R.M. v. Elmore County Department of Human Resources (Appeal from Elmore Juvenile Court: JU-09-46.02; JU-09-47.02; and JU-09-211.02)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 07/15/2011 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 SPECIAL TERM, 2011 2091106 R.M. v. Elmore County Department o f Human Resources 2091130 and 2100496 D.J.M., J r . v. Elmore County Department o f Human Resources Appeals from Elmore J u v e n i l e Court (JU-09-46.02; JU-09-47.02; and JU-09-211.02) 2091106; 2091130; 2100496 MOORE, J u d g e . In c a s e no. 2091106, R.M. judgment e n t e r e d by t h e Elmore ("the m o t h e r " ) a p p e a l s f r o m a Juvenile Court ("the juvenile c o u r t " ) t e r m i n a t i n g h e r p a r e n t a l r i g h t s t o h e r c h i l d r e n D.H.M. (a d a u g h t e r b o r n O c t o b e r 23, 2 0 0 3 ) , D.J.M. I I I (a s o n b o r n May 13, 2005), a n d D.M.M. (hereinafter appeals from parental April 27, 2009) to collectively as " t h e father"), t h e same rights referred born I n c a s e no. 2091130, D.J.M., J r . ("the children"). sometimes (a d a u g h t e r judgment, which t o the children. also terminated h i s I n c a s e no. 2100496, t h e f a t h e r appeals from the d e n i a l o f h i s motions, f i l e d to pursuant R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 2 ) a n d R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 6 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., s e e k i n g relief from the above-referenced judgment. 1 This court c o n s o l i d a t e d t h e a p p e a l s e x mero motu. Background In November 2008, t h e E l m o r e Resources County ("DHR") became i n v o l v e d w i t h Department the family o f Human following I n c a s e no. 2100496, t h e f a t h e r f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus; h o w e v e r , t h i s c o u r t e l e c t e d t o t r e a t t h a t p e t i t i o n a s an a p p e a l . See E v a n s v . S h a r p , 617 So. 2d 1039 (Ala. C i v . App. 1993) ( h o l d i n g t h a t a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s c a n r e v i e w t h e d e n i a l o f a R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n b y a p p e a l even i f t h e a p p e l l a n t m i s t a k e n l y f i l e s a p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus). 1 2 2091106; 2091130; reports that 2100496 D.H.M. was b e i n g physically abused. After m u l t i p l e v i s i t s t o t h e f a m i l y ' s home i n November a n d December 2008, DHR b e g a n p r o v i d i n g the in-home r e h a b i l i t a t i v e services t o family. On F e b r u a r y 11, 2009, a f t e r i n v e s t i g a t i n g a n o t h e r that the D.H.M. h a d been a b u s e d , DHR a l s o became c o n c e r n e d mother point, and and t h e f a t h e r the father's placed were neglecting D.H.M. a n d D.J.M. I I I were temporary custody i n foster On A p r i l were custody. removed The j u v e n i l e o f D.H.M. a n d D.J.M. D.H.M. that At that from t h e mother's court a w a r d e d DHR I I I , and they were care. 27, 2009, s h o r t l y a f t e r D.H.M. a n d D.J.M. III removed f r o m t h e c u s t o d y o f t h e m o t h e r a n d t h e f a t h e r , t h e m o t h e r gave b i r t h t o D.M.M. and report the hospital positive mother reported t o DHR t h a t f o r benzodiazepines could not D.M.M. was b o r n p r e m a t u r e l y , at birth. produce a valid D.M.M. h a d t e s t e d Asserting that the prescription f o r benzodiazepines or e x p l a i n the presence of benzodiazepines i n D.M.M.'s b l o o d , On June DHR o b t a i n e d 24, 2009, c u s t o d y o f D.M.M. i n June 2009. a l lthree c h i l d r e n were placed with t h e i r p a t e r n a l a u n t , J . L . C . , a n d h e r h u s b a n d , W.D.C., b o t h o f 3 2091106; 2091130; 2100496 whom h a d b e e n Florida. the approved as f o s t e r parents i n the State of On June 16, 2010, DHR f i l e d p e t i t i o n s t o t e r m i n a t e parental children, rights o f t h e mother asserting, i n pertinent and t h e f a t h e r t o the part: "9. The p a r e n t s f a i l e d t o p r o v i d e f o r t h e m a t e r i a l needs o f t h e c h i l d [ r e n ] o r t o p a y a r e a s o n a b l e p o r t i o n of [ t h e i r ] support; "10. The p a r e n t s have t o r t u r e d , a b u s e d , c r u e l l y beaten, or otherwise maltreated the c h i l d [ r e n ] ; "11. The c h i l d [ r e n ] h a [ v e ] e x p e r i e n c e d u n e x p l a i n e d serious i n j u r y under circumstances that would indicate that the i n j u r i e s resulted from t h e i n t e n t i o n a l conduct or w i l f u l neglect of the parent; "12. [ T h e m o t h e r ] s u f f e r s f r o m an e m o t i o n a l i l l n e s s , mental i l l n e s s , or mental d e f i c i e n c y of a duration o r n a t u r e as t o r e n d e r h e r u n a b l e t o c a r e f o r t h e needs o f h e r c h i l d [ r e n ] . " A hearing On on DHR's p e t i t i o n s was s c h e d u l e d f o r A u g u s t 5, 2010. some Attorney u n i d e n t i f i e d date, filed criminal the Elmore charges against County t h e mother f a t h e r f o r f e l o n y c h i l d abuse b a s e d on t h e i r a l l e g e d abuse a n d w i l l f u l father moved hearing, o f D.H.M. the j u v e n i l e asserting materially unless neglect alter that court the pending h i s defense the termination On J u l y to stay hearing 4 was physical termination trial strategy stayed and t h e 16, 2010, t h e the criminal and t r i a l District until and would that, a f t e r the 