A.T. v. A.G. (Appeal from Houston Juvenile Court: JU-10-574.01)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 09/23/2011 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , Alabama 36104-3741 ((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 2100591 and 2100592 A.T. v. A.G. Appeals from Houston J u v e n i l e Court (JU-10-574.01 and JU-10-575.01) THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g A.T. Juvenile children, Judge. ("the m o t h e r " ) a p p e a l s two j u d g m e n t s o f t h e H o u s t o n Court ("the j u v e n i l e An.J.T. court") finding two o f her ("the s o n " ) a n d Am.J.T. ("the d a u g h t e r " ) , dependent and t r a n s f e r r i n g c u s t o d y o f t h e son and the daughter 2100591 and 2100592 (hereinafter referred to c o l l e c t i v e l y t h e i r p a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r , A.G. The record children's on a p p e a l father, C.T. as a c o u p l e . from a p r e v i o u s the time mother. father, to ("the p a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r " ) . indicates that ("the f a t h e r " ) , t h e r e c o r d does n o t c l e a r l y together as " t h e c h i l d r e n " ) t h e mother and t h e have n e v e r married; i n d i c a t e i f t h e p a r e n t s have The m o t h e r has a n o t h e r c h i l d , r e l a t i o n s h i p ; t h a t c h i l d was of t h e dependency h e a r i n g , lived As.T., 10 y e a r s o l d a t and she l i v e d with the P u r s u a n t t o an a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n t h e m o t h e r and t h e t h e s o n , who dependency h e a r i n g , was e i g h t years o l d a t the time of the has l i v e d w i t h t h e f a t h e r s i n c e he was two y e a r s o l d . I n 2009, t h e f a t h e r and t h e s o n moved t o I n d i a n a . The p a t e r n a l illegal grandmother t e s t i f i e d t h a t drugs i n the past, move t o I n d i a n a t h e f a t h e r had used and she s t a t e d t h a t the was p r o m p t e d b y h i s d e s i r e t o remove from i n f l u e n c e s t h a t encouraged him t o use i l l e g a l The mother father's testified that, until June himself drugs. 2010, she had maintained custody of the daughter since the c h i l d ' s b i r t h i n 2004; the daughter dependency hearing. mother's r e s i d e n c e was In s i x years June 2010, was d i s c o n n e c t e d , 2 o l d at the time the e l e c t r i c i t y of the at the and t h e m o t h e r t o o k t h e 2100591 a n d 2100592 d a u g h t e r t o t h e home o f a p a t e r n a l g r e a t - a u n t ; is the paternal grandmother's s i s t e r . t h a t she i n t e n d e d on the great-aunt The m o t h e r 1 testified t h a t t h e daughter remain w i t h t h e great-aunt a temporary b a s i s . The paternal grandmother testified that the great-aunt asked h e r t o t a k e t h e d a u g h t e r a f t e r t h e mother had l e f t t h e c h i l d a t t h e g r e a t - a u n t ' s home i n June 2010. A c c o r d i n g paternal the g r a n d m o t h e r , t h e d a u g h t e r was e x t r e m e l y d i r t y mother left denied that The to the the c h i l d with the great-aunt; when t h e mother allegation. paternal grandmother testified that the daughter l i v e d w i t h h e r u n t i l A u g u s t 2010, when t h e f a t h e r r e t u r n e d t o Alabama from I n d i a n a . The p 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 t h a t b e t w e e n June a n d A u g u s t 2010 t h e m o t h e r t e l e p h o n e d o n l y or four visited however, times t o c h e c k on t h e d a u g h t e r a n d t h a t the daughter that only the daughter one t i m e . lived with The m o t h e r three t h e mother testified, the great-aunt until A u g u s t 2010. 1 "Ms. The g r e a t - a u n t [K.]." i s referred 3 to i n the record simply as 2100591 and It 2100592 is undisputed that, when the father and the returned t o A l a b a m a i n A u g u s t 2010, the daughter began with f a t h e r and son g r e a t - a u n t ' s house. the mother with testified the that father expressed a the son she i n the had because, desire to allowed she do the stated, so. The daughter living The live daughter the to had paternal grandmother, h o w e v e r , t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e d a u g h t e r had b e e n l i v i n g w i t h and t h a t she had The history allowed the daughter to l i v e w i t h the p a t e r n a l grandmother t e s t i f i e d of mental illness and b i p