D.M. and M.M. v. M.E. et al.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 04/15/2011 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 OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011 2091144, 2091145, 2091146, and 2091147 D.M. and M.M. v. M.E. e t a l . Appeals from Tuscaloosa J u v e n i l e Court (JU-08-644.02, JU-08-841.01, JU-08-842.01, and JU-08-844.01) THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e . D.M. ("the m o t h e r " ) a n d M.M. separate judgments f i n d i n g t h e i r awarding custody grandmother"). ("the f a t h e r " ) appeal four four c h i l d r e n dependent and of the children t o M.E. ("the m a t e r n a l 2091144, 2091145, 2091146, a n d 2091147 The matter October in currently under appeal was initiated 2008, when t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r f i l e d the Tuscaloosa alleging that custody of that grandmother Juvenile Court in a petition ("the j u v e n i l e court") J.M.M. was d e p e n d e n t a n d s e e k i n g an a w a r d o f child. alleged e m o t i o n a l l y abused I n her p e t i t i o n , that the father the maternal and t h e mother had J.M.M. a n d t h a t t h e f a t h e r h a d p h y s i c a l l y a b u s e d him. The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t , p u r s u a n t t o a c o n s e n t order on an a g r e e m e n t based m a t e r n a l grandmother, grandmother between the parents J.M.M. b e g a n l i v i n g at approximately t h e same and t h e with the maternal time t h e dependency p e t i t i o n was f i l e d . In December 2008, C a r l Montgomery, i n h i s c a p a c i t y as t h e attendance Education supervisor f o r the Tuscaloosa City Board of ("the B o a r d " ) , f i l e d p e t i t i o n s i n t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t seeking t o have the parents' other three children, C.S.M., a n d M.L.M., declared dependent. Each J.L.M., of those p e t i t i o n s contained the a l l e g a t i o n that "[the c h i l d ' s ] parents ... have f a i l e d t o e x e r c i s e t h e i r d u t y a s p a r e n t s t o p r o v i d e the proper care f o r [ t h e c h i l d ] i n order t o ensure h e r r e g u l a r school attendance. [The c h i l d ] 2 has a severe 'head lice' 2091144, 2091145, 2091146, a n d 2091147 infestation that regularly." Tuscaloosa prevents her from attending The j u v e n i l e i n t a k e o f f i c e r s e n t D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s investigate the three dependency school l e t t e r s to the ("DHR") a s k i n g i t t o petitions initiated by Montgomery on b e h a l f o f t h e B o a r d . The j u v e n i l e court conducted petitions. separate On J a n u a r y orders finding a h e a r i n g on t h e d e p e n d e n c y 2 1 , 2009, t h e j u v e n i l e court entered that there e x i s t e d "probable that a l l f o u r c h i l d r e n were d e p e n d e n t a n d a w a r d i n g lite custody of the children t o the maternal cause" pendente grandmother. The p a r e n t s were a w a r d e d w e e k l y v i s i t a t i o n w i t h t h e 1 children, b u t t h e J a n u a r y 21, 2009, o r d e r s s p e c i f i e d t h a t t h e v i s i t a t i o n n o t be c o n d u c t e d children's i n t h e p a r e n t s ' home. guardian ad l i t e m filed I n A u g u s t 2009, t h e a motion t o r e q u i r e t h a t The p a r t i e s r e f e r t o t h e s e o r d e r s as t h e " J a n u a r y 2 1 , 2009, o r d e r [ s ] , " b e c a u s e t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t a p p e a r s t o have a n n o u n c e d i t s r u l i n g f r o m t h e b e n c h on t h a t d a t e . However, p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 8 ( c ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., an o r d e r o r j u d g m e n t i s n o t deemed e n t e r e d u n t i l i t i s e n t e r e d i n t h e S t a t e J u d i c i a l Information System. The j u v e n i l e c o u r t e n t e r e d a p e n d e n t e l i t e o r d e r p e r t a i n i n g t o J.M.M. on J a n u a r y 21, 2 0 0 9 . However, i t e n t e r e d t h e p e n d e n t e l i t e o r d e r s p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e t h r e e y o u n g e s t c h i l d r e n on F e b r u a r y 10, 2 0 0 9 . F o r e a s e o f r e f e r e n c e i n t h i s o p i n i o n , t h i s c o u r t has e l e c t e d t o r e f e r t o the pendente l i t e dependency o r d e r s reached a f t e r the j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s J a n u a r y 2 1 , 2009, h e a r i n g a n d p e r t a i n i n g t o e a c h o f t h e f o u r c h i l d r e n a s h a v i n g b e e n e n t e r e d on J a n u a r y 21, 2 0 0 9 . 1 3 2091144, 2091145, 2091146, a n d 2091147 t h e p a r e n t s ' v i s i t a t i o n w i t h t h e c h i l d r e n be s u p e r v i s e d , a n d the j u v e n i l e c o u r t granted In that motion. S e p t e m b e r 2009, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t r e m o v i n g J.M.M. f r o m t h e m a t e r n a l awarding pendente lite custody entered an o r d e r grandmother's c u s t o d y and o f h i m t o DHR. The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t J.M.M. was p l a c e d i n a l o c a l g r o u p home. The j u v e n i l e court h e a r i n g over t h e course conducted an o r e t e n u s dependency o f f o u r d a y s b e t w e e n O c t o b e r 2009 a n d A p r i l 2 0 1 0 . On A u g u s t 26, 2010, i t e n t e r e d j u d g m e n t s finding the youngest t h r e e c h i l d r e n dependent, awarding custody o f t h e c h i l d r e n t o t h e maternal grandmother, and awarding t h e parents visitation. entered On that a judgment same date, i n which the j u v e n i l e court i t purported to find J.M.M. d e p e n d e n t a n d a w a r d c u s t o d y o f h i m t o DHR. The p a r e n t s appealed each o f t h e dependency j u d g m e n t s . This also timely court, ex mero motu, c o n s o l i d a t e d t h e a p p e a l s . The two o l d e s t biological and J.L.M. testified children, J.M.M. c h i l d r e n o f t h e mother. shortly after a n d J.L.M., arethe The f a t h e r a d o p t e d J.M.M. the p a r t i e s married. The f a t h e r t h a t he c o u l d n o t r e c a l l how l o n g t h e p a r t i e s h a d been m a r r i e d , b u t he s t a t e d t h a t J.M.M. a n d J.L.M. were 4 five 2091144, 