plan f o r the children was 'permanent relative placement w i t h t r a n s f e r of custody to the r e l a t i v e . ' At that time, the c h i l d r e n remained i n the pendente l i t e c u s t o d y o f K . F . a n d S.F. The reunification requirements f o r the parents r e m a i n e d t h e same, i . e . , s u b m i t t i n g t o random d r u g t e s t i n g , undergoing substance-abuse treatment, and m a i n t a i n i n g s t a b l e h o u s i n g and employment. Pursuant to orders entered o n D e c e m b e r 2 3 , 2 0 0 8 , e a c h p a r e n t was o r d e r e d t o p a y c h i l d support f o r the b e n e f i t of the c h i l d r e n . "On M a r c h 1 1 , 2 0 0 9 , t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t e n t e r e d o r d e r s i n w h i c h i t , among o t h e r t h i n g s , s u s p e n d e d the parents' r i g h t s t o v i s i t a t i o n w i t h the c h i l d r e n pending a f u r t h e r order of the court; the record does n o t i n d i c a t e the reason that the parents' visitation was suspended. The March 11, 2009, orders indicate that the c h i l d r e n ' s cases were s c h e d u l e d f o r a n A p r i l 9, 2 0 0 9 , ' r e v i e w h e a r i n g . ' "The r e c o r d c o n t a i n s t h e t r a n s c r i p t o f t h e A p r i l 9, 2 0 0 9 , h e a r i n g . The m o t h e r was p r e s e n t a t t h e h e a r i n g , b u t t h e f a t h e r was n o t . No t e s t i m o n y was taken at that hearing, but a number of representations and arguments were made b y the parties' attorneys, the children's guardian ad l i t e m , and t h e c u s t o d i a n s ' a t t o r n e y . After that h e a r i n g , on A p r i l 1 1 , 2 0 0 9 , t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t , o v e r the o b j e c t i o n of the mother, e n t e r e d orders awarding c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d r e n t o K . F . a n d S.F. a n d c l o s i n g the cases. The A p r i l 1 1 , 2 0 0 9 , o r d e r s specified t h a t t h e p a r e n t s h a v e no c o n t a c t o r v i s i t a t i o n w i t h the children. The mother timely appealed, challenging those parts of the A p r i l 11, 2009, orders that denied her the r i g h t to v i s i t a t i o n with the c h i l d r e n . "During the hearing before the j u v e n i l e court, the arguments of the a t t o r n e y s i n d i c a t e d t h a t the m o t h e r h a d f a i l e d t o s u b m i t t o random d r u g testing 3 2090832 and t h a t she h a d f a i l e d t o v i s i t t h e c h i l d r e n . The a t t o r n e y s ' r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e mother had r e p e a t e d l y p r o m i s e d t o v i s i t t h e c h i l d r e n , b u t h a d f a i l e d t o do s o , a n d t h a t t h a t c o n d u c t h a d h a d a negative e f f e c t on t h e c h i l d r e n . B a s e d on t h e o r a l a r g u m e n t s o f c ouunnsseell, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t , o v e r , the o b j e c t i o n o f t h e mother, determined t h e c h i l d r e n t o b e d e p e n d e n t , a w a r d e d c u s t o d y t o K . F . a n d S.F., and d e n i e d t h e m o t h e r v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s . In doing so, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t n o t e d t h a t t h e mother c o u l d f i l e a m o d i f i c a t i o n p e t i t i o n when s h e i m p r o v e d h e r circumstances." (Footnotes court had erred relying base omitted.) This court i n reaching Jefferson County Accordingly, of counsel on a c o n s i d e r a t i o n Dep't of that the j u v e n i l e i t sdispositional on t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s i t s decision concluded Human this court reversed judgment by and by f a i l i n g to of evidence. R e s . , 37 So. Y.N. 3d v. a t 838. t h e judgment and remanded t h e c a s e f o r t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t t o c o n d u c t an e v i d e n t i a r y hearing. Id. On remand, hearing, the juvenile a n d , on A p r i l court conducted 29, 2010, i t e n t e r e d an ore the following judgment: " A f t e r c o n s i d e r i n g t h e sworn t e s t i m o n y and a l l exhibits t h a t were p r o p e r l y admitted, the Court finds the following facts: "These cases were i n i t i a t e d by t h e f i l i n g o f a dependency petition by [the Jefferson County D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s ('DHR')] o n D e c e m b e r 4 tenus 2090832 13, 2007. By agreement of a l l parties and a t t o r n e y s , t h e s e c h i l d r e n w e r e f o u n d d e p e n d e n t on December 14, 2007, and p l a c e d i n t h e l e g a l custody of a relative o n t h e same d a y . That s i n c e the f i n d i n g o f dependency t h e p a r e n t s have been under t h e same c o u r t o r d e r s (submit t o a p s y c h o l o g i c a l e v a l u a t i o n and p a r t i c i p a t e i n s u g g e s t e d treatment plan; submit to substance abuse assessment and comply w i t h recommendations; o b t a i n and m a i n t a i n housing and employment; successfully complete parenting s k i l l s class). On D e c e m b e r 1 7 , 2 0 0 8 , t h e f a t h e r was o r d e r e d t o p a y $560 p e r m o n t h a s p e r c o u r t o r d e r s i n a s e p a r a t e c h i l d s u p p o r t case and the mother was ordered t o pay $125 per month b e g i n n i n g J a n u a r y 1, 2 0 0 9 . "The mother and the father were awarded s u p e r v i s e d v