L.M. v. Jefferson County Department of Human Resources

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 02/18/2011 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 Reporter o f Decisions, 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 2091011 L.M. 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-07-50938, JU-07-50939, JU-08-50522, and JU-08-50524) MOORE, J u d g e . L.M. Jefferson her ("the mother") Juvenile children, relieving K.M. Court appeals determining a n d J.M. theJefferson from a that judgment she h a d abandoned ("the c h i l d r e n " ) , County Department of the and, thus, o f Human R e s o u r c e s 2091011 ("DHR") o f m a k i n g children. We reasonable efforts to reunite her with the affirm. Relevant Procedural On M a r c h 1 6 , 2 0 0 7 , DHR c h i l d r e n were dependent. filed On May petitions 1 alleging that the 31, 2007, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t entered a judgment custody of t h e c h i l d r e n t o t h e mother, and o r d e r i n g t h e mother to submit assessment. drugs, to a finding History drug and continued a awarding substance-abuse to test positive for t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t h e l d a s h e l t e r - c a r e h e a r i n g on M a r c h contempt days. screening A f t e r the mother 5, 2 0 0 8 , a n d e n t e r e d in the c h i l d r e n dependent, an o r d e r of court and t h a t same d a y f i n d i n g t h e m o t h e r ordering her incarcerated for five On M a r c h 1 2 , 2 0 0 8 , t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t e n t e r e d an order n o t i n g t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n h a d b e e n p r e v i o u s l y d e t e r m i n e d t o be dependent, awarding awarding the mother On January custody of supervised 13, 2010, the the children January 19, 2010, the Only the h e a r i n g s and issue presented on a p p e a l history. 1 DHR, and visitation. juvenile court c o m p l i a n c e / d i s p o s i t i o n a l and permanency h e a r i n g . on to juvenile court conducted a Thereafter, entered an order orders that are relevant to the are included i n the procedural 2 2091011 noting, among remained to requested other return that reasonable things, the the efforts a brief to no meaningful The juvenile court call contact the with reserved the June 16, court to find that at a require to review to abandonment. Adjudicate on July granting 15, hearing J u n e 30, DHR's DHR the file That and and DHR's m o t i o n a and A DHR DHR 3 had 2009. and i t June 16, moved the abandoned had the i t would 2010. hear that Apparently, the mother's that attorney the court was a finding of a written filed relieving June again requesting was other mother for requested hearing judgment the 30, June children that, that a w r i t t e n motion same d a y , the hearing hearing, motion Abandonment." 2010, on 2010, oral with had making request mother noted DHR DHR's hearing, juvenile court however, at the objected on plan from children since compliance/dispositional The i t c h i l d r e n ; and the 2010, motion mother ruling 2010. children. mother; that i n December 2009, a juvenile permanency relieve abandoned the scheduled At the court reunite telephone had DHR's children to juvenile because the mother had than that "Motion to held entered DHR from on DHR's that making motion same day further 2091011 reasonable notice efforts of appeal at reunification. The mother f i l e d her on J u l y 2 1 , 2 0 1 0 . Discussion Initially, 2010, judgment children we note that the juvenile finding that t h e mother and r e l i e v i n g DHR from an appeal. 42 So. 3d July 15, had abandoned t h e making efforts at reunification i sa final court's further reasonable judgment t h a t w i l l support S e e M.H. v . J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y D e p ' t o f Human R e s . , 1291, 1293 (Ala. C i v . App. 2010) ( " I n D.P. [ v . L i m e s t o n 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 , 28 S o . 3 d 7 5 9 , 764 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 9 ) , ] t h i s order relieving reunite DHR o f t h e d u t y a parent with judgment t h a t w i l l ("We finality hold t o use reasonable a dependent child that i t i s immaterial, and a p p e a l a b i l i t y , that addresses review constitutes a a f o r purposes juvenile issues that could result parent o f t h e fundamental r i g h t t o the care 4 court's of order r a t h e r than from the o f a dependency d e t e r m i n a t i o n . crucial final 28 S o . 