K.H. v. Jefferson County Department of Human Resources and Q.L.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 09/14/2012 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 Reporter o f Decisions, 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 , 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, 2012 2110083 K.H. v. J e f f e r s o n County Department o f Human Resources and Q.L. Appeal from J e f f e r s o n J u v e n i l e Court (JU-10-52909) THOMAS, J u d g e . K.H. ("the m o t h e r " ) appeals from a judgment of the J e f f e r s o n J u v e n i l e C o u r t p l a c i n g c u s t o d y o f C.H. ("the c h i l d " ) w i t h Q.L. ("the f a t h e r " ) . The 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 a d e p e n d e n c y p e t i t i o n i n O c t o b e r 2110083 2010, i n which i t a l l e g e d that shelter and counsel. stable employment. The c h i l d was O c t o b e r 22, 2010. t h e mother The child's maternal juvenile represent counsel, then the mother. May The in April appointed court Edward represented dependency t r i a l . father counsel I I appointed ("retained the mother at After that t r i a l a judgment awarding father finding pendente o f D.H., was the awarded w i t h d r e w i n June another However, t h e m o t h e r court entered the attorney setting a final dispositional t r i a l evidence t h e dependency regarding employment, trial, the who filed and h e r income. a The m o t h e r ' s r e t a i n e d the August concluded, custody 16, 2011, the j u v e n i l e t o be d e p e n d e n t , of the child, and f o r September 26, 2011. the p a r t i e s adduced mother's to retained private counsel"), the c h i l d lite 2011. awarding the mother s u p e r v i s e d v i s i t a t i o n w i t h the c h i l d , At on 2011. n o t i c e o f a p p e a r a n c e on A u g u s t 2, 2011. counsel appointed i n the custody grandfather. v i s i t a t i o n w i t h the c h i l d The was mother A f t e r a h e a r i n g on November 16, 2010, t h e court placed the c h i l d mother's adequate removed f r o m t h e m o t h e r ' s c u s t o d y juvenile The lacked actual disputed residence, her C o u n s e l f o r t h e mother i n d i c a t e d 2 2110083 at the close present o f t h e dependency that he intended f u r t h e r evidence a t the d i s p o s i t i o n a l t r i a l where t h e m o t h e r l i v e d . did trial not expect to regarding The j u v e n i l e c o u r t commented t h a t i t the d i s p o s i t i o n a l trial t o take much longer t h a n one h o u r . A l t h o u g h t h e mother appeared f o r t h e d i s p o s i t i o n a l on September mother 26, 2 0 1 1 , h e r r e t a i n e d reported to the j u v e n i l e counsel court trial d i d not. that her The retained c o u n s e l h a d h a d a f a m i l y e m e r g e n c y a n d t h a t he h a d t o l d h e r he had come t o t h e c o u r t h o u s e t o i n f o r m not appear at the t r i a l on t h a t t h e c o u r t t h a t he c o u l d day. The j u v e n i l e court e x p l a i n e d t h a t t h e mother's r e t a i n e d counsel had n o t c o n t a c t e d its for o f f i c e , t h a t i t had s p e c i a l l y s e t t h e d i s p o s i t i o n a l that proceed. appoint the day, and t h a t The m o t h e r an a t t o r n e y time a l l other asked were the j u v e n i l e court ready to i f i t could for her; the j u v e n i l e court t o l d her that f o r appointing counsel a t t o r n e y w o u l d want t o t a k e have t o i m m e d i a t e l y r e p r e s e n t trial. parties trial had passed and that no t h e c a s e b e c a u s e he o r she w o u l d t h e mother i n t h e d i s p o s i t i o n a l We n o t e t h a t t h e m o t h e r d i d n o t s u b m i t an a f f i d a v i t o f s u b s t a n t i a l hardship a t t h e t i m e she r e q u e s t e d 3 t h a t c o u n s e l be 2110083 appointed f o r her. herself. She p r e s e n t e d evidence regarding The where and h e r income. the mother had r e p o r t e d mother then further testimony she l i v e d , to i t that a judgment a w a r d i n g c u s t o d y supervised a timely court. First, requiring without argues and documentary she was e m p l o y e d , she h a d f a i l e d She r a i s e s forward The m o t h e r two i s s u e s before the j u v e n i l e court with counsel provided trial S e c o n d , she her ineffective a s s i s t a n c e b e c a u s e he f a i l e d t o a t t e n d t h e d i s p o s i t i o n a l and this erred i n the d i s p o s i t i o n a l the assistance of her retained counsel. her retained entered t o t h e f a t h e r and t o t h e mother. she a r g u e s t h a t that t o make the j u v e n i l e court of the c h i l d visitation appeal. h e r t o go that represent counsel. After the d i s p o s i t i o n a l t r i a l , filed where to The j u v e n i l e c o u r t n o t e d on t h e r e c o r d arrangements t o pay h e r r e t a i n e d awarding began trial represent her. As b o t h DHR a n d t h e f a t h e r p o i n t o u t , t h e m o t h e r d i d n o t specifically dispositional request trial. that the j u v e n i l e However, trial. the made i t the s p e c i a l l y s e t The m o t h e r a l s o r e q u e s t e d 4 continue the j u v e n i l e court c l e a r that i t d i d not intend to reschedule dispositional court that s h e be 2110083 appointed had replacement counsel. retained counsel m o t h e r had who had However, b e c a u s e t h e not withdrawn and mother because the n o t s a t i s