i s i t a t i o n on December 14, 2007, w i t h t h e i r m i n o r c h i l d r e n t o b e s u p e r v i s e d b y DHR o r i t s designee. T h a t due t o t h e p a r e n t s ' p r o m i s e t o v i s i t with their children and f a i l i n g t o show up and causing both c h i l d r e n detriment; i n c l u d i n g but not limited t o , [W.N. I I I ] having developed suicidal t h o u g h t s a n d h a v i n g t o be s u b j e c t e d t o a s u i c i d a l evaluation, and b o t h children having to attend counseling to deal with their feelings, t h a t on M a r c h 10, 2009, t h i s C o u r t s u s p e n d e d t h e p a r e n t s ' v i s i t a t i o n u n t i l further order of the court. That a f t e r having suspended the v i s i t a t i o n , the c h i l d r e n were a b l e t o p r o c e s s t h e i r f e e l i n g s more, began t o do b e t t e r i n s c h o o l , w e r e n o t u p s e t a n y m o r e , and t h e i r b e h a v i o r began i m p r o v i n g i n the c u s t o d i a n s ' home. F u r t h e r m o r e , c o u n s e l i n g f o r t h e c h i l d r e n was s t o p p e d a s t h e s u i c i d a l t h o u g h t s o f [W.N. I I I ] h a d s t o p p e d and t h e p r o g r e s s i n t h e b e h a v i o r s o f b o t h [B.N.] a n d [W.N. I I I ] h a d i m p r o v e d . Recently, [W.N. I I I ] h a s h a d t o r e t u r n t o c o u n s e l i n g due t o h i s anxiety [as t o ] t h e u p c o m i n g c o u r t d a t e s . His c o u n s e l o r , C h r i s L i t t o n Psy.D., has r e p o r t e d t h a t [W.N. I I I ] 'has extreme anxiety regarding h i s b i o l o g i c a l mother.' 5 2090832 "DHR [ s o c i a l w o r k e r W a y n e t t e S m i t h ] r e p o r t s t h a t as o f t h e d a t e o f t h i s h e a r i n g , s h e h a s n o t h e a r d f r o m t h e m o t h e r a n d / o r f a t h e r i n more t h a n a y e a r . T h a t t h e t e l e p h o n e number s u p p l i e d t o t h e s o c i a l w o r k e r was n o t w o r k i n g a n d t h a t t h e p a r e n t s d i d n o t offer new numbers or addresses. That the psychological evaluation and substance abuse assessments suggested both p a r e n t s randomly drug s c r e e n a n d s h o u l d a n y s c r e e n t u r n up p o s i t i v e , t h e n the parents s h a l l enter i n p a t i e n t treatment. That should they test clean, parents should attend outpatient treatment. Furthermore, the parents should attend [Narcotics Anonymous/Alcoholics Anonymous] m e e t i n g s ; a t t e n d i n d i v i d u a l c o u n s e l i n g ; s i x (6) m o n t h s o f s o b r i e t y ; p a r e n t i n g c l a s s e s ; a n d m a i n t a i n h o u s i n g and employment. [Smith] t e s t i f i e d that both parents had submitted t o approximately t h r e e (3) d r u g s c r e e n s , t h e l a s t b e i n g i n S e p t e m b e r o f 2008, a n d t h a t e a c h p a r e n t h a d a t l e a s t one p o s i t i v e screen during that time. That [Smith] has been on t h i s c a s e s i n c e a t l e a s t F e b r u a r y 2007, a n d t h a t t h e p a r e n t s h a v e made n o a t t e m p t s t o c a l l h e r in the past year. [Smith] h a s no k n o w l e d g e o r v e r i f i c a t i o n o f t h e p a r e n t s ' home o r e m p l o y m e n t d u e t o h e r i n a b i l i t y t o make c o n t a c t w i t h t h e p a r e n t s . "[S.F.] r e p o r t s t h a t c h i l d r e n a r e doing w e l l d e s p i t e t h e i r a n x i e t y a n d t h a t [W.N. I I I ] i s b a c k i n counseling. She f u r t h e r reports that she has r e c e i v e d no c h i l d s u p p o r t f r o m t h e p a r e n t s . and "In c o n s i d e r a t i o n of a l lf a c t s , the Court Decrees as f o l l o w s : Orders "1. The C o u r t n o t e s t h e p r e v i o u s o r d e r d u l y entered, f i n d i n g t h e above named c h i l d r e n t o be d e p e n d e n t on December 14, 2007. " 2 . T h a t c u s t o d y o f [B.N.] a n d [W.N. I I I ] s h a l l r e m a i n v e s t e d i n [K.F.] a n d [ S . F . ] . "3. That t h e Mother and Father 6 shall: 2090832 "a. treatment individual Participate in the suggested plan as defined in their psychological evaluations; "b. Comply w i t h recommendations f o r t r e a t m e n t as d i r e c t e d i n t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l s u b s t a n c e abuse assessments; "c. Submit t o random d r u g a program such as TASC on 'peach'; screens at the color "d. O b t a i n and m a i n t a i n s u i t a b l e s t a b l e h o u s i n g and employment; "e. Successfully skills class; complete a and parenting " "4. The Court f i n d s t h a t placement of the a b o v e - m e n t i o n e d c h i l d r e n w i t h t h e i r p a r e n t s w o u l d be c o n t r a r y t o s a i d c h i l d r e n ' s w e l f a r e and i n t e r e s t s as the p a r e n t s have not complied with court orders, h a v e f a i l e d t o show t h e i r s o b r i e t y , and h a v e f a i l e d t o change t h e i r l i f e s t y l e . "5. The Court finds that reasonable e f f o r t s h a v e b e e n made t o r e u n i t e s a i d c h i l d r e n w i t h family and that such e f f o r t s at r e u n i f i c a t i o n have not f a i l e d as the c h i l d r e n are placed with relative placement. "6. T h a t v i s i t a t i o n f o r t h e m o t h e r and father s h a l l remain suspended. This Court believes that to a l l o w no c o n t a c t b e t w e e n c h i l d r e n a n d p a r e n t s w o u l d be