2091145, 2091146, a n d 2091147 and f o u r y e a r s o l d , r e s p e c t i v e l y , when he a d o p t e d them. Thus, i t a p p e a r s t h a t t h e p a r e n t s were m a r r i e d i n a p p r o x i m a t e l y t h e m i d 1990s. C.S.M. a n d M.L.M. were b o r n t o t h e p a r e n t s i n 1999 and 2000, respectively. DHR b e g a n 2002, when investigating i t received J.M.M. a n d J.L.M. findings t h e mother reports and t h e f a t h e r i n of inadequate hygiene f o r That i n v e s t i g a t i o n r e s u l t e d i n " i n d i c a t e d " f o r inadequate hygiene. I n November 2002, t h e p a r e n t s t o o k M.L.M., who was a l m o s t two y e a r s o l d a t t h e t i m e , for medical characterized burns. treatment f o r what as a s e v e r e d i a p e r t h e DHR rash that social caused worker blistering P h o t o g r a p h s o f t h e c h i l d ' s c o n d i t i o n a t t h a t t i m e were admitted i n t o evidence. hearing, t h e mother occurred within I n h e r t e s t i m o n y a t t h e dependency insisted a 24-hour p e r i o d that the b l i s t e r i n g and t h a t burns t h e c o n d i t i o n was n o t a t t r i b u t a b l e t o t h e p a r e n t s ' f a i l u r e t o change t h e c h i l d ' s diaper. that, Angela Baker Jones, a DHR s o c i a l w o r k e r , as a r e s u l t o f t h e s e v e r e b l i s t e r s investigation finding; Jones into that incident d i d not specify i n d i c a t e d f o r hygiene issues to the child, DHR's resulted i n an " i n d i c a t e d " whether that or for neglect 5 testified finding o f M.L.M. was At the 2091144, 2091145, 2091146, and t i m e o f t h e 2002 i n c i d e n t s , DHR p r o v i d e homemaking routines for housekeeping family chores. washing Those October i n v e s t i g a t i o n was a r r a n g e d f o r a case aide to s e r v i c e s , s u c h as a s s i s t i n g t h e f a m i l y w i t h bathing, between 2091147 2002 clothes, services and were April and general provided 2003, when to the the DHR closed. I n O c t o b e r 2003, DHR once a g a i n became i n v o l v e d w i t h t h e f a m i l y when J.L.M., who was t h e n 10 y e a r s o l d , was s h o t i n t h e arm w h i l e were i n the p a r e n t s ' outside occurred. stating i n the yard home. of The m o t h e r and t h e t h e home when that father shooting The m o t h e r d e n i e d t h e a c c u r a c y o f t h e p o l i c e r e p o r t that discharged. J.L.M. had been p l a y i n g w i t h The m o t h e r a l s o d i s p u t e d t h e gun b e f o r e i t a version, apparently r e l a t e d t o DHR s o c i a l w o r k e r s b y t h e c h i l d r e n , t h a t C.S.M. h a d been p l a y i n g w i t h t h e gun when i t went o f f and t h a t a c c i d e n t l y s h o t J.L.M. she h a d R a t h e r , the mother t e s t i f i e d t h a t the c h i l d r e n h a d b e e n p l a y i n g i n s i d e and h a d i n a d v e r t e n t l y k n o c k e d t h e p i s t o l f r o m i t s r e s t i n g p l a c e on an e n t e r t a i n m e n t the mother s t a t e d t h a t t h e p i s t o l d i s c h a r g e d the floor. center; when i t l a n d e d on J.M.M. t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e i n c i d e n t h a p p e n e d i n a manner s i m i l a r to that t o which t h e mother t e s t i f i e d . 6 The 2091144, 2091145, 2091146, and father stated that he did 2091147 not know how the incident had completed at the incident indicated that the occurred. Jones t e s t i f i e d t h a t the p o l i c e r e p o r t t i m e o f t h e O c t o b e r 2003 s h o o t i n g parents' h o u s e was indicated that filthy. the Jones children stated stayed that with DHR the records maternal g r a n d m o t h e r f o r t h e weekend f o l l o w i n g t h e s h o o t i n g i n c i d e n t so that the p a r e n t s testified that shooting Jones by DHR's incident supervision report could of the resulted and family's in c h i l d r e n by testified father the investigation that, a l l e g i n g sexual the clean abuse to e i t h e r parent i n t o t h a t 2004 The 2003 of inadequate 2004, DHR of the received of the children a children by both no i n d i c a t e d f i n d i n g f o r a r e s u l t of the investigation report. predominant e v i d e n c e was as also parents. abuse o f a t l e a s t one physical Jones October the finding i n October p a r e n t s ; J o n e s s t a t e d t h a t t h e r e was abuse as into a the home. issue upon w h i c h the parties presented the f a m i l y ' s long h i s t o r y w i t h hygiene problems, especially lice infestations. p e r t a i n i n g to the lice A l t h o u g h some o f t h e evidence i n f e s t a t i o n s i s somewhat v a g u e , i t i s 7 2091144, 2091145, 2091146, and clear that l i c e issue for admitted the and h y g i e n e p r o b l e m s have b e e n a family that l i c e for had a number of years. consistent The i s undisputed that the c h i l d r e n were s e n t and t h a t o f t e n the home treat attendance children and supervisor had missed remove for a the great absence excused but considered problems from that school any with A l t h o u g h no He excessive of testified school the caused by a lice of infestation absence because stated that absences the from children's school The that because of l i c e c h i l d r e n had school s p e c i f i c a t t e n d a n c e i n f o r m a t i o n was concerning failed Montgomery, e a c h o f t h e p r e v i o u s y e a r s , Montgomery t e s t i f i e d exhibits had Montgomery e x p l a i n e d t h a t subsequent unexcused. lice. Board, deal p r o b l e m s w i t h l i c e and h y g i e n e . first the from c h i l d r e n were not a l l o w e d t o r e t u r n t o s c h o o l because the p a r e n t s properly DHR f a m i l y i n 2002. school repeatedly with l i c e to mother been a p r o b l e m s i n c e even b e f o r e became i n v o l v e d w i t h t h e It 2091147 for the the the is is had years. provided and the for submitted attendance during the 2008-2009 s c h o o l year. evidence i n d i c a t e s that the 2008-2009 s c h o o l year, 15 u n e x c u s e d absences and 4 excused a b s e n c e s ; 3 of the unexcused absences occurred M.L.M. had 8 for 2091144, 2091145, 2091146, a n d 2091147 after t h e m a t e r n a l grandmother had o b t a i n e d custody of her. The e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e