o l a r d i s o r d e r when he was the father Behavioral was admitted Medicine Unit that t h a t the he was father. f a t h e r has diagnosed with 2010, approximately one week t o Shortly thereafter, the p a t e r n a l grandmother f i l e d her p e t i t i o n s a l l e g i n g t h a t c h i l d r e n were d e p e n d e n t and petitions experience the on paternal December 7, problems. a r o u n d C h r i s t m a s 2010, 2011, seeking custody of the grandmother 2010, the The father and again dependency h e a r i n g . the ("BMU") a t a l o c a l h o s p i t a l b e c a u s e o f an a p p a r e n t o v e r d o s e o f i l l e g a l d r u g s . Since a I n November 16 y e a r s o l d . for her The was filed father children. the has s h o r t l y before dependency continued readmitted to the the March p a t e r n a l grandmother 4 the to BMU 10, testified 2100591 and 2100592 t h a t t h e f a t h e r does n o t have a home o f h i s own b u t has w i t h f r i e n d s and f a m i l y members. The f a t h e r d i d n o t t e s t i f y at the dependency h e a r i n g , b u t h i s a t t o r n e y r e p r e s e n t e d court that stayed t o the the f a t h e r wanted the c h i l d r e n t o l i v e w i t h the mother. In her dependency p e t i t i o n s paternal grandmother financially needs. alleged and i n her testimony, the that the mother The testified mother of people. stated been p r e s c r i b e d the c h i l d r e n . that she last that she becomes According had employment anxiety," medication. she r e c e i v e s f o o d stamps e a c h month. which she occasionally she earns had f o r w h i c h she has The m o t h e r l i v e s i n r e n t - f r e e p u b l i c h o u s i n g w i t h that in nervous around to the mother, her doctor d i a g n o s e d h e r as h a v i n g a " s o c i a l and not The p 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 t h a t t h e m o t h e r d i d The groups was c a p a b l e o f m e e t i n g e v e n t h e c h i l d r e n ' s most b a s i c n o t w o r k a n d h a d no means o f s u p p o r t i n g 2005. mother babysits "maybe $250" The m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d or helps per As.T., clean month. houses, f o r The mother a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t she has no o t h e r i n c o m e , and she s t a t e d t h a t 5 2100591 she a n d 2100592 relies upon h e r mother and o t h e r family members f o r support. The m o t h e r was a r r e s t e d a t a December 2010 c o u r t because of her f a i l u r e for t o p a y $100 m o n t h l y t o w a r d numerous b a d - c h e c k c h a r g e s d a t i n g before t h e dependency hearing. mother s a i d , h e r mother g i v e s restitution b a c k a l m o s t 10 The m o t h e r m o t h e r w o u l d p a y t h e $100 c o u r t hearing stated years that her f i n e s e a c h month b e c a u s e , t h e her anything she w a n t s . The m o t h e r a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t she h a d n o t c o n t r i b u t e d t o the support of the c h i l d r e n during t h e times they had l i v e d w i t h o r been i n t h e c u s t o d y o f t h e p a t e r n a l grandmother. mother testified that, although l i v i n g w i t h h e r , she c o n t i n u e d t h e d a u g h t e r was no The longer t o r e c e i v e f o o d stamps f o r t h e d a u g h t e r u n t i l December 2010. The m o t h e r s t a t e d t h a t she h a d u s e d some o f t h e f o o d stamps she r e c e i v e d f o r t h e d a u g h t e r t o assist the father i n providing food f o r the c h i l d r e n after t h e y began l i v i n g w i t h h i m i n A u g u s t 2010. The mother does n o t have h e r own t r a n s p o r t a t i o n . The p 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 t h a t t h e m o t h e r must t e l e p h o n e family children members f o r assistance to v i s i t the doctor i f she needs or to obtain 6 t o take the medications f o r 2100591 and 2100592 t h e m . The mother a d m i t t e d of i n January school bus; t h e m o t h e r had to s c h o o l . The her r e s i d e n c e January." school t h a t As.T. 2011 no when t h e m i s s e d a t l e a s t s i x days child missed m o t h e r s t a t e d t h a t she was mother a d m i t t e d concerning the school o t h e r means o f t r a n s p o r t i n g t h e t h a t she child t r y i n g t o move f r o m d u r i n g t h a t t i m e and t h a t " i t was The the just hectic in got a l e t t e r from the number o