3 d 7 5 9 , 764 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . emanates from t h e permanency-plan h e a r i n g periodic efforts to s u p p o r t a n a p p e a l . " ) ; a n d D.P. v . L i m e s t o n e C o u n t y D e p ' t o f Human R e s . , 2009) c o u r t h e l d t h a t a permanency I f the order i n depriving a and custody o f h i s 2091011 or her child, whether immediately o r i n the f u t u r e , is an a p p e a l a b l e order."). the m e r i t s of the mother's On appeal, Thus, we w i l l proceed the order to address appeal. t h e mother first argues that the juvenile c o u r t e r r e d i n e n t e r i n g i t s j u d g m e n t r e l i e v i n g DHR o f i t s d u t y to make r e a s o n a b l e e f f o r t s a t r e u n i f i c a t i o n b e c a u s e , she says, DHR f a i l e d t o p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e a b a n d o n m e n t was v o l u n t a r y and i n t e n t i o n a l . We note that the mother's argument c h a l l e n g e s t h e s u f f i c i e n c y o f t h e e v i d e n c e t o support the j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s judgment; however, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t d i d n o t make a n y s p e c i f i c mother failed sufficiency Stewart, held: or to f i l e of fact otherwise case of fact, properly motion I n New 905 S o . 2 d 7 9 7 , 8 0 1 - 0 2 findings i n i t s judgment and t h e a postjudgment of the evidence. " [ I ] n a nonjury specific findings Properties, ( A l a . 2004), i n which challenging the the t r i a l order to preserve that c o u r t m a k e s no a p a r t y m u s t move f o r a new raise before the question v. o u r supreme c o u r t trial question r e l a t i n g to the s u f f i c i e n c y or weight in L.L.C. court trial the of the evidence f o r appellate review." 2 We n o t e t h a t New P r o p e r t i e s , s u p r a , r e l i e s o n R u l e 5 2 ( b ) , Ala. R. C i v . P. A l t h o u g h t h i s c a s e i s a j u v e n i l e - c o u r t c a s e , p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 1, A l a . R. J u v . P., R u l e 5 2 ( b ) i s a p p l i c a b l e . 2 5 2091011 Because t h e mother otherwise properly question argument The not to we m u s t to mother the to procedural DHR that adjudicate due p r o c e s s . new [juvenile] or she f a i l e d trial court weight or the of the to preserve her court. argues t o serve the for a sufficiency conclude also "move before f o r review by t h i s requiring motion raise relating evidence," failed that the juvenile court her with process abandonment, She a r g u e s thus that erred i n regarding depriving DHR's her of the adjudication of abandonment i s an e l e m e n t t o be c o n s i d e r e d i n a o f - p a r e n t a l - r i g h t s a c t i o n and, require service of process, as i s r e q u i r e d rights. See A l a . thus, should f o ra petition t o terminate Code 1975, § 12-15-318. We A l t h o u g h § 12-15-318 s p e c i f i c a l l y p r o v i d e s process of accordance judgment i n this dependency notices set termination-of-parental-rights with t h e Alabama case was e n t e r e d proceeding. and s e r v i c e f o r t h i n Rule Rules of C i v i l as a p a r t The p r o c e d u r e termination- parental disagree. for service of petitions i n Procedure, the o f an ongoing f o r the issuance of o f summons i n d e p e n d e n c y p r o c e e d i n g s i s 13, A l a . R. J u v . P. s e r v i c e o f a summons o n a l l p a r t i e s w i t h 6 That r u l e provides f o r regard to the i n i t i a l 2091011 p e t i t i o n a l l e g i n g dependency, see Rule 13(A)(1), P.; however, f o r subsequent hearings s h e l t e r - c a r e , and 72-hour h e a r i n g s , hearing 14, i s required. Ala. R. See R u l e J u v . P., p r o v i d e s , have appeared s h a l l receive statute o r r u l e t o be g i v e n notices need shall so n o t be given other than Ala. i n part, R. that J u v . P. "[c]ounsel fact, case, he was n o t i f i e d t h e mother's presented not be to parties, and, i n such to the parties unless was cases, the t h e mother does n o t d i s p u t e of the hearing attorney on t h a t was p r e s e n t court notice. Because there that her abandonment motion. In at the hearing and arguments on t h e m o t h e r ' s b e h a l f . argue t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e court ordered given who of a l l n o t i c e s r e q u i r e d by c o u n s e l w a s s e r v e d w i t h DHR's m o t i o n t o a d j u d i c a t e that Rule order." In t h e present or detention, only w r i t t e n n o t i c e o fthe 13(C), copies A l a . R. J u v . The m o t h e r does t h a t she p e r s o n a l l y i s no d i s p u t e t h a t t h e mother g i v e n t h e n o t i c e mandated by t h e Alabama Rules of Juvenile P r o c e d u r e , we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e m o t h e r ' s d u e - p r o c e s s r i g h t t o notice Inc. was n o t v i o l a t e d v. Crager, due-process i n this case. 8 9 1 S o . 2 d 2 9 9 , 304 violation when service 7 See S t r i b l i n g ( A l a . 2004) of notice Equip., (finding was made no on 2091011 attorney instead accordance with Based juvenile on of on party the Alabama the foregoing, and Rules we service of C i v i l affirm the was thus made i n Procedure). judgment of the court. AFFIRMED. Thompson, P.J., and Pittman, concur. 8 Bryan, and Thomas, 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.