i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t o f s a i d c h i l d r e n a n d d o e s s o b a s e d on t h e p a r e n t s ' a c t i o n s o r i n a c t i o n s i n r e g a r d to v i s i t a t i o n i n the past. S a i d minor c h i l d r e n have been d e t r i m e n t a l l y a f f e c t e d by t h e p a r e n t s ' f a i l u r e to attend s a i d v i s i t a t i o n s as p r o m i s e d . That at l e a s t one c h i l d h a s e x p r e s s e d s u i c i d a l t h o u g h t s due 7 2090832 t o h i s p a r e n t s ' n o t s h o w i n g up f o r v i s i t a t i o n s a n d caused him t o seek c o u n s e l i n g i n r e g a r d t o s u i c i d a l issues. Both c h i l d r e n have had t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n counseling t o address anger issues and b e h a v i o r issues. That s i n c e t h e Court suspended t h e p a r e n t s ' v i s i t a t i o n on March 10, 2009, b o t h c h i l d r e n have made s u b s t a n t i a l i m p r o v e m e n t i n a l l a s p e c t s o f t h e i r lives. "7. The f a t h e r s h a l l p a y c h i l d s u p p o r t a s p r e v i o u s l y o r d e r e d ... a t t h e r a t e o f F i v e H u n d r e d S i x t y D o l l a r s a n d no/100 ($560) p e r m o n t h . "8. The m o t h e r s h a l l p a y c h i l d s u p p o r t as p r e v i o u s l y o r d e r e d i n t h i s c a s e a t t h e r a t e o f One H u n d r e d T w e n t y - F i v e a n d n o / 1 0 0 ( $ 1 2 5 ) p e r m o n t h ... "9. T h a t J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y D e p a r t m e n t o f Human Resources i s hereby r e l i e v e d of f u r t h e r supervision. II "11. T h i s m a t t e r i s CLOSED t o f u r t h e r review. C o u r t c o s t s a r e t a x e d as p a i d . " In response mother") denied filed the to a the above-quoted postjudgment postjudgment motion. motion, and judgment, court Y.N. ("the The juvenile court the mother timely appealed. "In awarding v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s r e l a t i n g to the disposition of a 'dependent c h i l d ' pursuant to [former] § 12-15-71(a)[now r e p e a l e d and r e p l a c e d by § 1 2 - 1 5 - 3 1 4 ( a ) , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 ] , t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s guided by the 'best interests of the child' standard. See [ f o r m e r ] § 1 2 - 1 5 - 7 1 ( a ) ( 4 ) ('If a c h i l d i s f o u n d t o b e d e p e n d e n t , t h e c o u r t may make any of the following orders of disposition to p r o t e c t t h e w e l f a r e o f t h e c h i l d : ... (4) M a k e a n y 8 2090832 ... o r d e r a s t h e c o u r t i n i t s d i s c r e t i o n s h a l l deem t o be f o r t h e w e l f a r e and b e s t i n t e r e s t s of the child.'). "'"'The determination of proper visitation ... i s within the sound discretion of the t r i a l court, and t h a t court's determination should not be r e v e r s e d a b s e n t a s h o w i n g o f an abuse o f discretion.' E x p a r t e B l a n d , 796 So. 2 d 340 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) . '[C]ases i n Alabama have consistently held that the primary consideration i n setting v i s i t a t i o n rights i s t h e best i n t e r e s t s and w e l f a r e o f t h e child. Furthermore, each c h i l d v i s i t a t i o n c a s e m u s t b e d e c i d e d o n i t s own f a c t s a n d circumstances.' Fanning v. Fanning, 504 So. 2 d 737, 739 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 1987) (citations omitted). 'When t h e i s s u e o f visitation i s determined after oral proceedings, the t r i a l court's determination of the issue w i l l n o t be d i s t u r b e d a b s e n t an abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n o r a showing t h a t i t i s p l a i n l y i n e r r o r . A n d r e w s v . A n d r e w s , 520 So. 2 d 512 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1987).' Dominick v. Dominick, 622 So. 2 d 4 0 2 , 403 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1993)."'" K.B. v . C l e b u r n e 387-88 So. v. C o u n t y D e p ' t o f Human R e s . , 897 S o . 2 d 3 7 9 , ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 2004) (quoting K . L . R . v . L.C.R., 2 d 1 2 4 , 132 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 2 0 0 3 ) , q u o t i n g M.C., The 809 So. 2 d 8 3 7 , 840-41 mother's "statement of t h e case" brief of the facts" contained that i n t u r n K.L.U. ( A l a . C i v . App. submitted to this 854 court 2001)). contains a i s i d e n t i c a l t o the "statement i n h e r b r i e f ; n e i t h e r of those 9 portions 2090832 of the brief references tenus hearing. does the the evidence In her arguments before not challenge any o f t h e f a c t u a l juvenile court's April presented this 29, 2010, judgment; to the underlying record i.e., supports whether refusing t o award her v i s i t a t i o n its determination the children's best case. i n the no Therefore, t o whether the evidence i n the juvenile court's the juvenile court even t h e m o t h e r makes facts of this the mother has w a i v e d any c h a l l e n g e the c o u r t , the mother findings set forth i n argument p o r t i o n o f h e r a p p e l l a t e b r i e f , reference at the ore factual exceeded with findings, i t s discretion i n the c h i l d r e n based on t h a t an a w a r d o f v i s i t a t i o n w o u l d n o t be i n interests. D e p ' t o f Human R e s . , s u p r a ; S e e K.B. v. Cleburne County s e e a l s o P a r d u e v . P o t t e r , 632 S o . 