K.F. v. Cleburne County Department of Human Resources, V.F., and C.L. (Appeal from Cleburne Juvenile Court: JU-08-107.03)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 8/12/11 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 2100368, 2100369, and 2100370 K.F. v. Cleburne County Department o f Human Resources, V.F., and C.L. Appeals from Cleburne J u v e n i l e Court (JU-08-107.03, JU-08-108.03, and JU-08-109.03) BRYAN, J u d g e . K.F. ("the m o t h e r " ) a p p e a l s i n three separate of her three from a d i s p o s i t i o n a l judgment dependency a c t i o n s t h a t t r a n s f e r r e d c h i l d r e n , N.T., A.F., a n d M.T. custody (referred to 2100368, 2100369, a n d 2100370 c o l l e c t i v e l y h e r e i n a f t e r as " t h e c h i l d r e n " ) f r o m t h e C l e b u r n e C o u n t y D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s Procedural ("DHR") t o V.F. a n d C.L. History On S e p t e m b e r 29, 2009, DHR f i l e d JU-08-107.03, seeking to transfer a petition i n c a s e no. c u s t o d y o f A.F., a child b o r n t o t h e m o t h e r a n d V.F., t h e f a t h e r , i n J a n u a r y 2001, f r o m DHR t o C.L., who i s V.F.'s d a u g h t e r A.F. The p e t i t i o n and t h e h a l f s i s t e r of a l l e g e d t h a t DHR h a d h a d c u s t o d y o f A.F. s i n c e F e b r u a r y 2009, t h a t A.F. h a d b e e n l i v i n g w i t h C.L. s i n c e A u g u s t 2009, t h a t C.L. was a b l e a n d w i l l i n g t o c a r e f o r A.F., and t h a t DHR t h o u g h t t h a t p l a c e m e n t A.F.'s b e s t i n t e r e s t . 108.03, DHR f i l e d o f A.F. w i t h C.L. was i n On t h e same d a y , i n c a s e no. J U - 0 8 - a petition t o t r a n s f e r c u s t o d y o f M.T., a child o f t h e m o t h e r a n d V.F. b o r n i n A p r i l C.L. The p e t i t i o n 2002, f r o m DHR t o a l l e g e d t h a t DHR h a d h a d c u s t o d y o f M.T. s i n c e F e b r u a r y 2009, t h a t M.T. h a d b e e n l i v i n g w i t h C.L. s i n c e A u g u s t 2009, t h a t C.L. was a b l e a n d w i l l i n g t o c a r e f o r M.T., and t h a t DHR t h o u g h t t h a t p l a c e m e n t M.T.'s b e s t o f M.T. w i t h C.L. was i n interest. On J a n u a r y 29, 2010, i n c a s e no. J U - 0 8 - 1 0 9 . 0 3 , V.F. f i l e d a petition s e e k i n g c u s t o d y o f N.T., a c h i l d o f t h e m o t h e r t h a t 2 2100368, 2100369, and 2100370 was b o r n i n A u g u s t 1994. N.T. was h i s s t e p s o n , since February custody I n h i s p e t i t i o n , V.F. a l l e g e d t h a t t h a t N.T. 2009, and i n A u g u s t 2009. had been i n the custody that DHR had placed V.F. s u b s e q u e n t l y N.T. filed o f DHR in his a motion t o i n t e r v e n e i n t h e d e p e n d e n c y a c t i o n f i l e d b y DHR r e g a r d i n g The trial court conducted an o r e t e n u s hearing p e n d i n g c u s t o d y p e t i t i o n s on O c t o b e r 28, 2010. 2010, V.F.'s the j u v e n i l e court petitions and M.T. visitation attached o f N.T. to with to a to t r a n s f e r custody. awarded custody A.F. entered the t o V.F., C.L. the The on DHR's juvenile mother was awarded set forth However, the and court and i t awarded c u s t o d y c h i l d r e n , as judgment. The on t h e On December 9, judgment 1 N.T. of standard i n an exhibit judgment further s t a t e d t h a t the mother's v i s i t a t i o n w i t h the c h i l d r e n " s h a l l not be o v e r n i g h t the current until custodians the mother p r o v i d e s of her o u t p a t i e n t or i n p a t i e n t treatment completion documentation to of an intensive program which addresses her T h e j u d g m e n t i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t was a l s o r u l i n g on t h e m o t h e r ' s p e t i t i o n f o r c u s t o d y o f A.F., M.T., and N.T. The r e c o r d on a p p e a l does n o t c o n t a i n a p e t i t i o n f i l e d by t h e mother r e q u e s t i n g custody of t h e c h i l d r e n , b u t i t i s c l e a r f r o m t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l t h a t t h e m o t h e r was s e e k i n g c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d r e n d u r i n g t h e O c t o b e r 2010 o r e t e n u s hearing. 