s t h a t C.S.M. h a d n i n e u n e x c u s e d a b s e n c e s in t h e 2008-2009 s c h o o l child y e a r a n d t h a t J.L.M. h a d f i v e ; e a c h h a d one u n e x c u s e d a b s e n c e a f t e r t h e t i m e t h e m a t e r n a l grandmother gained school year, custody of the c h i l d r e n . M.L.M. h a d one u n e x c u s e d I n t h e 2009-2010 absence from school, C.S.M. h a d one u n e x c u s e d t a r d y , a n d J.L.M. h a d s e v e n u n e x c u s e d absences, although most o f J.L.M.'s a b s e n c e s were f o r only p a r t o f t h e s c h o o l day. I n 2005, DHR s o c i a l the w o r k e r s documented a c o m p l a i n t from children's that again had t h e r e a f t e r , t h e f a m i l y moved from recurrent school lice. Tuscaloosa Shortly t o Hale family continued they l i v e d In County. County. the children The r e c o r d once indicates that the t o have p r o b l e m s w i t h l i c e i n f e s t a t i o n s w h i l e i n Hale County. February 2008, the family returned to Tuscaloosa The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n b e g a n m i s s i n g s c h o o l b e c a u s e o f l i c e a l m o s t i m m e d i a t e l y f o l l o w i n g t h a t move. Patricia Rice, t h e nurse at the school attended b y t h e two y o u n g e s t c h i l d r e n , t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h o s e two c h i l d r e n h a d l i c e w i t h i n two t o t h r e e weeks o f r e t u r n i n g t o T u s c a l o o s a C o u n t y . 9 2091144, 2091145, 2091146, a n d 2091147 Rice also stated that, i n the f a l l children had l i c e o f 2008, t h e two y o u n g e s t " i f n o t e v e r y month, e v e r y Montgomery t e s t i f i e d other month." that t h e c h i l d r e n had a l l had "excessive u n e x c u s e d a b s e n c e s " f r o m s c h o o l i n t h e p a s t two s c h o o l We n o t e t h a t , i n A u g u s t 2008, t h e m o t h e r r e c e i v e d years. custody of t h e four c h i l d r e n o f t h e f a t h e r ' s s i s t e r ( h e r e i n a f t e r four cousins"). an The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e mother award o f c u s t o d y o f t h o s e c h i l d r e n i n a c o u r t indicates while that living school o v e r t h e o b j e c t i o n o f DHR. the four with cousins the family also and t h a t 2 sought i n Walker County and t h a t the c o u r t i n Walker County awarded her of t h e four cousins "the custody The e v i d e n c e had issues with they had a l s o lice missed as a r e s u l t . I n May 2008, t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r moved t o T u s c a l o o s a f r o m F l o r i d a a n d b e g a n r e s i d i n g i n a h o u s e on t h e same s t r e e t as t h e mother. I n A u g u s t 2008, t h e m o t h e r a n d J.M.M. were i n v o l v e d i n a p h y s i c a l a l t e r c a t i o n i n w h i c h J.M.M. s t r u c k t h e mother. On O c t o b e r 1, 2008, t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r f i l e d a I t i s n o t c l e a r why t h e f a t h e r d i d n o t r e c e i v e c u s t o d y of t h e f o u r c o u s i n s as w e l l . However, a s i s e x p l a i n e d l a t e r i n t h i s o p i n i o n , t h e p a r e n t s t e s t i f i e d t h a t they had been separated and l i v i n g apart f o r approximately four y e a r s . 2 10 2091144, 2091145, 2091146, a n d 2091147 petition alleging that J.M.M. was d e p e n d e n t a n d s e e k i n g an a w a r d o f c u s t o d y o f h i m . B a s e d on an a g r e e m e n t r e a c h e d b y t h e p a r e n t s and t h e m a t e r n a l grandmother, October t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t , on 22, 2008, a w a r d e d p e n d e n t e l i t e the m a t e r n a l grandmother u n t i l be h e a r d . c u s t o d y o f J.M.M. t o t h e dependency p e t i t i o n On J a n u a r y 2 1 , 2009, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t c o n t i n u e d p e n d e n t e l i t e c u s t o d y o f J.M.M. w i t h t h e m a t e r n a l and, i n response t o t h e dependency Montgomery on b e h a l f o f t h e B o a r d , custody of the three petitions school evidence youngest because grandmother's indicates of l i c e children home. that after initiated J.M.M. he moved 2009, appears that at least treated See n o t e 1, s u p r a . d i d not miss s c h o o l pending a second treatment. any t o the maternal them two o f t h e c h i l d r e n f o l l o w i n g t h a t t r e a t m e n t , a n d one c h i l d that, awarding The m a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d she i m m e d i a t e l y by t o the maternal when s h e r e c e i v e d c u s t o d y o f t h e t h r e e y o u n g e s t January grandmother, i t entered orders grandmother pending a dependency h e a r i n g . The could that, children i n forlice. missed I t school was r e f u s e d e n t r y t o However, i t i s u n d i s p u t e d s i n c e t h e m a t e r n a l grandmother r i d t h e t h r e e youngest c h i l d r e n o f t h e l i c e t h e y h a d when t h e y came i n t o h e r c u s t o d y 11 2091144, 2091145, 2091146, and in January 2009, none o f i n c i d e n t s of the c h i l d r e n have had youngest children's hygiene had custody of the maternal improved a f t e r youngest the attendance and the rates, g r a n d m o t h e r and children's school stopped medical or legal stated that the t h e y had in The testified that, after the grandmother, the lice c h i l d r e n missed appointments. The school school only principal also c h i l d r e n a p p e a r e d b e t t e r groomed t h a n when parents. children in 2005 and 2006, and d u r i n g t h e y e a r s t h e c h i l d r e n had testified that, in which each over the years, was she a nurse. had taken steps to a l l e v i a t e the f a m i l y ' s r e c u r r e n t l i c e mother i n s i s t e d t h a t the recurrent l i c e 12 the each l i c e with both parents schools and Rice discussed treatment the for M a r t i n , t h e n u r s e f o r t h e s c h o o l a t t e n d e d by youngest of p r i n c i p a l at the t e s t i f i e d t h a t she had in the t h a t the behavior the r e s i d e d w i t h the Barbara two and grades, c h i l d r e n were p l a c e d c h i l d r e n were p l a c e d w i t h t h e m a t e r n a l outbreaks further f o r the Board t