2091106; 2091130; 2100496 resolution of materially his and unfairly s i m i l a r motion. the criminal his prejudiced. rights The would mother be filed J u l y 20, 2010, the j u v e n i l e c o u r t g r a n t him leave to conduct d i s c o v e r y ; objected that request. The father requested juvenile that DHR the m o t h e r ' s and t h e f a t h e r ' s m o t i o n s t o s t a y t h e p r o c e e d i n g s and f a t h e r ' s motion f o r leave t o conduct On J u l y 24, 2010, indictment a g a i n s t the court a denied the to On charges, discovery. an E l m o r e C o u n t y g r a n d j u r y r e t u r n e d father, charging t h a t the father "did t o r t u r e , w i l l f u l l y abuse, c r u e l l y beat or o t h e r w i s e maltreat [D.H.M.], years hitting by a child the said under child h i t t i n g t h e c h i l d i n t h e h e a d , and basic Code needs of of the Alabama, child, 1975." f e l o n y child-abuse charges; the on the beginning of the in violation The of mother eighteen buttocks of and was Section also August (18) legs, f o r the 26-15-3, indicted h o w e v e r , no c o p y o f t h e the willfully f a i l i n g to provide r e t u r n e d a g a i n s t the mother i s i n the At age an on indictment record. 5, 2010, termination h e a r i n g , c o u n s e l f o r t h e m o t h e r and t h e f a t h e r a g a i n moved f o r a s t a y of the t e r m i n a t i o n h e a r i n g , a s s e r t i n g t h a t the mother's and the father's Fifth Amendment 5 rights against self- 2091106; 2091130; 2100496 i n c r i m i n a t i o n warranted a stay. After hearing arguments i n f a v o r o f and o p p o s i n g t h o s e m o t i o n s , t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t the m o t i o n , s t a t i n g t h a t the 18 months and needed c h i l d r e n had permanency; denied been " i n c a r e " f o r the termination hearing proceeded. At the conclusion of the termination hearing, the j u v e n i l e c o u r t n o t e d t h a t i t had p r e v i o u s l y f o u n d t h e c h i l d r e n t o be dependent and i n d i c a t e d t h a t i t i n t e n d e d p e t i t i o n s t o terminate the its father. parental the p a r e n t a l r i g h t s o f the mother and On A u g u s t 1 2 , judgment terminating rights t o g r a n t DHR's 2010, the j u v e n i l e court t h e mother's t o the children. entered and t h e f a t h e r ' s In its judgment, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t f o u n d , among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h a t t h e m o t h e r h a d physically starved abused D.H.M. or otherwise suffers maltreated D.H.M.; t h e mother h a d that t h e mother from a mental i l l n e s s , d i s o r d e r , o r d e f i c i e n c y c a u s e s h e r t o be u n a b l e father a n d D.M.M.; t h a t t o care had p h y s i c a l l y abused withheld food p r o t e c t the for the children; that the D.H.M.; f r o m D.H.M.; a n d t h a t t h e that the father had father had f a i l e d t o c h i l d r e n from the mother's abuse. 6 that 2091106; 2091130; 2100496 On A u g u s t 17, 2010, t h e m o t h e r t i m e l y f i l e d h e r n o t i c e o f a p p e a l i n c a s e no. 2091106. f i l e d a motion t o a l t e r , the alternative, the father's September 24, 2010, t h e f a t h e r amend, o r v a c a t e t h e j u d g m e n t o r , i n f o r a new t r i a l . postjudgment 3, On A u g u s t The j u v e n i l e c o u r t motion 2010, t h e f a t h e r on A u g u s t timely denied 25, 2010. h i s notice filed On of a p p e a l i n c a s e no. 2091130. On J a n u a r y 17, 2 0 1 1 , a f t e r obtaining leave from this c o u r t , t h e f a t h e r f i l e d a motion f o r r e l i e f from the j u v e n i l e court's August 12, 2010, j u d g m e n t ; that p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 2 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. motion was filed The j u v e n i l e c o u r t d e n i e d t h a t m o t i o n on F e b r u a r y 8, 2 0 1 1 . On F e b r u a r y 15, 2 0 1 1 , the father filed a motion to alter, amend, or vacate the d e n i a l of h i s Rule 60(b)(2) motion; the j u v e n i l e court denied t h a t m o t i o n on t h e same d a t e . father 2010, filed judgment. 60(b)(6), this a second motion for relief motion was from t h e August filed pursuant 12, t o Rule A l a . R. C i v . P.; t h e f a t h e r d i d n o t o b t a i n l e a v e o f court juvenile That A l s o on F e b r u a r y 15, 2 0 1 1 , t h e to court file that denied that second motion filed. 7 Rule 60(b) motion. on t h e same d a t e The i t was 2091106; 2091130; 2100496 On M a r c h 1, 2 0 1 1 , t h e f a t h e r f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus s e e k i n g r e l i e f motions ( c a s e no. 2 1 0 0 4 9 6 ) . from t h e d e n i a l o f h i s R u l e 60(b) This court elected t o treat the f a t h e r ' s p e t i t i o n as an a p p e a l (see s u p r a note 1 ) . Case n o s . 