1 3 2100368, 2100369, and alcohol 2100370 use." The m o t h e r s u b s e q u e n t l y f i l e d a p e t i t i o n t o a l t e r , or v a c a t e the judgment p u r s u a n t The mother's postjudgment law, see R u l e timely motion 1 ( B ) , A l a . R. notice of to Rule appeal Juv. in 59, A l a . R. was d e n i e d by P., and each amend, Civ. o p e r a t i o n of the mother f i l e d action. P. This court a has c o n s o l i d a t e d the mother's a p p e a l s . Issues On erred appeal, by the mother transferring custody t r a n s f e r r i n g c u s t o d y o f A.F. that the juvenile argues that of the N.T. and M.T. juvenile to t o C.L. V.F. b e c a u s e i t i s vague and and She a l s o c o u r t ' s award of v i s i t a t i o n is court by argues erroneous ambiguous. Facts The record indicated that the juvenile court had a d j u d i c a t e d t h e c h i l d r e n t o be d e p e n d e n t s o o n a f t e r t h e y were removed from the mother's custody, f o r the F e b r u a r y 2009. At the time of t r i a l , A.F. 10 y e a r s o l d , and M.T. was almost N.T. was second was time, 16 y e a r s o l d , 8 years o l d . r e c o r d i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e m o t h e r and V.F., who i s the o f A.F. was b o r n and and M.T., were m a r r i e d b e f o r e A.F. 4 in The father that 2100368, 2100369, a n d 2100370 they separated V.F. i n 2005. were s t i l l At the time of t r i a l , legally t h e mother and married. C a r r i e P o l l a r d , a c a s e w o r k e r w i t h DHR, t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n were f i r s t removed f r o m t h e m o t h e r ' s home i n O c t o b e r 2008 and t h a t , a f t e r some t i m e , mother's custody. mother's report home; a p p a r e n t l y , by were returned to the However, t h e c h i l d r e n were removed f r o m t h e home a g a i n regarding they i n February domestic 2009 violence a f t e r DHR and a l c o h o l received a use i n t h e t h e s a f e t y p l a n t h a t had been p u t i n p l a c e DHR h a d n o t b e e n followed. At that primary b a r r i e r t o r e u n i f i c a t i o n with time, t h e mother's t h e c h i l d r e n was h e r abuse o f a n d h e r a d d i c t i o n t o a l c o h o l . Pollard s t a t e d t h a t DHR h a d recommended t h a t t h e m o t h e r participate including counseling, in an services outpatient to address her substance-abuse and attendance alcohol program, i n an A l c o h o l i c s N a r c o t i c s Anonymous s u p p o r t g r o u p . According abuse, ongoing Anonymous o r to P o l l a r d , the m o t h e r h a d p a r t i c i p a t e d i n two d i f f e r e n t o u t p a t i e n t alcohol- t r e a t m e n t p r o g r a m s : P a t h w a y s i n G e o r g i a a n d New D i r e c t i o n s i n Anniston. produce P o l l a r d stated that documentation t o prove 5 she had a s k e d t h e mother t o that she had c o m p l e t e d an 2100368, 2100369, and 2100370 alcohol-treatment ("ISP") meeting p r o g r a m a t an I n d i v i d u a l i z e d S e r v i c e i n J u l y 2010, b u t , as o f O c t o b e r m o t h e r h a d n o t done s o . as she knew, since July the mother had Halladay, a licensed that professional she h a d c o u n s e l e d t h e m o t h e r According the admitted that mother e v e n t u a l l y with R e c o v e r y , b u t , as not attended t h r o u g h O c t o b e r 2009. alcohol the program 2009. Carrie stated that 2010, P o l l a r d was aware t h a t t h e m o t h e r h a d p a r t i c i p a t e d i n a program c a l l e d C e l e b r a t e far Plan and t h a t R.T.E., a paramour with i n v o l v e d a t the time of t r i a l . R.T.E. a d m i t t e d that he from February to Halladay, she h a d r e l a p s e d counselor, a f t e r some t i m e , she h a d an a d d i c t i o n t o once whom she became the mother with involved was D u r i n g one c o u n s e l i n g had d r i v e n 2009 still session, the c h i l d r e n a f t e r d r i n k i n g a l c o h o l a n d t h a t he h a d b e e n p u l l e d o v e r a n d c h a r g e d with three that t h e m o t h e r d i d n o t have a d r i v e r ' s l i c e n s e b e c a u s e she had g o t t e n DHR counts o f r e c k l e s s endangerment. mother stated i n t o an a l c o h o l - r e l a t e d a u t o m o b i l e a c c i d e n t took custody of the c h i l d r e n . order Halladay f o r the needed children to t o be successfully 6 Halladay returned complete after stated that, i n t o the mother, outpatient the alcohol 2100368, 2100369, and 2100370 t r e a t m e n t and c o u n s e l i n g Halladay stated a t New with the mother had t a k e n p l a c e i n t h e m o t h e r ' s home i n R a n b u r n e and t h a t they had a b r u p t l y e n d e d i n O c t o b e r 2009 when t h e m o t h e r and R.T.E. moved. achieve the goals stopped attending s t i p u l