2d 4 7 0 , 473 ( A l a . 1994) ( " I s s u e s n o t a r g u e d i n t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s brief are waived."). record indicates that were s u p p o r t e d tenus however, t h a t our review the juvenile court's by t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d factual to i tduring of the findings the ore hearing. Before court We n o t e , this erred, court, as visitation rights. a t h e mother contends t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e matter of l a w , when i t suspended her However, Alabama l a w a u t h o r i z e s a j u v e n i l e 10 2090832 court t o suspend a parent's under Ala. appropriate Code as circumstances. 1975, a l l o w s disposition visitation a juvenile o f a dependent c h i l d , the juvenile well settled determine child the that a trier a parent's right and t h a t t h e best primary Section court, i n determining the shall Mobile o f t h e [dependent] c h i l d . " of fact has broad to visitation interests Dep't o f Human I t discretion to with a dependent and w e l f a r e o f t h e c h i l d i s consideration i n determining County order deem t o b e f o r whether to v i s i t a t i o n and, i f so, t h e extent o f t h a t v i s i t a t i o n . v. child 12-15-314(a)(4), t o "[m]ake any o t h e r court i n i t s discretion the w e l f a r e and best i n t e r e s t s is w i t h a dependent award Minchew R e s . , 504 So. 2 d 3 1 0 , 311 (Ala. C i v . App. 1987); K.B. v . C l e b u r n e Res., 897 S o . 2 d a t 3 8 7 - 8 8 ; J . P . v . S.S., 9 8 9 S o . 2 d 5 9 1 , 6 0 1 ¬ 02 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009); 634 So. 2d 1021, 1022-23 State Dep't o f Human C o u n t y D e p ' t o f Human P.Y. v . S t a t e D e p ' t o f Human R e s . , ( A l a . C i v . App. 1994); R e s . , 522 So. 2 d 295 a n d Heup v . (Ala. C i v . App. 1988). In Minchew Resources, that supra, suspended v. Mobile this the County court Department a f f i r m e d a dependency mother's 11 visitation rights of Human judgment when the 2090832 evidence supported the trial court's v i s i t a t i o n was n o t i n t h e c h i l d ' s b e s t conclusion interests. This that court explained: "[A] d e c i s i o n as t o t h e v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s o f t h e m o t h e r w i t h a c h i l d who h a s b e e n f o u n d d e p e n d e n t a n d brought under t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n and p r o t e c t i o n o f t h e court i s a matter f o r the court's d i s c r e t i o n . The s u p e r v i s i o n a n d p r o t e c t i o n o f s u c h a c h i l d w i l l be retained by t h e court until the child becomes twenty-one years o f age u n l e s s terminated prior t h e r e t o by t h e c o u r t . [Former] § 12-15-32, Code 1975. [ F o r m e r §] 1 2 - 1 5 - 7 1 ( a ) ( 5 ) [ , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , now r e p e a l e d a n d r e p l a c e d b y § 1 2 - 1 5 - 3 1 4 ( a ) ( 4 ) , A l a . Code 1975,] empowers t h e c o u r t w h i c h h a s f o u n d a c h i l d t o b e d e p e n d e n t t o make s u c h o r d e r s a s t h e c o u r t i n i t s d i s c r e t i o n s h a l l deem t o b e f o r t h e w e l f a r e and best i n t e r e s t s o f t h e c h i l d . This court h a s i n t e r p r e t e d t h a t p o w e r b r o a d l y t o mean t h a t i t s only parameter i s t h e best i n t e r e s t s and w e l f a r e o f the c h i l d . S a n d e r s v . G u t h r i e , 437 S o . 2 d 1 3 1 3 (Ala. C i v . App. 1983); M i l l e r v. Alabama Department o f P e n s i o n s & S e c u r i t y , 374 S o . 2 d 1 3 7 0 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1979). Our a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s have l o n g a n d c o n s i s t e n t l y h e l d i n c h i l d custody cases that d e n i a l of v i s i t a t i o n o f a parent i s a matter w i t h i n the broad d i s c r e t i o n of t h e t r i a l court i f such d e n i a l is determined after hearing to affect the best interests and welfare of the child. F r i c k s v. F r i c k s , 428 S o . 2 d 80 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 1 9 8 3 ) . The a p p l i c a t i o n o f s u c h a h o l d i n g seems particularly appropriate i n a case where i t has been found n e c e s s a r y t o remove t h e c h i l d from t h e c u s t o d y o f a p a r e n t who a c k n o w l e d g e d m o r e t h a n t h r e e y e a r s a g o t h a t s h e c o u l d no l o n g e r p r o v i d e p r o p e r s u p e r v i s i o n for the child." Minchew v. M o b i l e County Dep't 311. 12 o f Human R e s . , 504 S o . 2 d a t 2090832 Similarly, disputes between determination court's (Ala. children"); v. "should 989 that courts did not exceed parent 567 So. there determination 894 So. 1111, 1118 on that and judgment that and n o t i n g that a i n matters of So. towards parents and 2d 1225, 1230 1993) discretion rights 1358, dispute visitation 1358 to with i s in prison."). 