f A s . T . ' s a b s e n c e s i n J a n u a r y 2011. Hazel social Wiggins, w o r k e r who a D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s c o n d u c t e d home e v a l u a t i o n s on the ("DHR") parents and t h e p 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 t h a t when she met the m o t h e r i n F e b r u a r y 2011 could apply she could explore certain the planned to explore Wiggins also However, of abuse o r Wiggins job programs M a r c h 2011 those the mother t h a t through DHR. she that The dependency h e a r i n g that options. testified p h y s i c a l l y appropriate reports advised f o r S o c i a l S e c u r i t y d i s a b i l i t y b e n e f i t s and mother s t a t e d d u r i n g she she with that the mother's home was f o r t h e c h i l d r e n and t h a t t h e r e were no neglect stated of that the DHR c h i l d r e n by had m o t h e r ' s a b i l i t y t o meet t h e needs o f t h e 7 concerns the mother. about children. the Wiggins 2100591 a n d 2100592 testified that s h e was c o n c e r n e d t h a t children t o t h e mother's mother. Wiggins also t e s t i f i e d home w o u l d p l a c e the mother c o u l d f i n a n c i a l l y her home. a d d i n g two a d d i t i o n a l that s t r e s s o r s on t h e i t d i d not appear that a f f o r d two a d d i t i o n a l c h i l d r e n i n F o r those reasons, Wiggins p l a c i n g t h e c h i l d r e n i n t h e mother's recommended against home. I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e concerns about t h e mother's financial a b i l i t y t o meet t h e b a s i c needs o f t h e c h i l d r e n , t h e p a t e r n a l grandmother 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 had been o u t o f t h e mother's c u s t o d y f o r an e x t e n d e d p e r i o d and t h a t t h e m o t h e r h a d n o t k e p t i n f r e q u e n t children. The s o n h a s l i v e d the admitted that mother the c h i l d r e n contact with the w i t h t h e f a t h e r s i n c e 2002, a n d she h a d c h o s e n f o r t h e d a u g h t e r t o l i v e w i t h f a m i l y members b e t w e e n J u n e a n d December 2 0 1 0 . The p a t e r n a l grandmother t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e mother had v i s i t e d t h e d a u g h t e r o n l y once d u r i n g t h e summer o f 2010 a n d t h a t she h a d telephoned the daughter only three same p e r i o d . The p a t e r n a l or four times during grandmother that also stated that the mother had e x p r e s s e d l i t t l e i n t e r e s t i n v i s i t i n g t h e c h i l d r e n . According to the paternal pendente l i t e grandmother, after she received c u s t o d y o f b o t h c h i l d r e n i n December 2010, t h e 8 2100591 a n d 2100592 m o t h e r v i s i t e d t h e c h i l d r e n o n c e i n F e b r u a r y 2010 a n d a t t e n d e d both children's birthday parties. The p a t e r n a l grandmother a l s o s t a t e d t h a t she h a d t e l e p h o n e d t h e m o t h e r a n d h a d o f f e r e d t o a l l o w h e r t o t a k e t h e c h i l d r e n f o r some t i m e a t C h r i s t m a s ; she s t a t e d t h e m o t h e r h a d v i s i t e d w i t h t h e c h i l d r e n f r o m noon t o 6:00 p.m. on C h r i s t m a s d a y . The m o t h e r more frequently explained by her f a i l u r e stating that to v i s i t her oldest the c h i l d r e n child, As.T., became u p s e t when t h e c h i l d r e n h a d t o l e a v e a f t e r a v i s i t a t i o n and that guardian she d i d n o t l i k e to hurt ad l i t e m e x p r e s s e d concern "nurturing ability," given As.T. The regarding the f a c t that children's the mother's t h e mother "didn't p a y [ t h e c h i l d r e n ] more a t t e n t i o n when t h e y w e r e n ' t w i t h h e r . " I n each o f i t s March 1 1 , 2 0 1 1 , dependency j u d g m e n t s , t h e juvenile court stated, i n pertinent part: " B a s e d upon c l e a r a n d c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e , t h e c o u r t f i n d s t h a t t h e c h i l d i s dependent i n t h a t the parents are unable t o provide f o r the c h i l d ' s c a r e , s u p p o r t , and e d u c a t i o n at this time. I t is recommended that the parents p a r t i c i p a t e and c o o p e r a t e w i t h i n d i v i d u a l and f a m i l y c o u n s e l i n g and parenting classes. The p a r e n t s s h o u l d l o o k i n t o p u r s u i n g d i s a b i l i t y [ b e n e f i t s ] . The p a