a t e d was stated that that Directions. her Halladay that counseling stated Halladay statistics the mother Halladay, who the i n the area of a l c o h o l showed d i d not had s e t f o r her b e f o r e counseling. an e x p e r t that sessions that 95% of she parties counseling, alcoholics will r e l a p s e w i t h o u t c o m p l e t i o n o f some t y p e o f t r e a t m e n t p r o g r a m . However, church she and also who stated that someone who participated i n Alcoholics was involved Anonymous in or a s i m i l a r program had a reduced chance of r e l a p s i n g . The m o t h e r since 2009. testified that she h a d n o t consumed t h e day t h e c h i l d r e n were taken alcohol from her i n February She s t a t e d t h a t she d i d n o t c o m p l e t e t r e a t m e n t a t New D i r e c t i o n s o r P a t h w a y s b e c a u s e she c o u l d n o t a f f o r d t o p a y f o r the programs assistance. and DHR had not The m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d f o r o n l y two o r t h r e e months w h i l e mother s t a t e d t h a t provided that any she h a d b e e n financial employed she l i v e d i n G e o r g i a . she h a d p a r t i c i p a t e d i n a p r o g r a m 7 The called 2100368, 2100369, a n d 2100370 Celebrate kind R e c o v e r y , a C h r i s t i a n - b a s e d r e c o v e r y p r o g r a m f o r any of a d d i c t i o n , approximately three year. She stopped p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the Celebrate program a t the time she s t a r t e d New D i r e c t i o n s p r o g r a m s met on t h e same d a y s . not t i m e s a week f o r one Recovery because the She a l s o s t a t e d t h a t she d i d have a d r i v e r ' s l i c e n s e b e c a u s e she was l e g a l l y b l i n d . DHR housing had a l s o and whereabouts. mother employment current address. DHR. and but that t o keep DHR notified s h e d i d n o t have stable of her the mother's t h a t t h e mother had r e a c h e d t h a t had been s e t by that t h e mother t h r o u g h DHR, e x c e p t v i s i t a t i o n w i t h 2009, a p p r o x i m a t e l y one y e a r b e f o r e through to maintain P o l l a r d a l s o s t a t e d t h a t she was n o t aware Pollard stated 2 t h e mother P o l l a r d s t a t e d t h a t she h a d an a d d r e s s f o r t h e i n Georgia of any g o a l required the time of t r i a l , stopped a l l services the c h i l d r e n , i n October trial. From A p r i l t h e mother v i s i t e d e v e r y S u n d a y f r o m 8:00 a.m. t o 5:00 p.m. 2009 the c h i l d r e n P o l l a r d stated that T h e r e i s an i n d i c a t i o n i n t h e r e c o r d t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t h a d e n t e r e d an o r d e r , on o r a b o u t A u g u s t 25, 2010, t h a t o r d e r e d t h e mother t o submit t o i n p a t i e n t substance-abuse treatment or to f u l l y p a r t i c i p a t e i n a therapeutic outpatient p r o g r a m as d i r e c t e d b y DHR. P o l l a r d stated that, to her k n o w l e d g e , t h e m o t h e r h a d n o t c o m p l i e d w i t h t h a t o r d e r as o f O c t o b e r 2010. 2 8 2100368, 2100369, a n d 2100370 DHR had not allowed the mother to exercise overnight 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 b e c a u s e she h a d n o t c o m p l e t e d a substance-abuse-treatment program. R.T.E. stated relationship mid 2006. that he and t h e mother had begun a i n 2005 a n d t h a t t h e y h a d moved i n t o g e t h e r i n R.T.E. testified that he had p a r t i c i p a t e d in s u b s t a n c e - a b u s e c o u n s e l i n g t h r o u g h P a t h w a y s a n d New D i r e c t i o n s a f t e r DHR removed t h e c h i l d r e n f r o m h i s a n d t h e m o t h e r ' s home. R.T.E. a d m i t t e d t h a t he h a d n o t c o m p l e t e d a s u b s t a n c e - a b u s e r e h a b i l i t a t i o n p r o g r a m as r e q u e s t e d b y DHR, b u t he c o n t e n d e d that i t was b e c a u s e o f f i n a n c i a l constraints. However, he s t a t e d t h a t he h a d p a r t i c i p a t e d i n C e l e b r a t e R e c o v e r y , w h i c h he b e g a n i n A u g u s t 2008. When a s k e d i f he h a d c o m p l e t e d t h e C e l e b r a t e R e c o v e r y p r o g r a m , he s t a t e d t h a t he went as f a r as he could go i n t h e book. He s u p p o r t e d t h e mother i n her r e q u e s t t o have c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d r e n r e t u r n e d t o h e r . In their S e p t e m b e r 2010, t h e m