13 (the trial the his child); (Ala. Civ. support the J.T.H. denying in i t i s not i n the c h i l d ' s he visitation a view suspending ( A l a . C i v . App. i s evidence the father while "the unique professional counseling"); visitation 2d 2d custody-modification i t s the trial be e x e r c i s e d w i t h (in a cases, the case, a f f i r m i n g a judgment 2d visitation within r e l a t i o n s h i p s between 1999) So. and a father's visitation the father obtained ("Clearly, also s e e a l s o E.M.C. v . K.C.Y., 735 parents, Baugh, visit of of preserving noncustodial v. is (reversing, based afforded t r i a l W.R.H., 628 court custody T.D., M.R.D. v . terminated C i v . App. between "until visitation 2008) to divorce policy (Ala. to of i . e . , i n nondependency circumstances" discretion incident context parents, as C i v . App. indefinitely the the discretion. specific the in App. trial best Baugh 1990) court's interest to 2090832 Thus, with a the visitation establish or w i t h dispute between statutory with his or determining parents, law t h a t a j u v e n i l e c o u r t may her Accordingly, we that the juvenile court law, to suspend her earlier in this indicated appeal that the is the suspend a parent's dependent child not i f i n the not authorized, visitation with opinion, juvenile the court the visitation a best argument matter children. m o t h e r has erred rights child's as best precedent must r e j e c t the mother's was mother also argues visitation r i g h t s i s a de rights that and received parental of child's in of not As argued reaching i n the of its children's interests. The she subject caselaw f a c t u a l f i n d i n g t h a t v i s i t a t i o n w o u l d n o t be best visitation i s the and t h e p a r e n t i s d e m o n s t r a t e d t o be interests. on in a c h i l d who Alabama visitation with principle a dependent c h i l d , interests. of guiding her parental no her visitation rights. facto due-process notice rights. that The of suspension termination of her K.C. claim seeking constituted v. Jefferson 14 of her parental r i g h t s were v i o l a t e d because to terminate mother i s i n c o r r e c t t h a t the rights In a the a suspension termination County her of Department her of 2090832 Human R e s o u r c e s , (Ala. [Ms. 2 0 9 0 4 5 4 , C i v . App. 2010), similar argument relatives parental County was that this rights. Department We court placing equivalent July to a recognize considered four that o f Human R e s o u r c e s , the was no a r g u m e n t that such So. 3d and r e j e c t e d dependent termination awarded v i s i t a t i o n w i t h h e r c h i l d r e n . there 23, 2010] children with o f t h e mother's i n K.C. v. Jefferson supra, t h e mother In that case, an a w a r d a however, of visitation mother w o u l d n o t be i n t h e c h i l d r e n ' s b e s t was interests. with In r e j e c t i n g t h e mother's arguments t h a t a permanent placement o f the c h i l d r e n w i t h r e l a t i v e s was e q u i v a l e n t her parental rights, this court to a termination of explained: "We c a n n o t a g r e e t h a t a j u d g m e n t p l a c i n g a c h i l d with a relative custodian and p r o v i d i n g f o r v i s i t a t i o n with a natural parent i s equivalent t o a judgment t e r m i n a t i n g t h a t parent's p a r e n t a l r i g h t s . The p a r e n t whose c h i l d has been p l a c e d i n the permanent care o f another has r e s i d u a l r i g h t s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s i n and t o t h e c h i l d , i n c l u d i n g t h e r i g h t t o continued v i s i t a t i o n and t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of support, see Ala.Code 1975, § 12-15-102(23), and may l a t e r p e t i t i o n t h e c o u r t f o r a m o d i f i c a t i o n o f the c u s t o d y award. None o f t h o s e r i g h t s i n u r e t o a parent whose rights have been terminated; a ' t e r m i n a t i o n o f p a r e n t a l r i g h t s ' i s d e f i n e d as '[a] severance of a l l r i g h t s of a parent t o a c h i l d . ' A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , § 1 2 - 1 5 - 3 0 1 ( 1 0 ) . T h e r e f o r e , we w i l l not accept t h e mother's i n v i t a t i o n t o e v a l u a t e t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s judgment i n t h e p r e s e n t case under 15 2090832 the s t a n d a r d s e t o u t i n Ex p a r t e 2 d 950 ( A l a . 1 9 9 0 ) ] . " K.C. v. J e f f e r s o n County Dep't Beasley[, 564 S o . o f Human R e s . , So. 3d a t (emphasis added). In this case, the juvenile court's April j u d g m e n t does n o t amount t o " ' s e v e r a n c e o f a l l mother Human to the children. Res So. 3d a t retained her "residual the right fact, to regard mother support retains and t h e duty determination f o r the benefit suspended that best interests. is not afforded terminated. Jefferson County Id. In the children, the because with the children. 29, 2010, judgment, of the juvenile The that court's w o u l d n o t be i n t h e c h i l d r e n ' s T h e m o t h e r may s e e k t o m o d i f y t h e c u s t o d y a n d provisions been has such as of the children. to visitation visitation visitation a right t h e mother of support. t o support Dep't o f 29, 2010, judgment r e q u i r e s t h e mother the right has been County Rather, However, under t h e terms o f t h e A p r i l right r i g h t s ' " ofthe and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , " t o the duty court's A p r i l pay c h i l d . rights of visitation with juvenile K.C. v . J e f f e r s o n 29, 2010, of the April a parent Accordingly, Department 29, 2010, judgment, w h i c h whose p a r e n t a l as t h i s o f Human 16 court rights have d i d i n K.C. v . Resources, supra, we 2090832 reject children albeit the mother's with argument relatives suspended at subject this that the placement to the right time, i s of of her due-process Moore, Bryan, rights. a n d Thomas, J . , concurs J J . , concur. i n the result, 17 with the we a violation AFFIRMED. Pittman, to Accordingly, conclude t h a t t h e mother has f a i l e d t o demonstrate the visitation, equivalent t e r m i n a t i o n of the mother's p a r e n t a l r i g h t s . of writing. 