f i e d t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t t h a t she was, at t h a t t i m e , i n d i g e n t , t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t a r g u a b l y had no b a s i s upon w h i c h D.N., to appoint 5 So. 3d 1253, counsel 1258 f o r the mother. ( A l a . C i v . App. judgment i n a dependency p r o c e e d i n g Cf. 2008) R.H. v. (reversing a because the trial court r e f u s e d t o a p p o i n t an i n d i g e n t m o t h e r an a t t o r n e y ) . In with any the mother's event, the j u v e n i l e dispositional trial r e t a i n e d counsel court's d e c i s i o n to despite i s not the continue absence reversible of error. "As g e n e r a l r u l e , c o n t i n u a n c e s are not f a v o r e d under Alabama D.A. v. C a l h o u n C n t y . Dep't o f Human Res., (Ala. C i v . App. has a right continuance 2007). to may not P a p a s p i r o s v. S o u t h e a s t 1099, So. 1103 be 189 counsel required. is As ( A l a . 2001) is not not we present, explained without So. 2007) ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e M c C a i n , a in 2d 804 (See, J . , c o n c u r r i n g s p e c i a l l y ) ) , " ' [ t h e ] c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t [ t o counsel however, 504 i n which a p a r t y G e n e r a l C o n t r a c t o r s , I n c . , 982 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2d 186, and a law." 976 So. 2d 502, Even i n s i t u a t i o n s counsel the limitation, 5 in a civil and a trial matter], court's 2110083 refusal t o g r a n t a c o n t i n u a n c e when c o u n s e l fails t o appear w i l l n o t be deemed r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r i n e v e r y c a s e . ' " in Papaspiros We n o t e d that, "[a]lthough the record does n o t i n d i c a t e with c e r t a i n t y why an a t t o r n e y d i d n o t a p p e a r a t t r i a l w i t h [ t h e d e f e n d a n t s ] , i t t e n d s t o i n d i c a t e t h a t an attorney d i d not appear at t r i a l with [ t h e d e f e n d a n t s ] b e c a u s e t h e y became d i s s a t i s f i e d w i t h [ t h e i r a t t o r n e y ] a p p r o x i m a t e l y a month b e f o r e t r i a l and they could not secure the services of a replacement a t that l a t e date." Papaspiros, present 982 So. 2d a t 1104. case juvenile court reflects that S i m i l a r l y , the record i n the t h e mother had r e p o r t e d to the t h a t she h a d n o t made a r r a n g e m e n t s t o p a y h e r retained counsel before the date of the d i s p o s i t i o n a l t r i a l , i n d i c a t i n g t h a t the b a s i s f o r her c o u n s e l ' s f a i l u r e t o appear may well have been the f a u l t of the mother. 1 We cannot We r e a l i z e t h a t t h e f a c t t h a t t h e m o t h e r h a d a p p a r e n t l y n o t p a i d h e r r e t a i n e d c o u n s e l may have s u p p o r t e d a c o n c l u s i o n t h a t she was, i n f a c t , i n d i g e n t , s e e R.H., 5 So. 3d a t 1258 ( o p i n i o n on r e t u r n t o r e m a n d ) ( s t a t i n g t h a t t h e f a c t t h a t t h e mother's r e t a i n e d c o u n s e l withdrew because t h e mother had n o t p a i d him " t e n d s t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t t h e mother c o u l d n o t a f f o r d t o r e t a i n h e r own c o u n s e l " a n d c o n c l u d i n g t h a t , b a s e d on t h e e n t i r e r e c o r d , w h i c h c o n t a i n e d two a f f i d a v i t s o f s u b s t a n t i a l h a r d s h i p , t h e m o t h e r was i n d i g e n t a n d e n t i t l e d t o a p p o i n t e d c o u n s e l ) ; h o w e v e r , t h e r e c o r d does n o t c o n t a i n an a f f i d a v i t o f s u b s t a n t i a l h a r d s h i p o r any o t h e r 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 m o t h e r i n t h i s c a s e was i n d i g e n t a n d , t h e r e f o r e , e n t i t l e d t o appointed counsel. 1 6 2110083 c o n c l u d e t h a t , u n d e r t h e f a c t s and the juvenile with the retained court erred by requiring the mother to without the assistance dispositional trial mother ineffective also because dispositional trial. argues of that his We However, have e x p l a i n e d the t h a t we ineffective-assistance-of-counsel the t r i a l court. 2d 1177, 1178 Dep't Human Res., Thus, we will D.A., 976 So. of her counsel not So. retained to was 2d the never cannot consider c l a i m t h a t was S.E. 2 0 0 3 ) ; and 817 mother's with 7 an on a p p e a l v. J.D.G., v. Lee argument Moore, J J . , c o n c u r . dissents, raised ( A l a . C i v . App. AFFIRMED. Thompson, P . J . , the a writing. an not r a i s e d i n J.K. issue. P i t t m a n , B r y a n , and at argument b e f o r e the j u v e n i l e 813, entertain appear mother 2d a t 504; ( A l a . C i v . App. 668 her failure ineffective-assistance-of-counsel So. proceed counsel. The court. c i r c u m s t a n c e s of t h i s case, 869 Cnty. 1995). on this 2110083 THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g The right represented 1253, I a dissenting. parent by c o u n s e l 1254-55 Pensions of Judge, 378 So. waived that dependency 2008); 2d 1149, cannot agree that the r e c o r d mother a i s fundamental. ( A l a . C i v . App. & Sec., in 1150 in this right. R.H. 8 to be 5 So. 3d Dep't of v . D.N., Smoke v . State ( A l a . C i v . App. 1979). case i n d i c a t e s that Accordingly, dissent. action I the respectfully

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.