T.H. v. Jefferson County Department of Human Resources

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 04/06/2012 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 Reporter of Decisions, 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 be 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, 2011-2012 2101007 T.H. v. J e f f e r s o n County Department o f Human Resources Appeal from J e f f e r s o n J u v e n i l e Court (JU-09-50515, JU-09-50516, JU-09-50517, and JU-09-50518) THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e . On F e b r u a r y 25, 2009, t h e J e f f e r s o n 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 ("DHR") f i l e d i n t h e J e f f e r s o n J u v e n i l e ("the j u v e n i l e c o u r t " ) four p e t i t i o n s seeking O.D.P., Z.J.P., and Q.D.J. (hereinafter Court t o have T.A.S., referred to 2101007 collectively an award as " t h e c h i l d r e n " ) d e c l a r e d d e p e n d e n t and s e e k i n g of custody of the c h i l d r e n t o DHR. The actions i n i t i a t e d by t h o s e p e t i t i o n s were d e s i g n a t e d as c a s e numbers JU-09-50515, JU-09-50516, JU-09-50517, and JU-09-50518 and a r e hereinafter actions." referred mother children's sibling, is circumstances children's collectively as safety. T.H. ("the L.A.S., had causing DHR "the DHR I n i t s dependency p e t i t i o n s , children's under to a l l e g e d that the mother") died to dependency and that i n the family's be concerned the home f o r the On F e b r u a r y 27, 2009, t h e j u v e n i l e court e n t e r e d s h e l t e r - c a r e o r d e r s a w a r d i n g DHR p e n d e n t e l i t e custody o f t h e c h i l d r e n and o r d e r i n g contact with the c h i l d r e n pending t h a t t h e m o t h e r have no further M a r c h 2, 2009, a f t e r a h e a r i n g , orders of the court. the j u v e n i l e court On continued p e n d e n t e l i t e c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d r e n w i t h DHR b u t a w a r d e d t h e mother s u p e r v i s e d visitation with the c h i l d r e n . Additional r e v i e w o r d e r s were e n t e r e d i n t h e d e p e n d e n c y a c t i o n s i n May 2009 orders, and September 2009, and, pursuant custody of the c h i l d r e n remained w i t h On October dependency 20, actions 2009, seeking the mother the 2 to those DHR. filed return of motions i n the custody of the 2101007 children to her. In support of those motions, the mother s u b m i t t e d a l e t t e r from the J e f f e r s o n County d i s t r i c t a t t o r n e y i n d i c a t i n g t h a t a g r a n d j u r y had n o t i n d i c t e d h e r on of c r i m i n a l l y n e g l i g e n t homicide i n connection w i t h the o f L.A.S. return death The m o t h e r l a t e r r e n e w e d t h o s e m o t i o n s s e e k i n g of custody subsequently complete charges of entered the review children. orders The requiring a p s y c h o l o g i c a l examination assessment and i d e n t i f i e d by On May to comply with juvenile and other a the the court mother to substance-abuse reunification goals DHR. 24, 2010, the j u v e n i l e c o u r t e n t e r e d orders i n the dependency a c t i o n s i n c o r p o r a t i n g a s t i p u l a t i o n of the parties 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 , as t h a t t e r m i s defined i n § 1 2 - 1 5 - 1 0 2 ( 8 ) , A l a . Code 1975. I n t h e May 2010, the mother t o juvenile court reunification visitation ordered goals, for the the continued mother, and the 24, comply w i t h award ordered the of juvenile c o u r t a l s o r e s e r v e d the i s s u e o f an DHR's supervised mother a t t e n d v i s i t a t i o n arranged f o r the b e n e f i t of other The orders, not to relatives. award of a s p e c i f i c amount o f c h i l d s u p p o r t , b u t i t n o t e d t h a t t h e m o t h e r 3 2101007 was " u n d e r an o n g o i n g o b l i g a t i o n " t o c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e s u p p o r t of t h e c h i l d r e n . On October 20, 2010, t h e m o t h e r again filed i n the dependency a c t i o n s motions a s k i n g the j u v e n i l e c o u r t t o r e t u r n custody of the c h i l d r e n t o her. Two d a y s l a t e r , 22, seeking 2010, DHR mother's filed parental petitions rights on O c t o b e r t o terminate to