o t h e r a n d R.T.E. were h i r e d b y pastor County. t o be c a r e t a k e r s of a church camp i n C l e b u r n e The m o t h e r a n d R.T.E. l i v e d i n t h e c a r e t a k e r s ' home, w h i c h h a d t h r e e b e d r o o m s , on t h e p r o p e r t y o f t h e c h u r c h camp. The mother's pastor testified 9 that t h e mother had been 2100368, 2100369, a n d 2100370 c o n s i s t e n t l y v i s i t i n g h i s c h u r c h f o r 14 months a n d t h a t he h a d n e v e r s e e n a n y i n d i c a t i o n t h a t t h e m o t h e r was a b u s i n g o r u s i n g alcohol. According to Pollard, she contacted V.F. a f t e r the c h i l d r e n were p l a c e d i n f o s t e r c a r e i n F e b r u a r y 2009, a n d , s h e stated, along at that with time, V.F. was l i v i n g w i t h C.L.'s h u s b a n d a n d s o n . C.L. i n G e o r g i a , V.F. a n d C.L. h a d w e e k l y v i s i t a t i o n with the children while t h e y were i n f o s t e r Pollard that were stated C.L.'s c a r e the children placed care. i n V.F. a n d i n A u g u s t 2009 a f t e r a s u c c e s s f u l home s t u d y was c o m p l e t e d p u r s u a n t t o t h e I n t e r s t a t e Compact on t h e P l a c e m e n t of Children counterpart ("ICPC"). of the Pollard Department stated of that Human the Georgia Resources had m a i n t a i n e d c o n t a c t w i t h V.F. a n d t h a t s h e h a d s p o k e n t o V.F.'s Georgia caseworker. P o l l a r d s t a t e d t h a t V.F. h a d no i s s u e s w i t h d r u g s , a l c o h o l , o r d o m e s t i c v i o l e n c e a n d t h a t s h e h a d no c o n c e r n s a b o u t t h e c h i l d r e n r e s i d i n g i n V.F. a n d C.L.'s home. The mother had o b j e c t e d t o the placement of the c h i l d r e n w i t h V.F. a n d C.L. a t t h a t t i m e b e c a u s e V.F. h a d n o t s e e n t h e c h i l d r e n i n two y e a r s a n d b e c a u s e , s h e a l l e g e d , t h e r e h a d b e e n domestic v i o l e n c e issues b e t w e e n h e r a n d V.F. when t h e y h a d 10 2100368, 2100369, and lived together. 2100370 The mother stated that, when she and V.F. s e p a r a t e d , V.F. h a d l e f t h e r w i t h no way t o s u p p o r t h e r s e l f o r the children and that c h i l d r e n a f t e r 2004. he had not been involved with the However, V.F. t e s t i f i e d t h a t he h a d b e e n u n a b l e t o l o c a t e t h e mother and the c h i l d r e n a f t e r t h e mother moved o u t o f t h e i r home i n 2005. V.F. s t a t e d t h a t he h a d b e e n prevented from p r o v i d i n g s u p p o r t f o r t h e c h i l d r e n b e c a u s e he did n o t know where t h e y w e r e . V.F. f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t he did n o t have an a l c o h o l p r o b l e m , t h a t he h a d n e v e r h i t t h e m o t h e r , and t h a t he h a d n e v e r h i t t h e c h i l d r e n . P o l l a r d s t a t e d t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n a p p e a r e d t o be happy i n V.F. and C.L.'s M.T. had received p l a c e d i n V.F. his home. grade w h i l e However, poor grades she a d m i t t e d after and C.L.'s home a n d t h a t N.T. he lived with V.F. and However, P o l l a r d a l s o s t a t e d t h a t N.T. grades w h i l e testified they that were N.T. initially had not p a s s e d C.L. i n Georgia. a n d M.T. had had poor t h e y were i n t h e m o t h e r ' s c u s t o d y as w e l l . t h a t , a t the time of t r i a l , and V.F. A.F. was m a k i n g As and Bs i n s c h o o l ; t h a t N.T. was m a k i n g p r i m a r i l y As and Bs b u t h a d r e c e i v e d a g r a d e o f 60 i n one c l a s s ; and t h a t M.T. p r i m a r i l y As and Bs b u t h a d one C. 11 V.F. was m a k i n g testified that the 2100368, 2100369, and 2100370 c h i l d r e n d i d n o t have any b e h a v i o r a l i s s u e s a t s c h o o l and t h a t he h a d b e e n t o s c h o o l t o meet t h e i r t e a c h e r s on two o r three occasions. At the time of t r i a l , V . F . and C . L . h a d r e l o c a t e d from G e o r g i a t o C l e b u r n e C o u n t y and P o l l a r d h a d v i s i t e d t h e i r home, w h i c h h a d 4 bedrooms performed and s a t on 15 a c r e s a home s t u d y on their of l a n d . residence, which a p p r o v e d . P o l l a r d s t a t e d t h a t DHR recommended A.F. and M.T. According be placed t o P o l l a r d , DHR with was their C.L., C.L. h a d b e e n c a r i n g f o r A.F. and M.T. 14 months, M.T. and C.L. was able had had been that custody of half