2091106 a n d 2091130 The A l l e g e d L a c k o f S e r v i c e on t h e M o t h e r Because i t touches on t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of the juvenile c o u r t , we f i r s t a d d r e s s t h e m o t h e r ' s argument t h a t s h e was n o t properly served with notice of the p e t i t i o n s t o terminate her parental rights i n compliance w i t h Rule 4, A l a . R. C i v . P. S e r v i c e o f p r o c e s s on i n d i v i d u a l s i s g o v e r n e d b y R u l e 4 ( c ) ( 1 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., w h i c h p r o v i d e s : " ( c ) Upon Whom P r o c e s s S e r v e d . Service of p r o c e s s , e x c e p t s e r v i c e b y p u b l i c a t i o n as p r o v i d e d i n R u l e 4.3, s h a l l be made as f o l l o w s : "(1) I n d i v i d u a l . Upon an i n d i v i d u a l , other than a minor o r an incompetent p e r s o n , by s e r v i n g t h e i n d i v i d u a l o r by l e a v i n g a copy o f t h e summons a n d t h e complaint at the i n d i v i d u a l ' s dwelling h o u s e o r u s u a l p l a c e o f abode w i t h some p e r s o n o f s u i t a b l e age a n d d i s c r e t i o n t h e n r e s i d i n g t h e r e i n o r b y d e l i v e r i n g a copy o f t h e summons a n d t h e c o m p l a i n t t o an a g e n t 8 2091106; 2091130; 2100496 a u t h o r i z e d by appointment o r by receive service of process." law t o 2 Our supreme c o u r t has r e c o g n i z e d that "[o]ne of the requisites of personal j u r i s d i c t i o n over a defendant i s 'perfected s e r v i c e ' of p r o c e s s g i v i n g n o t i c e t o t h e defendant o f t h e s u i t being brought.' 'When t h e s e r v i c e o f p r o c e s s on t h e d e f e n d a n t i s c o n t e s t e d a s b e i n g i m p r o p e r o r i n v a l i d , t h e b u r d e n o f p r o o f i s on t h e p l a i n t i f f t o prove that service of process was performed c o r r e c t l y and l e g a l l y . ' A judgment r e n d e r e d a g a i n s t a defendant i n t h e absence o f p e r s o n a l jurisdiction over t h a t defendant i s v o i d . " H o r i z o n s 2000, I n c . v . S m i t h , 620 So. 2d 606, 607 ( A l a . 1993) (citations omitted). I t was u n d i s p u t e d b e f o r e for t h e m o t h e r was l e f t w i t h on J u n e 22, 2009. that the j u v e n i l e court that t h e f a t h e r a t t h e f a m i l y ' s home The m o t h e r a s s e r t s that, a t the time of s e r v i c e , she and t h e f a t h e r had s e p a r a t e d ; longer process that s h e no l i v e d i n t h e f a m i l y ' s home; a n d t h a t t h e f a t h e r was n o t authorized asserts, t o a c c e p t s e r v i c e on h e r b e h a l f . s h e was n e v e r termination proceedings. properly Accepting served Thus, t h e m o t h e r with notice of the t h e m o t h e r ' s a s s e r t i o n s as " E x c e p t as o t h e r w i s e p r o v i d e d b y t h e A l a b a m a R u l e s o f J u v e n i l e P r o c e d u r e and t h i s s e c t i o n , s e r v i c e o f p r o c e s s o f termination o f p a r e n t a l r i g h t s a c t i o n s s h a l l be made i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e Alabama R u l e s o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e . " A l a . Code 1975, § 1 2 - 1 5 - 3 1 8 ( a ) . 2 9 2091106; 2091130; 2100496 t r u e , we n e v e r t h e l e s s c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e m o t h e r h a s w a i v e d a n y claim of e r r o r resulting from the alleged lack of proper service. The record Proceedings," J u l y 2 1 , 2010. issue contains filed a copy by t h e mother In that motion, of the j u v e n i l e o v e r h e r as a r e s u l t of a "Motion i n the j u v e n i l e to Stay c o u r t on t h e mother d i d n o t r a i s e t h e court's lack of personal of the lack of service jurisdiction of process. As r e c o g n i z e d i n P e r s o n s v . Summers, 274 A l a . 673, 681, 151 So. 2d 210, 214-15 (1963): "[T]he allegation of the bill shows that 'complainants requested a continuance of said h e a r i n g w h i c h was g r a n t e d ' S e r v i c e of process i s n o t e s s e n t i a l i f t h e p a r t y i n t e n d e d t o be s e r v e d appears and defends and submits h i m s e l f t o t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of the court. The p u r p o s e o f p r o c e s s i s t o b r i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t i n t o c o u r t a n d may be b y him waived. ... We consider the appearance r e q u e s t i n g a c o n t i n u a n c e t o be a g e n e r a l a p p e a r a n c e b e c a u s e we have s a i d t h a t i f a d e f e n d a n t i n t e n d s t o r e l y on want o f j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r h i s p e r s o n , he must a p p e a r , i f a t a l l , f o r t h e s o l e p u r p o s e o f o b j e c t i n g t o the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the court. An appearance f o r any other purpose i s usually considered general." As i n Persons v. Summers, supra, the mother's initial f i l i n g i n response t o the p e t i t i o n s t o terminate her p a r e n t a l r i g h t s was t h e m o t i o n t o continue or t o stay the proceedings 10 2091106; 2091130; filed no on J u l y 2 1 , 2010. challenge jurisdiction a general the 2100496 I n t h a t m o t i o n , t h e mother to the j u v e n i l e court's over h e r , and, t h u s , exercise asserted of personal she i s deemed t o have made a p p e a r a n c e i n t h e a c t i o n a n d t o have s u b m i t t e d jurisdiction of the j u v e n i l e court. As a r e s u l t , to any c l a i m as t o e r r o r o c c u r r i n g i n t h e s e r v i c e o f p r o c e s s on t h e mother i s waived. The M o t i o n s t o S t a y the Termination Hearing The m o t h e r a n d t h e f a t h e r b o t h a s s e r t t h a t a l l o w i n g t h e termination hearing t o proceed while the c r i m i n a l charges a g a i n s t them were p e n d i n g v i o l a t e d t h e i r c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s a g a i n s t s e l f - i n c r i m i n a t i o n , as p r o v i d e d b y t h e F i f t h Amendment t o t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n , and t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n denying t h e i r motions t o s t a y the termination criminal hearing until after the r e s o l u t i o n of trials. " T h i s C o u r t s t a t e d i n Ex p a r t e Baugh, 530 So. 2d 238, 241 ( A l a . 