2090832 MOORE, J u d g e , Y.N. concurring ("the Jefferson denying mother") Juvenile her i n the appeals Court right to result. ("the visit from The because, she says, to v i s i t a dependent c h i l d v i o l a t e s the Juvenile 12-15-101 et to v i s i t of that seq.; parent's that o b s e r v e ; and children I d i d not different child safely agree with those Code overarching with as not of his or possible § the Ala. of in a when parent the the or child 18 has case any § right I do did not to the denial of threat that main parents the termination complete AJJA 1975, a parent's this so the juvenile for reasons opinion. 12-15-101(b)(3), of right triggering certain opinion i n the Code facto disclose main purposes her a parent's o v e r a l l purpose of thereby warrant contained 1975, W.N. c o n s t i t u t e s a de does to erred commit r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r , but than Alabama the record completely j u v e n i l e court the court the ("the AJJA"), rights of I I I suspension juvenile sufficient visitation. of the the ("the a complete parental that and suspension J u s t i c e Act a dependent c h i l d procedures court mother a s s e r t s court") B.N. children"). Alabama judgment juvenile with a complete a provides is as been "[t]o that reunite quickly removed one a and as from the 2090832 custody of h i s or her parent when a c h i l d shall the dependent, that the juvenile See A l a . parents a AJJA The cases, Code provide 1975, § child child because See A l a . child form retain remains of p a r e n t a l 12-15-102(23) (providing residual argues right that, an between action to i n the the p u b l i c policy visitation such a some essentially preclude court usually require that, while i twould v i o l a t e to t o t a l l y reunification behind a parent and hinder the would process. Whatever not court mother context, dependent does process, of a dependent visitation). foregoing I n most to reunite the family. Those e f f o r t s reunification visitation. the efforts 1975, § 12-15-312. during " i s r e m o v e d f r o m t h e f a m i l y home, a j u v e n i l e make r e a s o n a b l e Code or parents the merits apply to this of the mother's case. 1 In argument, i t sApril i t simply 29, 2010, j u d g m e n t , t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t e f f e c t i v e l y a w a r d e d K . F . a n d S.F. "permanent" to a finding juvenile custody that court of the children. reunification had attempted with That judgment the parents, s i n c e December amounted which the 1 4 , 2 0 0 7 , was no I do n o t mean t o i m p l y t h a t a j u v e n i l e c o u r t c o u l d n e v e r deny v i s i t a t i o n t o a p a r e n t d u r i n g t h e r e u n i f i c a t i o n p r o c e s s . G i v e n t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h i s c a s e , I m e r e l y s e e no r e a s o n to address t h a t i s s u e . 1 19 2090832 longer i n the best 101(b)(3) specifically reunification judicially child." i n t e r e s t s of the c h i l d r e n . should be determined Hence, provides pursued n o t t o be any provision mother f u t u r e v i s i t a t i o n that with the "unless Although process the and the c h i l d r e n , see C i v . App. 2005) has a p r o p e r v. supervision' by de facto Interest 1146, N.M. 1154, other 583, N.W.2d S.J.K., 113 808, d i d end Ill. P.3d 810-11 of 957 So. 2d than rights cites. 1131 ( A l a . custodian"), the the of the mother. i s not a c o n s t r u c t i v e or a Ill. 663, Dec. 7 5 , 83 (N.D. 20 3d (1986); 2004); child or 149 ( C t . App. of ' i n need of care rights. App. and reunification 1127, a l l parental 406 the the dependency the p a r e n t a l r i g h t s of v i s i t a t i o n 103 the ' a n d ' i s no l o n g e r persons termination of denying which had ended, d i d terminate E.T., judgment d i d not t e r m i n a t e A termination i n t e r e s t s of the ( h o l d i n g t h a t d e p e n d e n c y e n d s when " t h e custodian is the c h i l d r e n could not p o s s i b l y the judgment S.P. family the p u b l i c p o l i c y the mother judgment although of judgment i n t e r f e r e with the r e u n i f i c a t i o n process, could not p o s s i b l y v i o l a t e goal 12-15- reunification i n the best i n the Section 2005); and See 673, 500 In N.E.2d S t a t e v. G a r c i a , State In re v. the 137 Elhi, 681 Marriage of 2090832 Kingsbury, But 1 4 1 O r . A p p . 3 0 4 , 917 P . 2 d 1 0 5 5 ( C t . A p p . 1 9 9 6 ) . s e e D.H. (holding v. that State, 723 P.2d 1 2 7 4 , 1277 placement decision that (Alaska effectively 1986) negates noncustodial parent's right topersonal v i s i t a t i o n constitutes de of parental facto court termination enters a judgment judgment t e r m i n a t e s the right terminating t o custody, (Ala. 2009). irrevocable. 