the children. Each the o f DHR's termination-of-parental-rights p e t i t i o n s i n i t i a t e d a separate claim from therefore, for those asserted i n t h e dependency each o f t h e claims was a s s i g n e d a c t i o n s , and, a .01 d e s i g n a t i o n t h e c a s e numbers f o r t h e d e p e n d e n c y a c t i o n s . On November 5, 2010, DHR f i l e d m o t i o n s i n t h e d e p e n d e n c y actions seeking retroactive award child support, including See § 1 2 - 1 5 - 3 1 4 ( e ) , A l a . Code 1975 ( p r o v i d i n g , i n p a r t , t h a t "[a]ny Department child alleging support, of f o r each o f t h e c h i l d r e n . petition child an dependency o f Human R e s o u r c e s support"). I n those of a child filed shall contain motions, DHR by the a request f o r alleged that i t a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t t h e m o t h e r m i g h t be a r e c i p i e n t o f f u n d s f r o m 4 2101007 the settlement L.A.S. of a l e g a l a c t i o n p e r t a i n i n g t o the death of 1 On J a n u a r y 5, 2 0 1 1 , t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t e n t e r e d orders i n the dependency a c t i o n s s t a t i n g t h a t i t had n o t had time a hearing on that date to consider t h e mother's during pending m o t i o n s f o r a r e t u r n o f c u s t o d y o r DHR's p e n d i n g m o t i o n s f o r child support but that a hearing conducted i n February 2011. on t h o s e m o t i o n s was t o be I n those orders, the j u v e n i l e court noted that the scheduled e v i d e n t i a r y hearing would as a "preliminary termination The hearing" f o r DHR's p e t i t i o n s o f the mother's p a r e n t a l serve seeking the rights. j u v e n i l e court heard testimony and t h e arguments o f c o u n s e l over t h e c o u r s e o f f o u r days d u r i n g F e b r u a r y and March 2011. At the beginning expressly noted that of that hearing, the j u v e n i l e i t was n o t c o n s i d e r i n g DHR's court separate We n o t e t h a t a r g u m e n t s o f c o u n s e l on a n o t h e r i s s u e d u r i n g the f i n a l h e a r i n g i n t h e dependency a c t i o n s i n d i c a t e d t h a t L.A.S.'s m a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r h a d f i l e d an a c t i o n a g a i n s t DHR i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h L.A.S.'s d e a t h a n d t h a t t h e p a r t i e s h a d settled that claim. D u r i n g t h o s e a r g u m e n t s , DHR's a t t o r n e y pointed out t h a t t h e mother, r a t h e r than the maternal grandmother, w o u l d l i k e l y r e c e i v e any award from t h a t a c t i o n b e c a u s e i t w o u l d be p a i d t o t h e e s t a t e o f L.A.S. 1 5 2101007 c l a i m s s e e k i n g the t e r m i n a t i o n of the mother's p a r e n t a l r i g h t s at that hearing. On July 15, 2011, the j u v e n i l e court entered p e r t a i n i n g t o a l l f o u r dependency a c t i o n s i n which an order i t , among o t h e r t h i n g s , o r d e r e d t h a t custody of the c h i l d r e n remain w i t h DHR, awarded mother the mother to provide resources list, supervised v i s i t a t i o n , a l l the and o r d e r e d attorneys an ordered updated the relative- the mother t o b r i n g e v i d e n c e of h e r income t o t h e n e x t h e a r i n g ; i n t h e i n t e r i m , t h e m o t h e r was o r d e r e d t o " v o l u n t a r i l y pay c h i l d s u p p o r t " f o r t h e b e n e f i t o f the c h i l d r e n . On J u l y 22, 2011, t h e m o t h e r f i l e d a n o t i c e o f appeal to t h i s court. Although neither party has addressed this court's j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h i s a p p e a l as i t r e l a t e s t o t h e f i n a l i t y o f the juvenile appeal is court's taken, July 15, 2011, jurisdictional order issues s i g n i f i c a n c e t h a t an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t may ex mero motu. Wallace will s u p p o r t an a p p e a l . which this of such are t a k e n o t i c e o f them v. Tee J a y s M f g . Co., 211 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 7 ) . from 689 So. 2d 210, Generally, "only a final § 12-22-2, A l a . Code 1975. t h a t does n o t d i s p o s e o f a l l c l a i m s o r d e t e r m i n e 6 judgment An the order rights 2101007 and l i a b i l i t i e s not f i n a l . " App. o f a l l t h e p a r t i e s t o an a c t i o n i s g e n e r a l l y S t o n e v. H a l e y , 812 So. 2d 1245, 1246 ( A l a . C i v . 