1 9 8 8 ) : "'Under the F i f t h Amendment t o the C o n s t i t u t i o n of the United S t a t e s , "no person ... s h a l l be c o m p e l l e d i n a n y criminal c a s e t o be a w i t n e s s against himself." The p r i v i l e g e a g a i n s t selfi n c r i m i n a t i o n must be l i b e r a l l y construed i n f a v o r o f the accused or the witness, 11 their 2091106; 2091130; 2100496 H o f f m a n v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 341 U.S. 479, 71 S. C t . 814, 95 L. E d . 1118 ( 1 9 5 1 ) , a n d i s a p p l i c a b l e not only t o f e d e r a l proceedings but a l s o t o s t a t e p r o c e e d i n g s , M a l l o y v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, 84 S. C t . 1489, 12 L. Ed. 2d 653 (1964) . "The f a c t t h a t t h e privilege i s raised i n a c i v i l proceeding r a t h e r t h a n a c r i m i n a l p r o s e c u t i o n does n o t deprive a party of i t s p r o t e c t i o n . " W e h l i n g v. C o l u m b i a B r o a d c a s t i n g System, 608 F.2d 1084 ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 7 9 ) , c i t i n g w i t h a p p r o v a l L e f k o w i t z v. Cunningham, 431 U.S. 801, 9 [ 7 ] S. C t . 2132, 53 L. E d . 2d 1 ( 1 9 7 7 ) ; M c C a r t h y v . A r n d s t e i n , 266 U.S. 34, 45 S. C t . 16, 69 L. E d . [ ] 158 ( 1 9 2 4 ) . ' "The U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n , h o w e v e r , does n o t mandate t h a t u n d e r a l l c i r c u m s t a n c e s t h e c i v i l proceedings i n which the p r i v i l e g e against selfi n c r i m i n a t i o n i s a s s e r t e d be s t a y e d ; w h e t h e r t o s t a y those proceedings i s w i t h i n the t r i a l court's discretion. "'While t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n does n o t require a stay of c i v i l proceedings pending the outcome of potential criminal p r o c e e d i n g s , a c o u r t has t h e d i s c r e t i o n t o postpone c i v i l d i s c o v e r y when "justice r e q u i r e s " t h a t i t do s o " t o p r o t e c t a p a r t y or p e r s o n s from annoyance, embarrassment, o p p r e s s i o n , o r undue b u r d e n o r e x p e n s e . " R u l e 2 6 ( c ) , A l a . R. C i v . P.' "Ex p a r t e C o a s t a l T r a i n i n g 980-81 ( A l a . 1991) . I n s t . , 583 So. 2d 979, "In the present c a s e , t h r e e i s s u e s must be addressed t o determine i f a stay i n the c i v i l divorce proceedings based on Fifth Amendment concerns i n a pending c r i m i n a l a c t i o n i s warranted: (1) w h e t h e r t h e c i v i l p r o c e e d i n g a n d t h e c r i m i n a l p r o c e e d i n g a r e p a r a l l e l , s e e Ex p a r t e Weems, 711 So. 12 2091106; 2091130; 2100496 2d 1011, 1013 ( A l a . 1 9 9 8 ) ; (2) w h e t h e r t h e m o v i n g p a r t y ' s F i f t h Amendment p r o t e c t i o n a g a i n s t selfincrimination will be t h r e a t e n e d i f the c i v i l p r o c e e d i n g i s n o t s t a y e d , s e e Ex p a r t e Windom, 763 So. 2d 946, 950 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) ; a n d (3) w h e t h e r t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f t h e b a l a n c i n g t e s t s e t o u t i n Ex p a r t e Baugh, 530 So. 2d a t 244, a n d Ex p a r t e E b b e r s , 871 So. 2d 776, 789 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) , a r e met." Ex p a r t e R a w l s , 953 So. 2d 374, 378 ( A l a . 2 0 0 6 ) . The court mother and t h e f a t h e r a l s o a s s e r t t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e improperly applied the three factors set forth i n Ex p a r t e Rawls, supra. The c o m p e t i n g a c t i o n s a t i s s u e i n R a w l s were a c i v i l divorce a c t i o n , i n which the wife the had s t a l k e d husband verbally abusive to her h e r and had been throughout alleged that p h y s i c a l l y and the marriage, c r i m i n a l a c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e husband i n v o l v i n g f e l o n y of c r i m i n a l m i s c h i e f , c r i m i n a l t r e s p a s s , and s t a l k i n g . 380-81. The h u s b a n d moved t o s t a y t h e d i v o r c e and a charges I d . at proceedings, a s s e r t i n g t h a t a c i v i l t r i a l w o u l d v i o l a t e h i s F i f t h Amendment p r i v i l e g e against self-incrimination; the t r i a l court denied t h e m o t i o n , a n d t h e h u s b a n d p e t i t i o n e d f o r a w r i t o f mandamus. Id. a t 377. opinion. So. This court denied his petition without an See Ex p a r t e R a w l s (No. 2040634, June 2 1 , 2 0 0 5 ) , 945 2d 504 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2005) 13 (table). The h u s b a n d then 2091106; 2091130; 2100496 f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus i n t h e supreme c o u r t . Id. I n a d d r e s s i n g w h e t h e r t h e c i v i l a n d c r i m i n a l a c t i o n s were p a r a l l e l proceedings, action t h e supreme c o u r t s t a t e d t h a t "a d i v o r c e i n which there a r e a l l e g a t i o n s of abuse, harassment, t h r e a t s , and i n t i m i d a t i o n and a f e l o n y s t a l k i n g charge not be more p a r a l l e l . " significant the