2d 7 8 1 , 785 rights control, permanent"). extreme rights -- matters a juvenile rights, a on o n l y i s also Dep't permanent that the right cannot be of parental undone; supra. visitation of the bundle to association Also, i s n o t permanent of v i s i t a t i o n with a judgment are never judgments may always a 21 modified See noncustodial and i r r e v o c a b l e res judicata i s of parental the child. denying be i t visitation as because to facts coming i n t o e x i s t e n c e a f t e r t h e e n t r y o f t h e judgment; visitation and o f Human R e s . , 782 S o . App. 1998) ( " t e r m i n a t i o n one a s p e c t but also E x p a r t e M.D.C., 39 S o . 2 d judgment action that o f t h e c h i l d r e n , as On t h e o t h e r h a n d , a j u d g m e n t d e n y i n g touches parent Such (Ala. Civ. rights Kingsbury, parental and care S e e C.B. v . S t a t e i s an When not only the right t o v i s i t a t i o n , w e l l as a l l other p a r e n t a l r i g h t s . 1117 rights). based rather, on a 2090832 subsequent that the material change of circumstances be i n the m o d i f i c a t i o n would child. M c K i n n e y v. 2d 568, 570 929 So. 716 So. 2d 2d 458 1235, difference n.9 (Ala. Civ. permanently p a r e n t - c h i l d r e l a t i o n s h i p ... preventing Hays v. a Hays, (Murdock, retains has the from So. right not of been her the that safeguards of and, the for with order App. 2006) the mother court her not a a " that of a child for matter, c h i l d r e n , the m o t h e r was associated a is severing juvenile termination the "There Because rights, a F.P.T., (Ala. Civ. the So. T.K.T. v . with specially). to 475 Snider, irrevocably n.7 the parte 1998)). contact custody proof entering a modifiable 873 visitation I agree mother parental entitled to termination of rights. Nevertheless, between 867, App. petition subjected Hence, procedural parental 2d to and & Sec., a l s o Ex (citing and having concurring f o r a r e t u r n of rights. the 946 J., restoration even parent see ( A l a . 2005) 1239 between 1985); upon i n t e r e s t s of Alabama Dep't of P e n s i o n s ( A l a . C i v . App. 447, best and a judgment a noncustodial scrutinize[d]." parent M.R.D. v . totally and T.D., 22 suspending a child 989 So. will 2d be 1111, visitation "carefully 1114 (Ala. 2090832 Civ. App. would 2008). have Without v i s i t a t i o n , no opportunity r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h h i s or her 627 So. court may 2d has be trial 963, 965 child. (Ala. Civ. court is suspended to be By See App. can restriction, that total denial of April 16, trial c o u r t may be So. not 3d evidence parent leads a best interests. through to the some child lesser be used instead v. Lee , danger drastic Lee, [Ms. ( A l a . C i v . App. of upon the Jackson Jackson, c o n c e r n and parent-child 999 So. 2d 2010) thereby relationship'" 488, 494-95 a 2080905, ' s e l e c t [ ] an o v e r l y b r o a d r e s t r i c t i o n infringe[] the such i f the does more t h a n a d d r e s s a p a r t i c u l a r v. this child's the See Therefore, that should visitation. Speakman, a noncustodial the ameliorated restriction 2010] with parent meaningful Speakman v. certain standard, a 1993). when protect that visitation only reasonably e s s e n t i a l to M.R.D., s u p r a . from maintain directed that v i s i t a t i o n totally action to a noncustodial ("a that unduly (quoting (Ala. Civ. App. 2007))). review completely Williams of our denied v. caselaw reveals that v i s i t a t i o n only Williams, i n unusual 474 So. 23 2d and 705, extreme 707 has cases. (Ala. Civ. been See App. 2090832 1984). has Although been Shires, a few denied 494 So. for 2d c a s e s may other 102 persistently cases refused denying finding that the Civ. the have i s so unfit a majority always child of reported been based on the K.C.Y., 735 1230 So. properly 2d 1225, prohibited father obtain[s] to properly child. (Ala. father See, Civ. from care e.g., App. E.M.C. v . 1999) visiting (trial with child p r o f e s s i o n a l counseling" based evidence i n d i c a t i n g that father p h y s i c a l l y assaulted c h i l d t o u n c o n t r o l l a b l e a n g e r p r o b l e m ) ; J . T . H . v . W.R.H., 628 894 (Ala. drug, Civ. juvenile with child); 1990) (trial in App. a l c o h o l , and supported 1993) court (evidence of d o m e s t i c a b u s e , and court's B a u g h v. c h i l d ' s best f a t h e r was a the of the the v. (affirming 1986) Shires for s a f e t y , or welfare "until vast almost health, court App. e.g., v i s i t a t i o n w i t h the parent would j e o p a r d i z e c h i l d t h a t any parent see, visitation t o f a t h e r whose 1 8 - y e a r - o l d visits), visitation found i n which reasons, (Ala. judgment denying v i s i t a t i o n be judgment Baugh, d i d not 567 err i n t e r e s t s to So. h i s mental 2d history of instability a l l 2d (Ala. Civ. 1358 father s e r v i n g a 20-year sentence); that in C o l e v. due So. denying i n concluding visit 24 father's on visitation App. i t was prison Cole, not where 507 So. 2090832 2d 1333 (Ala. Civ. App. 1987) (affirming a judgment s u s p e n d i n g f a t h e r ' s v i s i t a t i o n f o r 10 m o n t h s b a s e d on indicating that child l i e , to father alienated child steal, deceive, f r o m m o t h e r and and be (Ala. Mobile C i v . App. C i v . App. to v i s i t that 1 9 8 7 ) ; M u r p h y v. 1993) or son County Dep't of (trial court correspond with feared father, who properly son emotional Human R e s . , Murphy, was 624 So. So. 