2001). In this case, the j u v e n i l e the dependency a c t i o n s return court conducted a hearing i n on t h e m o t h e r ' s m o t i o n s requesting a o f c u s t o d y t o h e r a n d DHR's c l a i m However, the juvenile resolve DHR's postponed court's July pending ruling claim on t h a t until child conclude that, because support; i t t h e mother a d d i t i o n a l evidence p e r t a i n i n g t o her income. we support. 15, 2 0 1 1 , o r d e r d i d n o t seeking claim forchild the juvenile 2 produced Accordingly, court failed to e s t a b l i s h a c h i l d - s u p p o r t a w a r d as r e q u e s t e d i n DHR's m o t i o n s for such an a w a r d , the July 15, 2 0 1 1 , o r d e r i s nonfinal. M.S.M. v . M.W.M., 72 So. 3d 626, 636 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 1 ) ; N a y l o r v . N a y l o r , 981 So. 2d 440, 441 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 7 ) ; and Newman v. Newman, 957 So. 2d 1153, 1154 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2006) . When an a p p e a l i s taken a p p e a l must be d i s m i s s e d . from a nonfinal order, the Moore v . S t r i c k l a n d , 54 So. 3d 906, We n o t e t h a t § 1 2 - 1 5 - 3 1 4 ( e ) , A l a . Code 1975, p r o v i d e s t h a t , when a d e p e n d e n t c h i l d i s p l a c e d i n DHR's c u s t o d y , " t h e j u v e n i l e court s h a l l order c h i l d support i n conformity with t h e c h i l d s u p p o r t g u i d e l i n e s as s e t o u t i n R u l e 32, A l a b a m a Rules of J u d i c i a l A d m i n i s t r a t i o n . " 2 7 2101007 908 ( A l a . C i v . App. (Ala. C i v . App. 1075, 1076 2 0 1 0 ) ; V.C. 2007); and ( A l a . C i v . App. v. C.T., S l e a s m a n v. 2005). 976 So. Sleasman, 2d 465, 907 So. 468 2d A c c o r d i n g l y , we d i s m i s s t h e m o t h e r ' s a p p e a l as h a v i n g b e e n t a k e n f r o m a n o n f i n a l j u d g m e n t . APPEAL DISMISSED. P i t t m a n and Thomas, J J . , c o n c u r . Moore, J., dissents, with joins. 8 writing, which Bryan, J., 2101007 MOORE, J u d g e , d i s s e n t i n g . I respectfully dissent. T.H., of t h e m o t h e r , a p p e a l s f r o m a J u l y 15, the Jefferson Juvenile on the ground of their ("the judgment juvenile court") the custody of f o u r of her r e f u s i n g to r e t u r n to her Court 2011, children continuing dependency. In the main o p i n i o n , a m a j o r i t y of t h i s c o u r t d i s m i s s e s the appeal because the a juvenile support filed Resources dissent So. by i n T.C. v. , any juvenile a l l the (Moore, issues J., appeal should the J u l y 15, adjudicate Jefferson However, as Mac.M., allows [Ms. court be 2011, be dismissed for child of Human Department at length 2100037, Nov. 18, in my 2011] 2 0 1 1 ) , § 12-15-601, A l a . Code from "a a final parties. Thus, I b a s e d on judgment or regardless considered the 3 claim I explained proceeding," between dissenting). County appeals t h a t judgment o r o r d e r may of to ( A l a . C i v . App. specifically from failed the ("DHR"). 3d 1975, court agree l a c k of whether adjudication So. cannot the of order 3d at that finality this of judgment. On J a n u a r y 11, 2012, o u r supreme c o u r t g r a n t e d T.C.'s p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f c e r t i o r a r i ; t h a t c o u r t has n o t yet i s s u e d a r u l i n g i n the case. 3 9 2101007 Additionally, I note that DHR filed d e p e n d e n c y p e t i t i o n s on F e b r u a r y 25, 2009. it still that does t o d a y , § 1 2 - 1 5 - 3 1 4 ( e ) , its original A t t h a t t i m e , as A l a . Code 1975, p r o v i d e d " [ a ] n y p e t i t i o n a l l e g i n g dependency o f a c h i l d f i l e d 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 child support." s h a l l contain a request f o r D e s p i t e t h a t mandate, DHR d i d not request c h i l d s u p p o r t u n t i l November 5, 2010, a f t e r t h e c h i l d r e n been i n f o s t e r c a r e f o r a l m o s t two y e a r s . had On J a n u a r y 5, 2011, the j u v e n i l e c o u r t s p e c i f i c a l l y n o t i f i e d the p a r t i e s t h a t the child-support juvenile claim court w o u l d be