not p r o v i d i n g DHR sister, C.L. any s e r v i c e s t o for approximately t o meet t h e needs o f A.F. P o l l a r d s t a t e d t h a t DHR recommended that and the j u v e n i l e c o u r t p l a c e c u s t o d y o f N.T. w i t h V.F., who h a d b e e n c a r i n g f o r N.T. f o r approximately 14 months. The m o t h e r s t a t e d t h a t she d i d n o t want h e r c h i l d r e n i n the custody o f V.F. o r C.L. because t h e c h i l d r e n had been c o m i n g t o v i s i t a t i o n d i r t y and u n k e p t and b e c a u s e , t h e m o t h e r alleged, infant C.L. despite had t r i e d to breast-feed the f a c t that C.L. c h i l d o f h e r own a t t h a t t i m e . was A.F. when he was not b r e a s t - f e e d i n g The m o t h e r l a t e r a d m i t t e d 12 an a that 2100368, 2100369, a n d 2100370 she had merely that s e e n C.L. a t t e m p t t o l i f t up h e r b l o u s e a n d she was n o t s u r e what C.L.'s i n t e n t i o n s h a d b e e n . The m o t h e r a l s o c o m p l a i n e d t h a t A.F.'s s k i n c o n d i t i o n , w h i c h was a r e s u l t of being a f t e r being severely b u r n e d as a c h i l d , i n C.L.'s c u s t o d y . had worsened P o l l a r d stated that she h a d s e e n t h e b u r n s on A.F.'s arms a p p r o x i m a t e l y two weeks trial a n d she h a d n o t n o t i c e d t h a t t h e y l o o k e d usual. skin came t o l i v e d e n i e d t h a t t h e r e were any s o r e s time of t r i a l . did any w o r s e t h a n V.F. t e s t i f i e d t h a t A.F. h a d h a d s o r e s when he f i r s t not place with on h i s b u r n e d h i m a n d C.L., b u t he on A.F.'s b u r n e d s k i n a t t h e The m o t h e r s t a t e d t h a t , i f t h e j u v e n i l e custody before of the c h i l d r e n with court h e r , she w o u l d r a t h e r t h e c h i l d r e n be p l a c e d i n f o s t e r c a r e t h e n be p l a c e d i n the c u s t o d y o f V.F. a n d C.L. At the conclusion of t r i a l , t h e g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m o f t h e c h i l d r e n recommended t h a t c u s t o d y o f N.T. be p l a c e d w i t h V.F. and t h a t c u s t o d y o f A.F. a n d M.T. be p l a c e d w i t h C.L. Discussion Initially, the mother d i s p o s i t i o n of the c h i l d r e n . challenges the custodial I t i s well s e t t l e d that, after a c h i l d h a s b e e n a d j u d i c a t e d t o be d e p e n d e n t , a j u v e n i l e c o u r t 13 2100368, 2100369, a n d 2100370 may make any c u s t o d i a l interests of the c h i l d . disposition that serves the best See § 1 2 - 1 5 - 3 1 4 ( a ) , A l a . Code 1975; and W.T.H. v. M.M.M., 915 So. 2d 64, 70 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2005) ( e x p l a i n i n g t h a t , u n d e r f o r m e r § 12-15-71, A l a . Code 1975, t h e predecessor standard s t a t u t e t o § 12-15-314(a), applies dependency during the the "best dispositional interests" phase of proceeding). " I n Ex p a r t e A l a b a m a D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s , 682 So. 2d 459 ( A l a . 1 9 9 6 ) , t h e A l a b a m a Supreme Court s t a t e d the a p p l i c a b l e p r i n c i p l e s of a p p e l l a t e review i n the context of a challenge t o a j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s c u s t o d i a l d i s p o s i t i o n o f a dependent c h i l d : " ' A p p e l l a t e review i s l i m i t e d i n cases where t h e e v i d e n c e i s presented t o the t r i a l court ore tenus. In a c h i l d custody c a s e , an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t p r e s u m e s t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s t o be c o r r e c t a n d w i l l n o t r e v e r s e w i t h o u t p r o o f o f a c l e a r abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n o r p l a i n e r r o r . R e u t e r v. N e e s e , 586 So. 2d 232 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 1 ) ; J . S . v. D.S., 586 So. 2d 944 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1991). This presumption i s especially applicable where the evidence is c o n f l i c t i n g . E x P a r t e P.G.B., 600 So. 2d 259, 261 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) . An a p p e l l a t e c o u r t w i l l n o t r e v e r s e t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment b a s e d on t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s o f f a c t u n l e s s t h e f i n d i n g s a r e so p o o r l y s u p p o r t e d by t h e e v i d e n c e as t o be p l a i n l y a n d p a l p a b l y w r o n g . See Ex p a r t e W a l t e r s , 580 So. 2d 1352 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) . ' "682 So.2d a t 4 6 0 . " 14 a 2100368, 2100369, and 2100370 J . J . v. J.H.W., 27 So. The mother Code 1975, of N.T. 3d 519, contends, 522 citing ( A l a . C i v . App. § 2008). 