2d 2d 620 310 (Ala. request evidence i n d i c a t i n g serving sentence f o r raping h i s 16-year-old 504 to welfare); denied father's b a s e d on taught disrespectful a u t h o r i t y , d a m a g i n g t h e c h i l d ' s m e n t a l and M i n c h e w v. evidence a 16-year prison a d o p t e d d a u g h t e r , and that son e x p e r i e n c e d e m o t i o n a l d i f f i c u l t i e s b e c a u s e of c o n t a c t with father, that and any on contact newfound sense v. clinical Laurent, 434 of psychologist's indicating father with testimony undermine the would security, protection, So. 2d 266 (Ala. Civ. judgment suspending mother's v i s i t a t i o n and App. child during exhibited unruly, mother's indicating that visitation continued aggressive, periods and 1983) (affirming based control child and anxious on expert v i s i t a t i o n would l i k e l y 25 Laurent f o r s i x months on e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t m o t h e r c o u l d n o t that safety); son's and behavior testimony cause child 2090832 serious emotional problems); (Ala. C i v . App. addicted to 1985) ethyl Robbins, overdosed a c t s w i t h guns and judgment denying 460 So. 2d 1355 and conditioning reinstatement and removed returned and had child head concluded indicating child to to mother, that any In the child. See child those interest and parents the this in w e l f a r e of the case, the 460 visitation court, juvenile which father smelled and be is the harmful, 1356-57 rights bad, basically parent at child when courts the 2d fitness kidnapped that, v. ("The the best child."). supervised visitation. juvenile So. child months father's the and court f o r 12 dirty, between of (trial but would, i n f a c t , Robbins, consideration of was 1250 and R o b b i n s 1984) and cases, interaction primary In state the c h i l d w o u l d n o t be b e n e f i c i a l , to proof 2d occasions, knives i n front t h a t f a t h e r had another sores). four father's visitation on So. t h a t m o t h e r became ( A l a . C i v . App. j u s t i f i e d i n suspending evidence on 470 mother v i s i t a t i o n ) ; was b a s e d on v. S o l t i s , (evidence i n d i c a t i n g alcohol, committed v i o l e n t supported Soltis the court i n i t i a l l y According mother does to the not p a r e n t s r e p e a t e d l y f a i l e d t o show f o r p r o m i s e d 26 awarded the findings of dispute, visits, the causing 2090832 both c h i l d r e n emotional suicidal turmoil, ideation, which counseling. The the parents' visitation, the point of the over that the was one child to mental-health j u v e n i l e c o u r t found t h a t , upon s u s p e n s i o n the counseling prospect In leading necessitated children drastically was no longer c h i l d r e n resumed c o u n s e l i n g contact. it even that the i t s judgment, denying the visitation needed; however, again would juvenile court to improved after experiencing mother of harming with Alabama one anxiety be allowed specified avoid to the that children further. The the judgment by court visitation further the 1229, v. 1232 mother, case, factual reasonably was e s s e n t i a l to t h a t no t h r e a t to the visitation The was harm and B.M. the comports d e n i a l of v i s i t a t i o n . juvenile of fully with the does not certain that protect a complete the well-being of the denial children would the from ameliorate c h i l d r e n caused mother. Department (Fla. Dist. regarding f i n d i n g s show t h a t lesser restriction emotional law of Children C t . App. mandate a Florida District & Families, 2008), the a different lone So. 2d case c i t e d result. Court of Appeal h e l d t h a t 27 981 In by that visitation 2090832 could not be denied altogether to a mother who s u b s t a n c e - a b u s e p r o b l e m when t h e d a n g e r t o t h e c h i l d d r u g u s e c o u l d be a m e l i o r a t e d I n B.M., the court further through supervised had a from the visitation. stated: "Although the mother's supervised v i s i t a t i o n i n t h i s c a s e was s p o r a d i c , e v e n s p o r a d i c v i s i t a t i o n i s b e t t e r f o r a c h i l d t h a n no v i s i t a t i o n a t a l l . T h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e h e r e t h a t t h e m o t h e r e v e r appeared for her supervised visitation while under the i n f l u e n c e o f d r u g s . T h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e interest of the child's welfare w o u l d be b e t t e r s e r v e d by d e p r i v i n g t h e c h i l d o f v i s i t a t i o n w i t h t h e mother." 981 So. 2d a t 1232. did n o t deny v i s i t a t i o n because o f t h e dangers t o t h e c h i l d r e n arising from In t h i s the mother's juvenile court sporadic visitation emotionally between the emotionally this case relied on case, however, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t continued drug the evidence between the mother abuse; rather, the indicating and damage t h e m . a n d B.M. render the any f u r t h e r children The f a c t u a l would only dissimilarities the reasoning the and t h e c h i l d r e n had harmed t h e c h i l d r e n and t h a t mother that i n that case contact further between totally unpersuasive. For the the foregoing judgment reasons, and those of the j u v e n i l e court 28 should alone, be I concur affirmed. that

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.