e s t i f i e d t h a t two o f t h o s e c h i l d r e n had a l s o i m p r o v e d . two any lice. J o n e s and t h e w i t n e s s e s three 2091147 prevention The been mother a number problem. p r o b l e m was of not of The the 2091144, 2091145, 2091146, a n d 2091147 fault o f t h e p a r e n t s and t h a t treat and p r e v e n t lice. s h e h a d done a l l s h e c o u l d t o The m o t h e r problem o r i g i n a t e d i n t h e schools alleged that the l i c e r a t h e r than i n the f a m i l y ' s home. In August investigation 2008, apparently into the confrontation in response to b e t w e e n J.M.M. a n d t h e m o t h e r , DHR o p e n e d an i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o t h e f a m i l y ' s and continued lice problems. At that a s s i s t the parents i n maintaining in t h e home. time, t h e youngest three I n i t s J a n u a r y 2 1 , 2009, o r d e r s , testified, offered however, b y DHR that the parents and t h a t children c l a s s e s and t o In addition, the j u v e n i l e court each p a r e n t t o complete a p s y c h o l o g i c a l the parents was t o the j u v e n i l e p r o v i d e p r o o f t h a t t h e i r h o u s e was f r e e o f l i c e . i t s J a n u a r y 2 1 , 2009, o r d e r s , hygiene the goal court ordered t h e parents t o complete p a r e n t i n g in the ordered examination. refused instead Jones the services insisted on o b t a i n i n g t h e p a r e n t i n g c l a s s e s and p s y c h o l o g i c a l e x a m i n a t i o n s from p r o v i d e r s the p a r e n t i n g o f t h e i r own c h o o s i n g . The p a r e n t s completed c l a s s e s i n S e p t e m b e r 2009, a n d t h e y o b t a i n e d t h e p s y c h o l o g i c a l e v a l u a t i o n s i n O c t o b e r 2009, o n l y s h o r t l y b e f o r e the first day o f t e s t i m o n y i n t h e dependency h e a r i n g . 13 The 2091144, 2091145, 2091146, a n d 2091147 record contains no e v i d e n c e regarding the r e s u l t s o f those evaluations. I n December 2009, a c h a r i t y p e r f o r m e d e x t e n s i v e t h e f a m i l y ' s home. Jones t e s t i f i e d that t h e c h a r i t y the w a l l s , f i n i s h e d t h e f l o o r s , w o r k on painted r e f i n i s h e d t h e bathroom, and a d d e d new f u r n i t u r e a n d b e d d i n g . Jones acknowledged t h a t t h e c o n d i t i o n o f t h e p a r e n t s ' home was much i m p r o v e d a n d t h a t s h e d o u b t e d t h a t l i c e was c u r r e n t l y a p r o b l e m i n t h e p a r e n t s ' home at t h e time o f t h e February 2010 p o r t i o n o f t h e dependency hearing. On q u e s t i o n i n g by the p a r e n t s ' attorney regarding what more t h e p a r e n t s c o u l d do t o o b t a i n t h e r e t u r n o f t h e c h i l d r e n to their newly i m p r o v e d home, J o n e s testified that DHR was c o n c e r n e d b e c a u s e t h e p a r e n t s h a d t a k e n no r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the continued l i c e problems and had c o n s i s t e n t l y blamed those p r o b l e m s on o t h e r s . Jones explained t h a t t h e p a r e n t s had, i n t h e p a s t , made t e m p o r a r y p h y s i c a l i m p r o v e m e n t s i n t h e home b u t that t h e problems with lice always resumed. Jones also e x p r e s s e d c o n c e r n t h a t t h e m o t h e r r e l i e d t o o h e a v i l y on J.M.M. and J.L.M., b o t h o f whom h a v e h e a l t h p r o b l e m s o r d i s a b i l i t i e s , to provide care f o r t h e younger c h i l d r e n . 14 2091144, 2091145, 2091146, a n d 2091147 The mother and t h e f a t h e r disability because father benefits. Social Security The m o t h e r s t a t e d t h a t s h e i s d i s a b l e d of her weight, i s disabled each r e c e i v e diabetes, because a n d asthma he c a n n o t read and t h a t t h e or w r i t e . J.M.M. a n d J.L.M. have h e a l t h p r o b l e m s f o r w h i c h t h e y Social Security d i s a b i l i t y The mother from p r o p e r l y the r e c o r d , denied that income. receive 3 her d i s a b i l i t i e s caring for the children. prevented her However, e v i d e n c e i n i n c l u d i n g t h e t e s t i m o n y o f J.M.M., i n d i c a t e s t h a t J.M.M. a n d J.L.M. o f t e n were t h e r e s p o n s i b l e cleaning Both and f o r p r e p a r i n g f o r c o o k i n g and the c h i l d r e n ( i n c l u d i n g the four c o u s i n s , when t h e m o t h e r h a d c u s t o d y o f t h e m ) f o r s c h o o l . The m o t h e r i n s i s t e d , h o w e v e r , t h a t she d i d t h e n e c e s s a r y w o r k a n d t h a t J.L.M. o f t e n c o o k e d b e c a u s e she w a n t e d t o l e a r n t o do s o . J.M.M. h a s a c y s t i n h i s b r a i n t h a t h a s c a u s e d some h e a l t h p r o b l e m s , a n d J.L.M. i s l e g a l l y b l i n d . M.L.M. h a s asthma, b u t i t i s n o t c l e a r whether t h e mother sought d i s a b i l i t y b e n e f i t s f o r h e r b a s e d on t h a t c o n d i t i o n . DHR q u e s t i o n e d whether t h e c h i l d r e n a c t u a l l y had a l l the problems f o r w h i c h t h e y r e c e i v e d d i s a b i l i t y p a y m e n t s ; s p e c i f i c a l l y , DHR q u e s t i o n e d whether t h e c h i l d r e n had s e i z u r e s i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e i r o t h e r h e a l t h p r o b l e m s . DHR o p e n l y q u e s t i o n e d t h e m o t h e r r e g a r d i n g w h e t h e r s h e was d e f r a u d i n g the Social Security system by s e e k i n g d i s a b i l i t y benefits f o r the children. Although t h i s issue i s not pertinent t o a determination of w h e t h e r t h e c h i l d r e n were d e p e n d e n t , i t c o u l d have i m p a c t e d the j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s p e r c e p t i o n o f t h e mother's c r e d i b i l i t y . 