12-15-314(a)(3)c., t h a t the j u v e n i l e c o u r t e r r e d i n awarding to V.F. because Section 12-15-314(a)(3)c. V.F. is not a relative Ala. custody of N.T. provides that a juvenile court a f t e r a d j u d i c a t i n g a c h i l d t o be may, dependent, " [ t ] r a n s f e r l e g a l custody to [ a ] r e l a t i v e or o t h e r i n d i v i d u a l who, a f t e r s t u d y by t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s , i s f o u n d by t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t t o be q u a l i f i e d t o r e c e i v e and c a r e f o r t h e c h i l d . U n l e s s the j u v e n i l e c o u r t f i n d s i t not i n the b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f t h e c h i l d , a w i l l i n g , f i t , and a b l e relative shall have p r i o r i t y f o r placement or custody over a n o n - r e l a t i v e . " The mother awarded her N.T., argues custody b e c a u s e V.F. separated, and t h a t the o f N.T. b e c a u s e V.F. court i s not should b e c a u s e V.F. d i d n o t p r o v i d e any separated. have related a b a n d o n e d h e r and t h e c h i l d r e n a f t e r t h e c h i l d r e n a f t e r she and V.F. N.T. juvenile to they support f o r A l t h o u g h V.F. and have no b i o l o g i c a l c o n n e c t i o n , t h e o n l y p a r t y t h a t s o u g h t custody o f N.T. However, the children t o be the evidence t h a t was juvenile a relative c o u r t had o f N.T. previously was the mother. a d j u d i c a t e d the dependent w h i l e i n the mother's custody, at t r i a l i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e m o t h e r had t h e ISP g o a l s s e t by DHR not and met t h a t were r e q u i r e d i n o r d e r f o r t h e 15 2100368, 2100369, a n d 2100370 mother t o r e g a i n j u v e n i l e court a custody of the c h i l d r e n . the c o u l d have d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e m o t h e r was n o t " f i t and a b l e placement Accordingly, relative" o f N.T. over that V.F. should have h a d p r i o r i t y f o r Moreover, the j u v e n i l e court c o u l d have c o n c l u d e d t h a t V.F. h a d n o t a b a n d o n e d t h e c h i l d r e n a f t e r he a n d t h e m o t h e r s e p a r a t e d b u t i n s t e a d t h a t V.F. h a d been u n a b l e t o l o c a t e separation The not i n order to provide mother a l s o being served t h e mother and t h e c h i l d r e n a f t e r t h e support f o r the c h i l d r e n . a r g u e s t h a t N.T.'s b e s t i n the custody i n t e r e s t s were o f V.F. b e c a u s e the record i n d i c a t e t h a t N.T.'s g r a d e s were p o o r i n V.F.'s c u s t o d y . The evidence indicated that N.T.'s grades were initially poor a f t e r c u s t o d y was t r a n s f e r r e d t o V.F., b u t t h e e v i d e n c e indicated mother's that N.T. custody. had poor grades he was i n the V.F. t e s t i f i e d Furthermore, while that N.T.'s g r a d e s h a d i m p r o v e d as o f t h e t i m e o f t r i a l only one b e l o w - a v e r a g e g r a d e . Finally, problems i n s c h o o l , that i n V.F.'s was happy a n d t h a t he h a d V.F. t e s t i f i e d N.T. h a d no b e h a v i o r a l N.T. custody, that Pollard testified and the i n d i c a t e d t h a t , a f t e r an i n v e s t i g a t i o n was c o n d u c t e d , DHR n o r t h e i r c o u n t e r p a r t also record neither i n G e o r g i a h a d any i s s u e w i t h V.F.'s 16 2100368, 2100369, and 2100370 being for a custodian Accordingly, we determination by placing cannot N.T. See 12-15-314(a)(3)c. that conclude § the juvenile t h a t t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f N.T. his custody with V.F. was court's w o u l d be plainly or served palpably wrong. The mother a l s o argues t h a t the a w a r d i n g c u s t o d y o f A.F. and M.T. j u v e n i l e court t o C.L. erred because the evidence i n d i c a t e d t h a t A.F.'s b u r n e d s k i n had g o t t e n worse s i n c e had she C.L. had custody attempt o f A.F. to and because breast-feed A.F. had The condition A.F. was that the of placed i n the at the c o u l d be e x a m i n e d . record on judge conclusion The appeal. s k i n had c u