state presented that, t h a t , i n support would likely that stay rely on some I d . a t 381. c r i m i n a l proceeding Therefore, c a n n o t be d e n i e d p a r a l l e l proceedings." charge, evidence The c o u r t held and t h e d i v o r c e i n these appeals, [the husband's] motion f o r on t h e g r o u n d s that these are not I d . a t 380. We n o t e t h a t t h e c i v i l and c r i m i n a l p r o c e e d i n g s at issue i . e . , t h e t e r m i n a t i o n h e a r i n g and t h e a c t i o n stemming from t h e f e l o n y c h i l d - a b u s e upon i d e n t i c a l a l l e g a t i o n s . and o f t h e same found i t have some o v e r l a p p i n g a c t s , t h e y must be c o n s i d e r e d p a r a l l e l proceedings. a The c o u r t of the felony s t a l k i n g i n the divorce action. "[b]ecause proceeding I d . a t 380-81. could the c r i m i n a l actions, charges, were In both the termination t h e mother premised actions and t h e f a t h e r were a l l e g e d t o have p h y s i c a l l y a b u s e d D.H.M. b y h i t t i n g o r b e a t i n g 14 2091106; 2091130; 2100496 her; t o have n e g l e c t e d h e r , p r e s u m a b l y b y f a i l i n g t o p r o v i d e h e r w i t h an a d e q u a t e amount o f f o o d ; a n d / o r t o have f a i l e d t o p r o t e c t h e r from abuse. those a r e t h e same B a s e d on o u r r e v i e w a l l e g a t i o n s on w h i c h of the record, DHR premised i t s t e r m i n a t i o n p e t i t i o n s a g a i n s t t h e mother and t h e f a t h e r . The evidence p r e s e n t e d i n both t h e c i v i l and t h e c r i m i n a l a c t i o n s , therefore, was e x p e c t e d identical. t o be s u b s t a n t i a l l y similar, As i n Ex p a r t e R a w l s , s u p r a , we c o n c l u d e termination proceedings and t h e c r i m i n a l i f not that the proceedings were parallel. The second factor identified i n Rawls, supra, t o be c o n s i d e r e d i n d e t e r m i n i n g whether t h e moving p a r t y i s e n t i t l e d to a stay protection the c i v i l i s whether t h e moving party's against self-incrimination proceeding i s not stayed. will Fifth Amendment be t h r e a t e n e d i f Ex p a r t e R a w l s , 953 So. 2d a t 381 ( c i t i n g Ex p a r t e Windom, 763 So. 2d 946, 950 2000)). I n Ex p a r t e R a w l s , o u r supreme c o u r t s t a t e d : "To s u s t a i n a m o v i n g p a r t y ' s F i f t h Amendment r i g h t a g a i n s t s e l f - i n c r i m i n a t i o n , ' " i t n e e d o n l y be e v i d e n t from the i m p l i c a t i o n s of t h e q u e s t i o n , i n the s e t t i n g i n which i t i s asked, t h a t a r e s p o n s i v e a n s w e r t o t h e q u e s t i o n o r an e x p l a n a t i o n o f why i t c a n n o t be a n s w e r e d m i g h t be d a n g e r o u s because injurious disclosure could result."'" 15 (Ala. 2091106; 2091130; 2100496 953 So. 2d a t 381 ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e Baugh, 530 So. 2d 238, 241 (Ala. 1988), q u o t i n g i n turn Hoffman v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951)) . At t h e t e r m i n a t i o n h e a r i n g , t h e mother a s s e r t e d h e r F i f t h Amendment right numerous against questions, separated; self-incrimination i n response t o i n c l u d i n g : why s h e a n d t h e f a t h e r h a d w h e t h e r she was l i v i n g i n a s h e l t e r f o r a b u s e d a n d b a t t e r e d women; why s h e h a d e n t e r e d DHR's c u s t o d y whether, as a c h i l d , h e r mother had p h y s i c a l l y abused h e r ; w h e t h e r s h e h a d b e e n s e x u a l l y a b u s e d as a c h i l d ; had been as a c h i l d ; whether she i n d i c t e d b y a g r a n d j u r y a n d , i f s o , why; on what charges she had been i n c a r c e r a t e d ; whether she had a h i s t o r y of m e n t a l - h e a l t h problems and, i f so, t h e e x t e n t and d e t a i l s of t h a t h i s t o r y ; whether she o r t h e f a t h e r had e v e r chained the refrigerator to prevent the locked or children from o b t a i n i n g f o o d f r o m i t ; w h e t h e r D.H.M. h a d a h a b i t o f g e t t i n g up a t n i g h t i n s e a r c h o f food; whether she o r t h e f a t h e r had ever locked the children i n t h e i r ever abused o r n e g l e c t e d rooms; and whether she had the children. At the t e r m i n a t i o n hearing, the f a t h e r a s s e r t e d h i s F i f t h Amendment right against self-incrimination 16 to numerous 2091106; 2091130; questions, what 2100496 i n c l u d i n g : why he and t h e m o t h e r h a d s e p a r a t e d ; c h a r g e s he h a d been incarcerated; whether he had on ever been c o n c e r n e d f o r t h e h e a l t h o f h i s c h i l d r e n d u r i n g t h e t i m e t h e y had lived with t h e mother and/or him; whether, in his o p i n i o n , D.H.M. h a d e v e r a p p e a r e d m a l n o u r i s h e d ; w h e t h e r he h a d ever placed a l o c k on t h e r e f r i g e r a t o r ; w h e t h e r he h a d s t r u c k h i s c h i l d r e n ; w h e t h e r he h a d e v e r been afraid ever of the m o t h e r o r a f r a i d t h a t she m i g h t harm one o f t h e c h i l d r e n ; and whether the mother had ever threatened t o harm h e r s e l f or commit s u i c i d e . I t i s clear that responsive f a t h e r t o t h e above q u e s t i o n s answers by t h e mother or t h e c o u l d be h i g h l y r e l e v a n t t o t h e c r i m i n a l c h a r g e s t h a t were p e n d i n g a g a i n s t them a t t