3 15 2091144, 2091145, 2091146, a n d 2091147 The parents disputed DHR's a l l e g a t i o n that the parents had promised the c h i l d r e n g i f t s i f the children returned t o the parents' testified home. Jones also romantically i n t e r e s t e d i n a 12-year-old friend; J.M.M. was 17 y e a r s J.M.M. h a d become g i r l who was a f a m i l y o l d a t the time. J o n e s was c o n c e r n e d t h a t t h e m o t h e r h a d p r o m i s e d t o a l l o w J.M.M. t o s e e the girl parents. social i f he w o u l d According workers, juvenile probation attempt to return t o Jones, d e s p i t e the maternal officer, the parents contact arranged with the g i r l , or f a c i l i t a t e d facilitated s t a t e d t h a t she had d r i v e n i n which the meetings, J.M.M.'s c o n t a c t a n d J.M.M.'s allowed and whether S u f f i c e i t t o s a y t h a t the mother d e n i e d or o f DHR and even A d e t a i l e d r e c i t a t i o n of facts pertaining t o the instances into with the the objections grandmother, a r r a n g e d f o r J.M.M. t o s e e t h e g i r l . the to live with the g i r l J.M.M. came t h e mother had i s not necessary. t h a t she had a r r a n g e d the g i r l . The m o t h e r to the family's church, b u t n o t f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f a l l o w i n g J.M.M. a n d t h e g i r l t o s e e each o t h e r . She a l s o s t a t e d t h a t s h e h a d n o t a r r a n g e d f o r t h e g i r l t o be a t a m a l l d u r i n g f a m i l y v i s i t a t i o n not p r e v e n t e d J.M.M. a n d t h e g i r l 16 b u t t h a t she had from s e e i n g e a c h o t h e r on 2091144, 2091145, 2091146, a n d 2091147 that occasion. that Jones t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n had r e p o r t e d t h e mother had allowed J.M.M. t o s e e t h e g i r l . maternal grandmother t e s t i f i e d The t h a t t h e younger c h i l d r e n had reported t o h e r t h a t , a f t e r J a n u a r y 2009, J.M.M. h a d v i s i t e d the g i r l at the parents' It i s undisputed home. that, i n summer 2009, J.M.M. began r e b e l l i n g a g a i n s t t h e household r u l e s imposed by t h e m a t e r n a l grandmother. I n August 2009, J.M.M. was removed home because maternal grandmother's behavior, a n d he was p l a c e d of there h i s rebellious i n a g r o u p home. e f f e c t i n g that t r a n s f e r , the j u v e n i l e court from t h e In its again found order that was " p r o b a b l e c a u s e " t h a t J.M.M. was d e p e n d e n t , a n d i t awarded custody o f J.M.M. t o DHR pending t h e dependency hearing. D u r i n g t h e dependency h e a r i n g , t h e p a r e n t s each insisted t h a t t h e y h a d b e e n s e p a r a t e d a n d l i v i n g i n s e p a r a t e homes f o r the p a s t f o u r years. a house s e p a r a t e A l t h o u g h i t i s c l e a r t h a t t h e f a t h e r has from t h a t o f t h e m o t h e r , DHR d i s p u t e d that the p a r e n t s a c t u a l l y l i v e s e p a r a t e l y , and i t i n s t e a d contended t h a t the p a r e n t s c l a i m t o l i v e s e p a r a t e l y i n order t o maximize the family's Social Security 17 disability benefits. DHR 2091144, 2091145, 2091146, a n d 2091147 presented 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 f a t h e r ' s house d i d n o t a p p e a r t o be u t i l i z e d all of h i s time a n d t h a t t h e f a t h e r s p e n t most i f n o t with t h e mother. The p a r e n t s presented 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 f a t h e r l i v e d i n H a l e County and often drove t o Tuscaloosa to assist t h e mother c h i l d r e n o r w i t h h o u s e w o r k when n e c e s s a r y . did n o t make an explicit factual with the The j u v e n i l e c o u r t finding regarding d i s p u t e d i s s u e , a n d t h i s c o u r t does n o t do s o . 4 that The i s s u e i s pertinent to the j u v e n i l e court's perception of t h e mother's c r e d i b i l i t y and p o s s i b l y t o i t s d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f whether, i f she l i v e s s e p a r a t e l y f r o m t h e f a t h e r , t h e m o t h e r i s c a p a b l e o f adequately In clear each of i t s judgments, and c o n v i n c i n g dependent. determined, custody c a r i n g f o r t h e c h i l d r e n by h e r s e l f . evidence the j u v e n i l e court that the p e r t i n e n t found by child was I n a d d i t i o n , i n each judgment, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t among o t h e r things, that the "return of legal t o t h e p a r e n t s w o u l d be c o n t r a r y t o t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s I n t h i s o p i n i o n , t h i s c o u r t has r e f e r r e d t o t h e house p u r p o r t e d l y o c c u p i e d s o l e l y by t h e mother, o r t h e mother and c h i l d r e n , as b e i n g t h e p a r e n t s ' r e s i d e n c e . We have made s u c h r e f e r e n c e s f o r t h e sake o f e x p e d i e n c y , and those references s h o u l d n o t be i n t e r p r e t e d as a r e s o l u t i o n o f t h e d i s p u t e d f a c t u a l i s s u e o f w h e t h e r t h e p a r e n t s have a c t u a l l y s e p a r a t e d . 4 18 2091144, 2091145, 2091146, a n d 2091147 o f t h e c h i l d due t o n e g l e c t , l a c k o f a p p r o p r i a t e s u p e r v i s i o n , and truancy of the c h i l d . " I n t h e i r b r i e f on a p p e a l , theparents challenge only the j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s judgments g r a n t i n g t h e p e t i t i o n s p e r t a i n i n g to t h e three youngest c h i l d r e n . judgments not finding supported The p a r e n t s argue t h a t t h e t h e t h r e e youngest c h i l d r e n dependent a r e by the evidence presented by the Board. a d d r e s s t h e e v i d e n c e as i t p e r t a i n s t o t h e l i c e the children's absences from school. we a f f i r m Allen, They i s s u e and t o The p a r e n t s a d d r e s s t h e e v i d e n c e a s i t p e r t a i n s t o J.M.M. 5 do n o t Accordingly, 6 t h e j u d g m e n t p e r t a i n i n g t o J.M.M. See B l a c k v . 587 So. 2 d 3 4 9 , 349 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1991) ("When an a p p e l l a n t f a i l s t o a r g u e an i s s u e i n i t s b r i e f , t h a t i s s u e i s w a i v e d a n d c a n n o t be c o n s i d e r e d 5 file on a p p e a l . " ) . We a d d r e s s t h e The B o a r d p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h e p r o c e e d i n g s , a b r i e f on a p p e a l . but did not In t h i s opinion, although t h i s court i s unable t o reach t h e m e r i t s o f t h e a p p e a l p e r t a i n i n g t o J.M.M., we have d i s c u s s e d some f a c t s p e r t a i n i n g t o h i m . We have i n c l u d e d those f a c t s because they a r e r e l e v a n t t o t h e i s s u e o f t h e p a r e n t s ' c r e d i b i l i t y , w h i c h , as i n d i c a t e d e a r l i e r i n t h i s o p i n i o n , was d i r e c t l y c h a l l e n g e d b y DHR, a n d , w i t h r e g a r d t o his i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h the t w e l v e - y e a r - o l d g i r l , t o the p a r e n t s ' a b i l i t y to properly supervise the children. 