r e n t s s h a l l be p r o v i d e d r e a s o n a b l e v i s i t a t i o n w i t h t h e c h i l d . " 9 2100591 a n d 2100592 The support m o t h e r a r g u e s on a p p e a l the j u v e n i l e court's determinations are dependent. in t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e does n o t reviewing that the children With regard t o the standard t h i s court a p p l i e s a dependency determination, this court has stated: "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 clear and c o n v i n c i n g evidence. [Former] § 1 2 - 1 5 - 6 5 ( f ) [ , A l a . Code 1975 (now c o d i f i e d a t § 12¬ 15-310, A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 ) ] ; M.M.S. v. D.W., 735 So. 2d 1230, 1233 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 9 ) . However, m a t t e r s 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 ruling 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 w r o n g . 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 ) . " J.S.M. v . P . J . , 902 So. 2d 89, 95 "Moreover, '[b]ecause observing the opportunity by witnesses' t o assess a l t e r the t r i a l the evidence the t r i a l their ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 4 ) . court demeanor and credibility, c o u r t ' s judgment u n l e s s a s t o be c l e a r l y p a r t e Fann, 810 So. 2d 631, has t h e advantage o f has this a superior Court cannot i t i s so u n s u p p o r t e d and p a l p a b l y w r o n g . ' " Ex 636 ( A l a . 2001) ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e D W W , 717 So. 2d 793, 795 ( A l a . . . . 10 1998)). 2100591 a n d 2100592 The m o t h e r a r g u e s t h a t t h e r e i s n o t c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t she l a c k s t h e f i n a n c i a l r e s o u r c e s t o support the c h i l d r e n . indicating that The m o t h e r c h a r a c t e r i z e s t h e e v i d e n c e she c o u l d not provide c h i l d r e n i n h e r home as " s p e c u l a t i v e . " the record on characterization. appeal, we f o r two a d d i t i o n a l Given the evidence i n cannot agree with that The m o t h e r h e r s e l f t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e h a d n o t b e e n e m p l o y e d s i n c e 2005 a n d t h a t s h e o c c a s i o n a l l y e a r n s $250 p e r month i n income a s a b a b y s i t t e r o r a h o u s e c l e a n e r . The m o t h e r a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t she r e l i e s on f a m i l y members f o r much o f h e r s u p p o r t a n d t o p a y h e r c o u r t fines. The m o t h e r p o i n t s o u t t h a t s h e may q u a l i f y f o r S o c i a l S e c u r i t y d i s a b i l i t y b e n e f i t s o r f o r a s s i s t a n c e t h r o u g h a j o b s program; however, a t the time explored o f t h e dependency those options. income were Therefore, that time, a t the time of the indicated that i t believed that s i t u a t i o n c o u l d improve such t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n c o u l d be p l a c e d at had not A t t h e c o n c l u s i o n o f t h e dependency the j u v e n i l e court the mother's f i n a n c i a l t h e mother those p o s s i b l e sources of n o t a v a i l a b l e t o t h e mother dependency d e t e r m i n a t i o n . hearing, hearing, i n h e r home i n t h e f u t u r e b u t t h a t , s h e was u n a b l e t o meet t h e c h i l d r e n ' s n e e d s . 11 2100591 a n d 2100592 The mother has f a i l e d t o demonstrate t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d does n o t s u p p o r t t h a t Further, the t h e mother a d m i t t e d children to l i v e with periods. determination. other that she e l e c t e d t o a l l o w f a m i l y members f o r e x t e n d e d The m o t h e r a l s o a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t s h e h a d f a i l e d t o r e g u l a r l y v i s i t the c h i l d r e n , c i t i n g the d i s t r e s s experienced by h e r o l d e s t c h i l d when t h e c h i l d r e n l e f t as a r e a s o n n o t t o visit the expressed visit children. concern The that the c h i l d r e n . children's t h e mother Given guardian had f a i l e d the presumption ad litem to regularly i n favor of the j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t , s e e Ex p a r t e Fann, s u p r a , we c a n n o t say t h a t t h e mother has d e m o n s t r a t e d t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t erred i n determining