h e t i m e o f the termination existing hearing. Thus, under a t the time of the t e r m i n a t i o n the circumstances hearing, the mother and t h e f a t h e r c l e a r l y h a d r e a s o n t o b e l i e v e t h a t responsive answers dangerous to the questions p o s e d t o them " ' m i g h t be because i n j u r i o u s d i s c l o s u r e c o u l d r e s u l t . ' " 530 So. 2d a t 241 at 486). father's ( q u o t i n g Hoffman v. U n i t e d Therefore, Fifth we Amendment conclude rights 17 that Ex p a r t e States, the mother's Baugh, 341 and U.S. the against s e l f - i n c r i m i n a t i o n 2091106; 2091130; 2100496 were threatened by the termination proceeding j u v e n i l e court's d e n i a l of the requested We next father's must Fifth determine Amendment whether rights and by t h e stay. the mother's outweigh and t h e the p o t e n t i a l prejudice t o the other party i n the c i v i l proceeding. See Ex p a r t e R a w l s , 953 So. 2d a t 378 ( d i s c u s s i n g t h e b a l a n c i n g s e t o u t i n Ex p a r t e Baugh, 530 So. 2d a t 244, a n d Ex E b b e r s , 871 So. 2d 776, 789 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) ) . supra, o u r supreme c o u r t considered i n applying identified parte I n Ex p a r t e E b b e r s , a list the balancing test o f f a c t o r s t o be test; those factors include, but are not l i m i t e d t o : " 1 . The i n t e r e s t o f t h e p l a i n t i f f i n p r o c e e d i n g e x p e d i t i o u s l y with the c i v i l l i t i g a t i o n , o r any p a r t i c u l a r aspect o f i t , and t h e p o t e n t i a l p r e j u d i c e to the p l a i n t i f f of a delay i n the progress of t h a t litigation. "2. The p r i v a t e i n t e r e s t o f t h e d e f e n d a n t a n d the burden that any p a r t i c u l a r aspect of the p r o c e e d i n g s may i m p o s e on t h e d e f e n d a n t . "3. The e x t e n t t o w h i c h t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s F i f t h Amendment r i g h t s a r e i m p l i c a t e d / t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h the i s s u e s i n t h e c r i m i n a l case o v e r l a p those i n t h e c i v i l case. "4. The c o n v e n i e n c e of the court management o f i t s c a s e s , a n d t h e e f f i c i e n t judicial resources. 18 i n the use of 2091106; 2091130; 2100496 civil "5. The i n t e r e s t o f p e r s o n s n o t p a r t i e s t o litigation. "6. The i n t e r e s t o f t h e p u b l i c i n t h e c i v i l and c r i m i n a l l i t i g a t i o n . "7. The whether the indicted. "8. The at t i m i n g of the motion t o So. See a l s o Ex p a r t e M.J.W., [Ms. , factors pending s t a t u s of the c r i m i n a l case, i n c l u d i n g p a r t y m o v i n g f o r t h e s t a y has been 871 3d 2d the 789-90 (citations ( A l a . C i v . App. f r o m Ex p a r t e to stay." f e d e r a l cases 2091171, Nov. 2010) 12, 2010] and So. and (listing Ebbers, supra, omitted). the applying concluding that the j u v e n i l e c o u r t d i d not i m p r o p e r l y deny the mother's m o t i o n f o r a s t a y of a pendente l i t e noting t h a t the hearing j u v e n i l e court i n a dependency a c t i o n had stayed the final but custody hearing). In the considering plaintiff litigation, aspect of Ex this in the first proceeding parte Rawls factor is f a c t o r , i . e . , the expeditiously with instructs that "the whether [the i n t e r e s t of the civil important plaintiff's] civil action against [ t h e d e f e n d a n t ] w i l l be damaged by t h e s t a y ; i n other will words, [the plaintiff's] case against d e f e n d a n t ] be weakened by t h e p a s s a g e o f t i m e b e c a u s e o f 19 [the lost 2091106; 2091130; 2100496 evidence or witnesses?" before 953 So. 2d a t 385. the j u v e n i l e court prejudice i t s case, DHR d i d n o t a r g u e that the issuance of a stay would i . e . , that the issuance of a s t a y would pose a t h r e a t of l o s t e v i d e n c e or w i t n e s s e s hearing. Therefore, i n the termination t h e r e was no e v i d e n c e b e f o r e t h e j u v e n i l e court t o i n d i c a t e t h a t t h i s f a c t o r weighed a g a i n s t s t a y i n g the termination hearing. We already have concluded that proceedings s u b s t a n t i a l l y overlap the mother's Additionally, and the i t was termination hearing, and c r i m i n a l and s i g n i f i c a n t l y father's undisputed the c i v i l Fifth that, Amendment at the time charges. of the Thus, t h o s e f a c t o r s weighed h e a v i l y i n favor of s t a y i n g the t e r m i n a t i o n argued before rights. b o t h t h e m o t h e r and t h e f a t h e r h a d b e e n i n d i c t e d on f e l o n y c h i l d - a b u s e DHR threaten hearing. the j u v e n i l e court that the c h i l d r e n ' s n e e d f o r permanence g r e a t l y o u t w e i g h e d any r i g h t t o a s t a y t h e m o t h e r and t h e f a t h e r may have h a d . We agree w i t h DHR that t h e c h i l d r e n d e s e r v e p e r m a n e n c y ; p e r m a n e n c y , h o w e v e r , may n o t be achieved established at that any cost. Additionally, t h e c h i l d r e n were settled the and t h r i v i n g i n t h e i r p l a c e m e n t w i t h r e l a t i v e s , and no e v i d e n c e was 20 evidence presented 2091106; 2091130; 2100496 to indicate that being t h a t p l a c e m e n t was disrupted. Further, the unstable paternal or a u n t and at risk uncle whom t h e c h i l d r e n had b e e n p l a c e d