6 19 2091144, 2091145, 2091146, a n d 2091147 p a r e n t s ' a r g u m e n t s on a p p e a l as t h e y p e r t a i n t o t h e j u d g m e n t s f i n d i n g t h e t h r e e y o u n g e s t c h i l d r e n t o be d e p e n d e n t . With regard to the standard r e v i e w i n g a dependency d e t e r m i n a t i o n , this this court applies i n c o u r t has s t a t e d : "A f i n d i n g o f d e p e n d e n c y must be s u p p o r t e d b y c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g evidence. § 12-15-65(f)[, A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 ] ; M.M.S. v . D.W., 735 So. 2d 1230, 1233 (Ala. C i v . App. 1 9 9 9 ) . However, matters of dependency a r e w i t h i n t h e sound d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e trial c o u r t , and a t r i a l court's r u l i n g on a dependency a c t i o n i n which e v i d e n c e i s p r e s e n t e d o r e t e n u s w i l l n o t be r e v e r s e d a b s e n t a s h o w i n g t h a t t h e r u l i n g was p l a i n l y a n d p a l p a b l y wrong. R.G. v. C a l h o u n C o u n t y Dep't o f Human Res., 716 So. 2d 219 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 8 ) ; G.C. v . G.D., 712 So. 2d 1091 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 7 ) ; a n d J.M. v. S t a t e Dep't o f Human Res., 686 So. 2d 1253 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 6 ) . " [ 7 ] J.S.M. v. P . J . , addition, 902 So. 2d 89, 95 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 4 ) . In t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t i s i n t h e b e s t p o s i t i o n t o make factual determinations; this c o u r t has e x p l a i n e d : "The t r i a l c o u r t r e c e i v e d o r e t e n u s e v i d e n c e a n d was i n t h e b e s t p o s i t i o n t o o b s e r v e t h e c h i l d a n d the o t h e r w i t n e s s e s w h i l e they t e s t i f i e d and t o e v a l u a t e t h e i r demeanor a n d c r e d i b i l i t y . H a l l v. The f o r m e r A l a b a m a J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e A c t , § 12-15-1 e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1975, was r e p e a l e d a n d r e p l a c e d b y t h e new A l a b a m a J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e A c t ( " A J J A " ) , § 12-15-101 e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1975. See A c t No. 2008-277, A l a . A c t s 2008. The A J J A became e f f e c t i v e J a n u a r y 1, 2009, a n d does n o t g o v e r n t h i s c a s e b e c a u s e t h e d e p e n d e n c y p e t i t i o n s were f i l e d b e f o r e its e f f e c t i v e date. Former § 12-15-65 was amended a n d r e n u m b e r e d as § 12-15-312, A l a . Code 1975, a p a r t o f t h e A J J A . 7 20 2091144, 2091145, 2091146, a n d 2091147 Mazzone, 486 So. 2d 408, 410 ( A l a . 1986). T h e r e f o r e , i t s d e t e r m i n a t i o n s b a s e d on t h a t e v i d e n c e are e n t i t l e d t o a presumption o f c o r r e c t n e s s on a p p e a l a n d w i l l n o t be r e v e r s e d a b s e n t a s h o w i n g that they are c l e a r l y erroneous. Ex parte Anonymous, 803 So. 2d 542, 546 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) . " J.S.M. v. P . J . , 902 So. 2d a t 96. In t h e i r b r i e f on a p p e a l , t h e p a r e n t s a r g u e , before the demonstrate problems juvenile court, that t h a t t h e y were a t f a u l t and t h a t t h e Board the as t h e y d i d Board failed f o r the hygiene d i d not demonstrate to and l i c e what they c o u l d have done t o p r e v e n t t h e p e r s i s t e n t l i c e o u t b r e a k s . The Board, however, d i d p r e s e n t such e v i d e n c e . and Jones each instructions had p r o v i d e d information The s c h o o l n u r s e s i n t h e form and w r i t t e n m a t e r i a l s t o t h e p a r e n t s them t o t r e a t a n d p r e v e n t l i c e . of t o enable The p a r e n t s , i n t h e i r brief on a p p e a l , c o n t e n d t h a t t h e B o a r d " p r o v i d e s l i t t l e g u i d a n c e i n d e c i d i n g which lice. authority indicating t o recommend o r p r o v i d e prevent the are e f f e c t i v e " f o r the treatment of However, t h e y have made no a r g u m e n t a n d have c i t e d no supporting duty products further maternal lice specific outbreaks grandmother t h a t the Board within successfully products their was u n d e r a to treat or home. treated Further, the l i c e the c h i l d r e n h a d a t t h e t i m e t h e y came i n t o h e r c a r e i n J a n u a r y 21 2091144, 2091145, 2091146, a n d 2091147 2009, a n d she h a s s u c c e s s f u l l y p r e v e n t e d while t h e c h i l d r e n have r e m a i n e d i n t h e same s c h o o l s attended while outbreaks as t h e y l i v i n g with the parents. In t h e i r b r i e f s u b m i t t e d blame t h e s c h o o l s t o t h i s court, the parents also f o r some o f t h e c h i l d r e n ' s a b s e n c e s ; they contend that the schools contributing to absences. further often the problem sent of t h e c h i l d r e n home, the children's thus excessive However, t h e e v i d e n c e was c l e a r t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n were s e n t home f r o m s c h o o l o n l y when t h e y h a d l i c e o r when t h e parents had f a i l e d t o p r o p e r l y t r e a t a l i c e The parents demonstrate custody also that was contend the children's awarded to the that the behavior maternal outbreak. Board d i d not improved after grandmother. The d e p e n d e n c y p e t i t i o n s f o r t h e t h r e e y o u n g e s t c h i l d r e n were n o t based on t h o s e children's behavior but rather on t h e lice p r o b l e m s t h a t c a u s e d t h e c h i l d r e n t o m i s s an e x c e s s i v e amount of s c h