The failing t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n were d e p e n d e n t . mother a l s o argues t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t e r r e d i n t o award h e r a s e t s c h e d u l e children. We a g r e e . This "'[T]he determination of v i s i t a t i o n c o u r t has e x p l a i n e d : of proper visitation " ' " i s 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 t r i a l c o u r t , and t h a t c o u r t ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n s h o u l d n o t be r e v e r s e d b y an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t a b s e n t a s h o w i n g o f an abuse o f discretion." Ex p a r t e B l a n d , 796 So. 2d [340] a t 343 [ ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) ] . "The p r i m a r y consideration i n setting v i s i t a t i o n rights i s t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t o f t h e c h i l d . Each 12 with the 2100591 a n d 2100592 c h i l d v i s i t a t i o n c a s e must be d e c i d e d on i t s own f a c t s a n d c i r c u m s t a n c e s . " DuBois v. D u B o i s , 714 So. 2d 308, 309 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1998) ( c i t a t i o n o m i t t e d ) . ' " W i l l i a m s v. W i l l i a m s , C i v . App. 2 004) . 905 So. 2d 820, 830 (Ala. "Although t h i s court recognizes t h a t v i s i t a t i o n i s a m a t t e r l e f t t o t h e sound d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t , s u c h d i s c r e t i o n i s n o t unbounded. This c o u r t has p r e v i o u s l y h e l d t h a t i t i s r e v e r s i b l e error for a j u v e n i l e court t o leave the matter of a noncustodial parent's v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s t o the sole d i s c r e t i o n of a c u s t o d i a l parent or other legal custodian of the c h i l d . S e e , e . g . , L.L.M. v . S.F., 919 So. 2d 307 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2005) ( r e v e r s i n g a j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s v i s i t a t i o n award t h a t p l a c e d t h e f a t h e r i n c o n t r o l o f t h e mother's v i s i t a t i o n w i t h t h e c h i l d ) , a n d K.B. v. C l e b u r n e C o u n t y Dep't o f Human R e s . , 897 So. 2d 379 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2004) ( r e v e r s i n g a j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s v i s i t a t i o n award t h a t essentially conditioned t h e mother's right to v i s i t a t i o n w i t h h e r c h i l d upon t h e c o n s e n t o f t h e c h i l d ' s a u n t a n d u n c l e ) ; s e e a l s o D.B. v . M a d i s o n C o u n t y Dep't o f Human R e s . , 937 So. 2d 535, 541 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2006) ( p l u r a l i t y o p i n i o n r e v e r s i n g a j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t t h a t made t h e m o t h e r ' s visitation '"subject to any conditions and l i m i t a t i o n s deemed t o be n e c e s s a r y a n d a p p r o p r i a t e " ' by t h e c h i l d ' s g r e a t a u n t , who was a w a r d e d c u s t o d y of the c h i l d ) . " A.M.B. v. R.B.B., 4 So. 3d 468, 471-72 (concluding that "the j u v e n i l e court ( A l a . C i v . App. 2007) i n this case e r r e d i n f a i l i n g t o s e t f o r t h a s p e c i f i c minimum v i s i t a t i o n id. a t 472). 13 schedule," 2100591 a n d 2100592 The juvenile visitation" with court awarded t h e mother o n l y the children; i t failed s p e c i f i c minimum v i s i t a t i o n s c h e d u l e . those portions pertaining juvenile visitation o f t h e March to visitation, court to enter schedule. 2100591--AFFIRMED "reasonable to set forth A c c o r d i n g l y , we r e v e r s e 11, 2011, dependency a n d we remand orders a t h e causes setting A.M.B. v. R.B.B., judgments forth a f o r the specific supra. IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED. 210 05 9 2 A F F I R M E D REMANDED. Pittman, B r y a n , a n d Thomas, J J . , c o n c u r . Moore, J . , c o n c u r s i n p a r t a n d c o n c u r s i n t h e r e s u l t i n part, with writing. 14 2100591 and 2100592 MOORE, J u d g e , in concurring i n part and concurring i n the part. I concur i n the result i n that part o f the main a d d r e s s i n g t h e d e p e n d e n c y o f t h e c h i l d r e n ; as t o t h e of result the o p i n i o n , I concur. 15 opinion remainder

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.