i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e y to wait until the j u v e n i l e court parental r i g h t s before had resolved i n i t i a t i n g any adoption of with intended a l l issues of proceedings. Thus, s t a y i n g t h e t e r m i n a t i o n h e a r i n g u n t i l t h e c r i m i n a l p r o c e e d i n g s had children have had other with b e e n r e s o l v e d was than to continue the mother and u n l i k e l y to prejudice t o weaken any the father bond t h e y by f r o m t h e p e r m a n e n t and parent-child the sacrificing their to surrender irrevocable termination constitutional right another i s not allowed." ( A l a . C i v . App. Lowe v. That of the the order Lowe, 561 a to the m o t h e r and termination the hearing f a t h e r d i d not and, assert 240, that 243 also asserts that t i m e l y seek a s t a y therefore, 21 2d party 1990). I n i t s b r i e f f i l e d w i t h t h i s c o u r t , DHR So. and without "Requiring in entire mother were u n a b l e t o d e f e n d a g a i n s t constitutional rights. one uncle. a t h e harm r e s u l t i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p , which t e r m i n a t i o n f a t h e r opposed but may continuing s u c c e s s f u l p l a c e m e n t w i t h t h e p a t e r n a l a u n t and p o t e n t i a l harm, h o w e v e r , i s o u t w e i g h e d by the the juvenile of the court 2091106; 2091130; was within disagree. three 2100496 i t sdiscretion The m o t h e r and t h e f a t h e r weeks o f DHR's f i l i n g parental 924-25 rights. because requests (concluding, trial defendant, court who their sought motions. a stay have had f a i l e d their W h i t e , 551 So. 2d 923, on p e t i t i o n should We within the p e t i t i o n s t o terminate See, e . g . , Ex p a r t e ( A l a . 1989) mandamus, t h a t i n denying stayed t o respond a n d who d i d n o t s e e k a s t a y u n t i l f o r a w r i t of civil to action discovery a f t e r he h a d b e e n compelled t o respond t o d i s c o v e r y , had n o t waived h i s r i g h t t o assert his Fifth Amendment r i g h t s ) . We, therefore, reject DHR's argument t h a t t h e m o t h e r a n d t h e f a t h e r f a i l e d t o t i m e l y seek a s t a y . B a s e d on o u r r e v i e w o f t h e r e c o r d , we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e t e r m i n a t i o n h e a r i n g a n d t h e c r i m i n a l p r o c e e d i n g s were p a r a l l e l p r o c e e d i n g s ; t h a t t h e mother's and t h e f a t h e r ' s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l rights against s e l f - i n c r i m i n a t i o n were threatened by the j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s d e n i a l o f t h e s t a y ; and t h a t , a f t e r b a l a n c i n g the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s o f t h e mother and t h e f a t h e r the prejudice termination constitutional that w o u l d have hearing, the r i g h t s were resulted mother's from p o s t p o n i n g t h e and the weightier 22 against the concerns father's i n this 2091106; 2091130; 2100496 case. Thus, a l l t h r e e Rawls, supra, The o f t h e f a c t o r s i d e n t i f i e d i n Ex p a r t e weigh i n favor of t h e stay. very purpose of the t e r m i n a t i o n hearing i n this case was t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e p a r e n t a l r i g h t s o f t h e m o t h e r a n d the f a t h e r were t o r e m a i n i n t a c t . S.W.2d 423, 424 motion t o stay C f . C a r t e r v . Drumm, 700 (Ky. C t . App. 1985) ( r e f u s i n g t o g r a n t a dependency action pending a r e s o l u t i o n of c r i m i n a l p r o c e e d i n g s b e c a u s e t h e m o t h e r a n d t h e f a t h e r were not r i s k i n g a l o s s of a l l parental r i g h t s i n that a c t i o n as t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t recognized with parental a termination parents with of their i n Carter, supra, the parents they would i f faced rights). waiving their Fifth potentially incriminating father unable were themselves, faced parental rights. rights against t h e mother and t h e Amendment to significantly Unlike the i n t h i s c a s e were a t o t a l and i r r e v o c a b l e l o s s o f t h e i r Without dependency a i d i n the defense of their parental rights. A d d i t i o n a l l y , even by i n v o k i n g F i f t h Amendment r i g h t s , t h e m o t h e r a n d t h e f a t h e r were f o r c e d t o e x p o s e t h e m s e l v e s t o an a d v e r s e i n f e r e n c e e.g., Ex p a r t e entitled Rawls, of g u i l t . 953 So. 2d a t 383 (a c i v i l t o draw a d v e r s e i n f e r e n c e s 23 when a p a r t y their See, court i s or witness 2091106; 2091130; 2100496 invokes h i s or her F i f t h question (citing Baxter Amendment r i g h t v. P a l m i g i a n o , as t o a p a r t i c u l a r 425 U.S. 308, 317-18 (1976))). We its therefore discretion motions the j u v e n i l e court t h e mother's the termination of the j u v e n i l e f u r t h e r proceedings our that i n denying to stay judgment conclude court hearing. the We a n d remand consideration of the other m o t h e r a n d t h e f a t h e r on father's reverse the t h e cause f o r consistent with this opinion. r e s o l u t i o n of the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l pretermit and exceeded issue Because of presented, issues we r a i s e d by t h e appeal. Case no. 2100496 On J a n u a r y court t o seek 17, 2 0 1 1 , t h e f a t h e r s o u g h t l e