issued amount o f c h i l d mother produced i n February i t s judgment c o n c l u s i o n of the t r i a l , the tried the o n l y then n o t i f y i n g the p a r t i e s that additional w o u l d be evidence months determined of her 3 years dependency have petitions; passed over since DHR 17 months filed have after income. m o t h e r f i l e d h e r n o t i c e o f a p p e a l on J u l y 22, 2011. over The after support four 2011. the passed 4 the The A l l told, original since f i r s t f o r m a l l y r e q u e s t e d c h i l d s u p p o r t ; and o v e r 8 months DHR have The o n l y i s s u e l e f t u n d e t e r m i n e d was t h e amount o f c h i l d s u p p o r t p a y a b l e t o DHR. The j u v e n i l e c o u r t h a d l o n g b e f o r e o r d e r e d t h e m o t h e r t o p a y v o l u n t a r y c h i l d s u p p o r t , and i t s J u l y 15, 2011, o r d e r m a i n t a i n e d t h a t r e q u i r e m e n t . 4 10 2101007 passed s i n c e the would decide l a t e r time. the j u v e n i l e c o u r t n o t i f i e d the p a r t i e s t h a t i t issue of the amount o f T h i s c o u r t i s now child support at a d i s m i s s i n g the mother's appeal to a l l o w the j u v e n i l e c o u r t to complete t h a t t a s k . Meanwhile, f o u r c h i l d r e n l a n g u i s h i n f o s t e r c a r e w i t h no r e s o l u t i o n as t o the b a s i c u n d e r l y i n g question of whether they s h o u l d even be there. I believe the requirement from § outcome l i k e the legislature one obviously 12-15-601 removed specifically i n the present that recognized the juvenile case. to The courts finality prevent an legislature routinely make d e c i s i o n s a f f e c t i n g the fundamental r i g h t s of f a m i l i e s i n t h i s s t a t e t h a t demand i m m e d i a t e a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w . T.C., 3d a t of a judgment (Moore, J . , d i s s e n t i n g ) . that prevents The review the r e t u r n of f o u r c h i l d r e n from So. state-sponsored f o s t e r c a r e t o t h e i r n a t u r a l m o t h e r s h o u l d n o t be d e l a y e d such t e c h n i c a l i t i e s child support to be as a f a i l u r e paid s u p p o r t c l a i m w o u l d be dependency judgment. separate by the to adjudicate mother irrelevant i f this Even i f the to the DHR; court judgment was amount o f the child- reversed the affirmed, the i s s u e of c h i l d s u p p o r t would not a f f e c t our 11 for decision 2101007 on the m a t t e r a t i s s u e on a p p e a l one way or the other, u n d e r § 1 2 - 1 5 - 3 1 4 ( e ) , any p a r t y a g g r i e v e d by t h e calculation could appeal that c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d r e n has b e l i e v e t h a t i s the Section courts to the child-support separately, after a l r e a d y been s e t t l e d . i n t e n t of the 12-15-315, decide order Ala. The legislature. Code permanent l e g i s l a t u r e intended to the extent p o s s i b l e , the foster facing care custodial (Ala. future. Civ. App. 1975, requires custodial juvenile disposition of out-of-home by t h a t p r o v i s i o n t o shorten, l e n g t h of time c h i l d r e n spend i n indeterminate M.A.J. v. 2008) the At l e a s t I c h i l d r e n w i t h i n 12 months o f t h e d a t e t h e y e n t e r care. and, prospects S.F., (noting 994 that So. time as 2d to their 280, 290-91 limitations were e n a c t e d t o c o m p l y w i t h f e d e r a l A d o p t i o n and S a f e F a m i l i e s A c t , 42 U.S.C. § 671 requires and expedited § 675). resolution whether c h i l d r e n should conditions conceive they The shall p u b l i c p o l i c y of t h i s of controversies remain i n f o s t e r care be removed from o f no p u b l i c p o l i c y a d v a n c e d by this particular case, I 12 can regarding u n d e r what f o s t e r care. the h o l d i n g t h a t w o u l d o u t w e i g h t h o s e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , and, by and foresee as only state I in can T.C. illustrated continued 2101007 d e s t r u c t i o n of the substantive goals o f t h e Alabama J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e A c t , § 12-15-101 e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1975, by a p p l y i n g T.C. Bryan, J . , concurs. 13

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.