o o l . least However, we n o t e t h a t t h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t a t two o f t h e t h r e e youngest needs a n d t h a t t h e b e h a v i o r improved s i n c e c h i l d r e n have s p e c i a l i z e d of only the youngest c h i l d had not s h e was p l a c e d i n the maternal care. 22 grandmother's 2091144, 2091145, 2091146, and The parents argue d e t a i l e d evidence that 2091147 the Board failed to present r e g a r d i n g t h e c h i l d r e n ' s a b s e n c e s and that i t o f f e r e d o n l y vague t e s t i m o n y a b o u t t h e f a m i l y ' s r e p u t a t i o n w i t h i n the s c h o o l system lice. as b e i n g known f o r f r e q u e n t l y h a v i n g However, t h e B o a r d d i d present evidence r e g a r d i n g the number o f d a y s t h e c h i l d r e n were a b s e n t f r o m s c h o o l d u r i n g t h e 2008-2009 presented and 2009-2010 evidence school indicating years. t h a t the The Board also c h i l d r e n ' s number of a b s e n c e s f r o m s c h o o l had b e e n a c o n t i n u a t i o n o f t h e c h i l d r e n ' s attendance r a t e s i n t h e y e a r s p r e c e d i n g t h e 2008-2009 s c h o o l year. p a r e n t s a l s o p o i n t out t h a t , a l t h o u g h the The witnesses c l a i m e d t o keep r e c o r d s , t h e B o a r d evidence regarding Indeed, for exactly when children present had lice. r e c o r d s do n o t s t a t e a the Board's attendance the d i d not Board's reason e a c h o f t h e c h i l d r e n ' s numerous u n e x c u s e d a b s e n c e s , i . e . , which of those having lice. a b s e n c e s was We caused by from of the c h i l d r e n ' s d e c l i n e t o impose on t h e B o a r d i n v e s t i g a t e and document t h e r e a s o n s absence one school. Also, given for a child's t h a t the d i s p u t e t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n have m i s s e d because of t h e i r having l i c e , we 23 the duty to unexcused parents do not a g r e a t d e a l of s c h o o l are unable t o d i s c e r n how a 2091144, 2091145, 2091146, a n d 2091147 statement assist of the exact the t r i e r of dates missed fact f o r that i n determining reason would the issue of dependency. In lice a d d i t i o n t o the evidence p e r t a i n i n g t o the p e r s i s t e n t problems, other evidence i n t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l s u p p o r t s a f i n d i n g o f dependency. Jones t e s t i f i e d , confirmed, that the parents often l e f t also a n d J.M.M. the responsibility of c o o k i n g f o r t h e f a m i l y and p r e p a r i n g t h e younger c h i l d r e n f o r school t o J.L.M. (who was 15 a t t h e t i m e h e a r i n g ) and, t o some e x t e n t , J.M.M. o f t h e dependency The m o t h e r d i s p u t e d t h a t e v i d e n c e a n d s t a t e d t h a t s h e d i d most o f t h e h o u s e h o l d chores, but f o rthe the resolution trial of factual disputes i s a matter court. A l s o , the evidence supports a c o n c l u s i o n t h a t the parents supported, or at a minimum i n t e r e s t i n a young g i r l . that DHR h a d c o n c l u d e d tolerated, J.M.M.'s E v i d e n c e was p r e s e n t e d that the parents romantic indicating h a d been g u i l t y o f n e g l e c t and inadequate s u p e r v i s i o n o f the c h i l d r e n w i t h r e g a r d to t h e d i a p e r r a s h on M.L.M. a n d t h e i n c i d e n t i n w h i c h J.L.M. was s h o t ; t h o s e e v e n t s were r e m o t e i n t i m e , h a v i n g o c c u r r e d i n 2002 a n d 2003. DHR d i d n o t t a k e a c t i o n t o remove t h e c h i l d r e n 24 2091144, 2091145, 2091146, a n d 2091147 f r o m t h e home a f t e r t h o s e i n c i d e n t s , themselves, would dependency finding. consider those not provide However, incidents and those i n c i d e n t s , by support f o r the the juvenile as i n d i c a t i v e that current court could the parents' n e g l e c t or inadequate s u p e r v i s i o n had continued, p a r t i c u l a r l y given the evidence indicating that the older children d i da g r e a t d e a l o f t h e housework and t h e p a r e n t s d i d n o t a d e q u a t e l y s u p e r v i s e J.M.M.'s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e young The p a r e n t s a l s o a r g u e properly consider what that the juvenile court f a i l e d to they contend p r o g r e s s " t h e y have made i n t h e i r children indicates were removed from that a charity p a r e n t s ' home. Jones girl. i s the living their "significant condition since the custody. The evidence d i d e x t e n s i v e work t o i m p r o v e t h e acknowledged i n h e r t e s t i m o n y t h a t she b e l i e v e d t h a t t h e l i c e was p r o b a b l y o u t o f t h e p a r e n t s ' house at t h e time of the l a t e r However, J o n e s made p r o g r e s s testified dates that, o f t h e dependency i n the p a s t , the parents had when DHR p r o v i d e d s e r v i c e s problem had c o n s i s t e n t l y r e o c c u r r e d . t h a t the parents would again f a i l but that the l i c e Jones e x p r e s s e d concern to sustain the condition of t h e home s o a s t o p r e v e n t f u r t h e r l i c e o u t b r e a k s , 25 hearing. particularly 2091144, 2091145, 2091146, and because the parents responsibility In this evidence, refuse f o r the case, 2091147 t o a c k n o w l e d g e t h a t t h e y have continuing after lice problems. considering the truancy. We appeal supports conclude t h a t the the conduct amounted resulted i n the The to neglect and factual supervision, evidence i n the lack children's excessive of record t h a t the supervision absences from c h i l d r e n have had of s c h o o l . that school. parents children's supports placed care a facilitated, on the much two finding that of the the parents have The deal that for the record also allowed, J.M.M.'s c o n t a c t w i t h a 1 2 - y e a r - o l d c a r e f u l c o n s i d e r a t i o n , we that a conclusion responsibility oldest children. 