a v e from relief judgment, pursuant t o Rule Ala. R. an court."). Ala. ("Leave See R u l e the motion need 60(b), n o t be from t h e judgment i s a c t u a l l y p e n d i n g b e f o r e This court granted August such the f a t h e r ' s motion. father thereafter f i l e d , R. C i v . P., a m o t i o n court's t o make court's f r o m a n y a p p e l l a t e c o u r t e x c e p t d u r i n g s u c h t i m e as appeal The the j u v e n i l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 2 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. C i v . P. obtained from this pursuant t o Rule seeking 12, 2010, j u d g m e n t 24 relief 60(b)(2), from t h e j u v e n i l e terminating h i s parental 2091106; 2091130; 2100496 rights. relief Because from motion, we granted the j u v e n i l e filed court, pursuant t o Rule b e e n made i n t h e t r i a l court t o make t h e m o t i o n was s o u g h t 6 0 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. filed the father's h i s motion, request of the the date 60(b)(2), to seek father's i s "deemed t o have as o f t h e d a t e upon w h i c h l e a v e i n the appellate Thus, t h e f a t h e r pursuant t o Rule court." Rule i s deemed t o have 60(b)(2), on J a n u a r y 17, 2011. In h i s Rule 60(b)(2) motion, the f a t h e r a s s e r t e d had been January acquitted 2011 discovered his and of the that the felony child-abuse acquittal t h a t he charges constituted in "newly e v i d e n c e " r e l e v a n t t o DHR's p e t i t i o n s t o t e r m i n a t e parental rights. On F e b r u a r y 8, 2 0 1 1 , t h e j u v e n i l e court c o n d u c t e d a h e a r i n g on t h e f a t h e r ' s R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 2 ) m o t i o n , a n d , on t h a t same d a t e , i t d e n i e d t h e f a t h e r ' s motion. On F e b r u a r y 15, 2 0 1 1 , t h e f a t h e r f i l e d a m o t i o n t o a l t e r , amend, o r v a c a t e t h e d e n i a l o f h i s R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 2 ) m o t i o n . The j u v e n i l e c o u r t p u r p o r t e d t o d e n y t h a t m o t i o n on t h e same d a t e . Also for on F e b r u a r y 15, 2 0 1 1 , t h e f a t h e r relief 60(b)(6), stated from t h e judgment, A l a . R. C i v . P. that "[t]he this filed one a second pursuant motion to Rule In t h a t second motion, the f a t h e r grounds for relief 25 a r e as they were 2091106; 2091130; 2100496 p r e s e n t e d i n [the f a t h e r ' s ] motion p u r s u a n t t o Rule 6 0 ( b ) ( 2 ) . " The juvenile c o u r t denied the same d a t e i t was the f a t h e r f i l e d mandamus s e e k i n g r e l i e f motions. This petition (Ala. court on the App. 1993) a petition for a writ from the d e n i a l of h i s Rule has as an a p p e a l . Civ. second motion filed. On M a r c h 1, 2011, of father's elected to treat See E v a n s v. S h a r p , (holding that the 617 father's So. appellate 60(b) 2d 1039 courts can r e v i e w t h e d e n i a l o f a R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n b y a p p e a l even i f t h e a p p e l l a n t m i s t a k e n l y f i l e s a p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus). We conclude, however, that f a t h e r ' s appeal because this c o u r t cannot c o n s i d e r the i t was n o t t i m e l y f i l e d . The juvenile c o u r t d e n i e d t h e f a t h e r ' s R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 2 ) m o t i o n on F e b r u a r y 8, 2011. The judgment. filing See Rule 28(C), t h e a p p e a l was father's those f a t h e r t h e r e a f t e r h a d 14 days subsequent motions Juv. P. The that time for n o t t o l l e d b y t h e f i l i n g o f any o f t h e motions because 60(b) rules of procedure p a r t e K e i t h , 771 So. 2d 1018, did of court, motions t o " r e c o n s i d e r " the d e n i a l of the o r i g i n a l Rule our nature juvenile 60(b) which i n the i n the s u c c e s s i v e Rule motion, were A l a . R. t o a p p e a l from do not a l l o w . 1021-22 ( A l a . 1 9 9 8 ) . The See Ex father not f i l e h i s n o t i c e of a p p e a l u n t i l a f t e r the d e a d l i n e had 26 2091106; 2091130; 2100496 e x p i r e d ; h e n c e , t h i s c o u r t h a s no j u r i s d i c t i o n t o c o n s i d e r h i s appeal. See R u l e 2 ( a ) ( 1 ) , A l a . R. App. P. We n e v e r t h e l e s s 60(b) motion rights the note t h a t t h e f a t h e r sought i n h i s Rule t o have vacated. t h e judgment t e r m i n a t i n g T h i s c o u r t h a s now r e v e r s e d t h a t j u d g m e n t f o r reasons s e t out above. essence, h i s parental obtained Accordingly, the r e l i e f that he t h e f a t h e r has, i n was seeking, thus r e n d e r i n g h i s R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n a n d h i s a p p e a l f r o m t h e d e n i a l of t h a t motion moot. B a s e d on t h e f o r e g o i n g , we d i s m i s s t h e f a t h e r ' s a p p e a l i n c a s e no. 2100496. Conclusion I n c a s e n o s . 2091106 a n d 2091130, we r e v e r s e t h e j u d g m e n t of the juvenile proceedings 2100496, court consistent we dismiss a n d remand with the this appeal t h e cases opinion. f o r lack f o r further In of case appellate jurisdiction. 2091106 REVERSED AND REMANDED. 2091130 REVERSED AND REMANDED. 2100496 APPEAL DISMISSED. Thompson, P . J . , a n d P i t t m a n a n d Thomas, J J . , c o n c u r . Bryan, J . , concurs i n the r e s u l t , 27 without no. writing.

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.