s t o d y o f C.L. juvenile-court courtroom the A.F.'s b u r n e d of a s k e d A.F. the trial record was whether deteriorated The seen court p r e s e n t e d c o n f l i c t i n g and d i s p u t e d e v i d e n c e r e g a r d i n g the C.L. allegedly juvenile since indicates to come into so that his the skin r e s u l t s of t h a t e x a m i n a t i o n are not Considering that the evidence d i s p u t e d and t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e - c o u r t j u d g e had t h e in in was opportunity t o v i e w a t l e a s t p a r t s o f A.F.'s b u r n e d s k i n , we must c o n c l u d e t h a t 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 A.F.'s s k i n c o n d i t i o n had not deteriorated while i n C.L.'s c u s t o d y . 17 Furthermore, 2100368, 2100369, and the trial court allegation was 2100370 could t h a t C.L. have had concluded that the mother's once a t t e m p t e d t o b r e a s t - f e e d not c r e d i b l e because the mother a d m i t t e d A.F. t h a t she was not s u r e o f C.L.'s i n t e n t i o n s a t t h e t i m e t h e m o t h e r t h o u g h t t h a t C.L. was So. attempting 2d 810, court is 815 ( A l a . C i v . App. the credibility t o b r e a s t - f e e d A.F. best p o s i t i o n to The mother and not M.T. testify care M.T. ( n o t i n g t h a t the evaluate the t o C.L. was during t r i a l f o r A.F. and trial demeanor to and observe ability However, DHR o f A.F. custody r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r b e c a u s e C.L. about her M.T. award of and M.T. filed f r o m DHR the petition t o C.L.; thus, i t Moreover, the r e c o r d r e v e a l s t h a t the mother before c u s t o d i a l d i s p o s i t i o n o f A.F. did not t e s t i f y is being at t r i a l . raised for the the juvenile and M.T. was and and be t r a n s f e r r e d t o C.L. argue o f A.F. to to not a l l o w i n g custody did M.T. did s e r v e d by of or w i l l i n g n e s s t o DHR's b u r d e n t o p r o v e t h a t t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f A.F. w o u l d be 972 testify). f u r t h e r argues t h a t the t r a n s f e r custody was Dunn v. Dunn, of the p a r t i e s because of i t s a b i l i t y t h e p a r t i e s as t h e y A.F. 2007) See court that its e r r o r because C.L. A c c o r d i n g l y , because t h i s first 18 time on appeal, we argument cannot 2100368, 2100369, a n d 2100370 c o n s i d e r i t . See Andrews v. M e r r i t t O i l Co., 612 So. 2d 409, 410 ( A l a . 1992) argument r a i s e d (an a p p e l l a t e f o r the f i r s t reverse the t r i a l court's court time cannot on a p p e a l consider an as grounds t o judgment). DHR p r e s e n t e d e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t A.F. a n d M.T. were s u c c e s s f u l l y p l a c e d i n C.L.'s home i n A u g u s t 2009 a f t e r DHR's counterpart i n Georgia completed a s u c c e s s f u l home s t u d y a n d a f t e r C.L. v i s i t e d t h e c h i l d r e n when t h e y were i n f o s t e r a f t e r t h e y were f i r s t care removed f r o m t h e m o t h e r ' s c u s t o d y . was t h e c a s e w i t h N.T., t h e r e was an i n d i c a t i o n As t h a t M.T.'s g r a d e s were p o o r when he was f i r s t p l a c e d w i t h C.L., b u t o t h e r evidence brought school. indicated h i s grades that, a t t h e time up a n d t h a t A.F. was a l s o M.T. had doing w e l l i n P o l l a r d t e s t i f i e d t h a t C.L. was a b l e a n d w i l l i n g t o c o n t i n u e t o c a r e f o r A.F. a n d M.T. new home i n C l e b u r n e P o l l a r d h a d v i s i t e d C.L.'s C o u n t y , a n d , a f t e r an i n v e s t i g a t i o n a n d home s t u d y was c o m p l e t e d , for of t r i a l , DHR h a d a p p r o v e d c u s t o d y o f A.F. a n d M.T. C.L. a n d h e r home From t h i s e v i d e n c e , t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t c o u l d h a v e c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f A.F. a n d M.T. w o u l d be s e r v e d b y t r a n s f e r r i n g t h e i r c u s t o d y f r o m DHR t o C.L., w i t h whom t h e y had been 19 living f o r approximately 14 2100368, 2100369, and 2100370 months b e f o r e the trial. See § 1 2 - 1 5 - 3 1 4 ( a ) ( 3 ) c . Accordingly, j u d g m e n t t r a n s f e r r i n g c u s t o d y o f A.F. a n d M.T. t o C.L. i s affirmed. Next, insofar t h e mother as i t limits children, i s vague standard visitation exhibit attached the c h i l d r e n fifth weekend p.m. precluded an the the juvenile