8 persistent c h i l d r e n to miss a great In a d d i t i o n , the r e c o r d supports on parents' p r o b l e m s f o r a p e r i o d o f a t l e a s t e i g h t y e a r s and t h o s e p r o b l e m s have c a u s e d t h e the l a c k of f a c t u a l determinations evidence i n d i c a t e s t h a t the lice disputed t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n were dependent because of i s s u e s of n e g l e c t , and any i f girl. not After a l s o conclude t h a t , given the facts of t h i s case, the j u v e n i l e c o u r t p r o p e r l y based i t s dependency T h e p a r e n t s have n o t c h a l l e n g e d t h e f i n d i n g o f t h i s c o u r t does n o t a d d r e s s t h a t f i n d i n g . 8 and 26 truancy, 2091144, 2091145, 2091146, a n d 2091147 determination inadequate As the factual findings of neglect and supervision. an determination, burden on alternative challenge t h e p a r e n t s argue to the dependency t h a t DHR d i d n o t meet i t s o f s h o w i n g t h a t i t made r e a s o n a b l e e f f o r t s t o p r e v e n t t h e r e m o v a l o f t h e c h i l d r e n f r o m t h e p a r e n t s ' home. Former § 12-15-65, court to efforts to consider A l a . Code whether 1975, r e q u i r e d DHR prevent the removal h a d made such the j u v e n i l e reasonable o f a c h i l d " f r o m h i s o r h e r home." 9 In A l t h o u g h t h e p a r e n t s r e l y i n t h e i r b r i e f on a p p e a l on § 12-15-312, A l a . Code 1975, b e c a u s e t h e f o r m e r A l a b a m a J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e A c t a p p l i e s i n t h i s c a s e , s e e n o t e 6, s u p r a , § 12-15¬ 65, A l a . Code 1975 (amended a n d r e n u m b e r e d as § 12-15-129, Ala. Code 1 9 7 5 ) , g o v e r n s this argument. That section provided, i n pertinent p a r t : 9 " ( g ) I f t h e c o u r t e n t e r s an o r d e r r e m o v i n g a c h i l d f r o m h i s o r h e r home o r c o n t i n u i n g a c h i l d i n a p l a c e m e n t o u t s i d e o f h i s o r h e r home p u r s u a n t t o t h i s t i t l e , t h e o r d e r s h a l l c o n t a i n as s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g s , i f warranted by t h e evidence, a l l o f the following: " ( 1 ) That c o n t i n u i n g the placement of a child i n h i s o r h e r home w o u l d be contrary t o the best i n t e r e s t s of the child. " ( 2 ) T h a t r e a s o n a b l e e f f o r t s have b e e n made t o p r e v e n t o r e l i m i n a t e t h e n e e d f o r r e m o v a l o f t h e c h i l d f r o m h i s o r h e r home, o r t h a t an e m e r g e n c y s i t u a t i o n e x i s t s w h i c h 27 2091144, 2091145, 2091146, a n d 2091147 each o f i t s dependency judgments, t h a t "DHR made r e a s o n a b l e e f f o r t s the j u v e n i l e to prevent court found t h e removal o f the c h i l d from h e r p a r e n t s i n c l u d i n g r e f e r r a l s f o r c o u n s e l i n g , and in-home s e r v i c e s o f f e r e d i n p r e v i o u s DHR i n v o l v e m e n t s w i t h the f a m i l y , and a r e l a t i v e placement." We n o t e , h o w e v e r , t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n were n o t removed f r o m t h e i r home a s a r e s u l t o f petitions youngest filed b y DHR. children, Rather, the j u v e n i l e with regard t o the three court granted the p e t i t i o n s r e q u i r e s t h e immediate temporary removal o f t h e c h i l d f r o m h i s o r h e r home a n d t h a t i t is reasonable n o t t o make e f f o r t s t o p r e v e n t removal o f t h e c h i l d from h i s o r h e r home due t o t h e e m e r g e n c y s i t u a t i o n . " ( 3 ) T h a t r e a s o n a b l e e f f o r t s have b e e n made o r w i l l be made t o r e u n i t e t h e c h i l d and h i s o r h e r f a m i l y , o r t h a t e f f o r t s t o r e u n i t e t h e c h i l d and h i s o r h e r f a m i l y have f a i l e d . " "(m) As u s e d i n this chapter, 'reasonable e f f o r t s ' r e f e r s t o e f f o r t s made t o p r e s e r v e a n d r e u n i f y f a m i l i e s p r i o r t o t h e placement o f a c h i l d i n f o s t e r c a r e , t o p r e v e n t o r e l i m i n a t e t h e need f o r r e m o v i n g t h e c h i l d f r o m t h e c h i l d ' s home, a n d t o make i t p o s s i b l e f o r a c h i l d t o r e t u r n s a f e l y t o t h e c h i l d ' s home. I n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e r e a s o n a b l e e f f o r t s t o be made w i t h r e s p e c t t o a c h i l d , a n d i n m a k i n g such r e a s o n a b l e e f f o r t s , t h e c h i l d ' s h e a l t h and s a f e t y s h a l l be t h e p a r a m o u n t c o n c e r n . ... " 28 2091144, 2091145, 2091146, a n d 2091147 f i l e d b y Montgomery on b e h a l f o f t h e B o a r d . 1 0 The p a r e n t s have not a s s e r t e d t h a t t h e Board had any d u t y t o p r o v i d e s e r v i c e s to p r e v e n t t h e r e m o v a l o f t h e c h i l d r e n f r o m t h e i r home. Even assuming t h a t DHR c o u l d be s a i d t o have h a d a d u t y to p r o v i d e such s e r v i c e s under t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h i s case, the evidence supports the j u v e n i l e had provided successful. such services and court's that finding they had that not The e v i d e n c e a l s o i n d i c a t e s t h a t e m p l o y e e s DHR been a t the youngest c h i l d r e n ' s s c h o o l s a l s o had attempted t o educate the p a r e n t s r e g a r d i n g t r e a t i n g and p r e v e n t i n g t h e p e r s i s t e n t problem. given We h o l d t h a t t h e p a r e n t s have n o t d e m o n s t r a t e d the facts concluding that of t h i s case, DHR any burden met the j u v e n i l e court i t might lice that, erred i n have had t o p r e v e n t t h e c h i l d r e n ' s r e m o v a l f r o m t h e home. The p a r e n t s have f a i l e d t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e court e r r e d i n f i n d i n g the three youngest and awarding Accordingly, c u s t o d y o f them we affirm children t o the maternal t h e judgments dependent grandmother. pertaining to those children. The m a t e r n a l grandmother p e r t a i n i n g t o J.M.M. 10 29 filed t h e dependency petition 2091144, 2091145, 2091146, a n d 2091147 2091144- -AFFIRMED. 2091145- -AFFIRMED. 2 0 9114 6 A F F I R M E D . 2091147 AFFIRMED. P i t t m a n a n d Thomas, J J . , c o n c u r . Bryan a n d Moore, J J . , concur writings. 30 i n the r e s u l t , without

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.