award i n c l u d e d , every first, However, of visitation, visitation The children mother as court's with was a t 6:00 The visitation applicable, p.m. until as s e t f o r t h a b o v e , t h e m o t h e r overnight v i s i t a t i o n w i t h the she c o u l d p r o v i d e d o c u m e n t a t i o n t h a t intensive i n an judgment. and, when the awarded set forth f o r example, third, from e x e r c i s i n g children until completed overnight ambiguous. with to t h e award o f e a c h month f r o m F r i d a y Sunday a t 6:00 was her and mother's v i s i t a t i o n with argues t h a t outpatient program t o address her a l c o h o l use. or inpatient she h a d treatment The m o t h e r c o n t e n d s t h a t , b e c a u s e t h e s t a n d a r d v i s i t a t i o n s c h e d u l e does n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y set forth a time for visitation before she c o m p l e t e s an a l c o h o l - t r e a t m e n t p r o g r a m , t h e v i s i t a t i o n a w a r d i s vague and o p e r a t e s t o deny h e r any 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 . The m o t h e r c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e v i s i t a t i o n a w a r d i s s i m i l a r 20 2100368, 2100369, and to 2100370 awards o f v i s i t a t i o n visitation t h a t leave the n o n c u s t o d i a l w i t h the c h i l d r e n l e f t e n t i r e l y to the o f t h e c u s t o d i a n o f t h e c h i l d r e n . See, 739 So. 2d 53, 56-57 ( A l a . C i v . App. of visitation that left the e.g., 1999) father's parent's discretion B r y a n t v. Bryant, ( r e v e r s i n g an a w a r d right to visit his c h i l d r e n c o m p l e t e l y w i t h i n t h e m o t h e r ' s d i s c r e t i o n ) ; K.L.U. v. M.C., 809 R . K . J . v. (award of p l a c e s " was visitation So. 2d 837, 841 ( A l a . C i v . App. 887 So. 2d visitation to mother J.D.J., 915, 919 "at reasonable and 2004) times and r e v e r s e d because i t f a i l e d to set f o r t h a s p e c i f i c schedule f o r the mother, because i t " p l a c e [ d ] children in the hands because the " v i s i t a t i o n Although we find that leave the of the j u d g m e n t [wa]s chance of f u r t h e r l i t i g a t i o n cases (same); ( A l a . C i v . App. much c o n t r o l o v e r t h e n o n c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t ' s the 2001) the relationship with c u s t o d i a l parent," and l i k e l y to increase over v i s i t a t i o n present too the matters"). case d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from noncustodial parent's visitation e n t i r e l y t o the d i s c r e t i o n of the c u s t o d i a n of the award children, we a g r e e w i t h t h e m o t h e r t h a t t h e a w a r d o f v i s i t a t i o n , i n s o f a r as i t f a i l s t o s p e c i f i c a l l y children until she set f o r t h times she may i s able to e x e r c i s e overnight 21 visit the visitation, 2100368, 2100369, a n d 2100370 i s u n d u l y vague a n d c o u l d l e a d t o a d d i t i o n a l litigation over v i s i t a t i o n m a t t e r s i f t h e m o t h e r a n d V.F. o r C.L. d i s a g r e e on the extent completes 638, o f t h e mother's visitation a l c o h o l treatment. 644 ( A l a . C i v . App. [visitation] judgment See P r a t t 2010) depends rights before v. P r a t t , ("The on w h e t h e r 56 So. 3d propriety independent Accordingly, insofar of the custodial as i t f a i l s visitation parent's t h e judgment o f t h e j u v e n i l e rights she i s a b l e to rely discretion."). court to specifically set forth until of the the noncustodial p a r e n t has a s u f f i c i e n t , s p e c i f i e d v i s i t a t i o n s c h e d u l e upon, she i s reversed t h e mother's to exercise standard v i s i t a t i o n as s e t f o r t h i n t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t , a n d we remand t h e case with instructions to enter a judgment disposition of the consistent with this opinion. Conclusion The children the juvenile court's i s affirmed. judgment instructions custodial However, are reversed, the v i s i t a t i o n provisions of and t h e case to the juvenile court i s remanded to enter a with judgment consistent with this opinion. AFFIRMED I N PART; REVERSED INSTRUCTIONS. 22 IN PART; AND REMANDED WITH 2100368, 2100369, and 2100370 P i t t m a n and Thomas, J J . , c o n c u r . Thompson, P . J . , and without writings. Moore, 23 J . , concur i n the result,

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.