T.E.W., Jr. v. T.S.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 05/18/2012 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 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, 2011-2012 2110104 T.E.W., J r . v. T.S. Appeal from Calhoun J u v e n i l e Court (JU-10-591.01) THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e . T.E.W., J r . ("the f a t h e r " ) , appeals a judgment of the Calhoun J u v e n i l e Court f i n d i n g h i s minor c h i l d dependent and awarding custody maternal aunt. o f h e r t o T.S. ("the a u n t " ) , the child's 2110104 The record indicates ("the m o t h e r " ) father and the father never married. entered a judgment incorporating an that the c h i l d i n 2005; I n January adjudicating agreement judgment, the by was m o t h e r ' s d i s c r e t i o n and was On juvenile and December court seeking alleged that 2, 2010, award of filed t h e m o t h e r was of the and and visitation an court the Pursuant to ordered t o pay c h i l d custody the paternity support. s e e k i n g t o have t h e c h i l d an D.S. and the mother awarded the aunt to the j u v e n i l e the father's reached father born the mother 2007, f a t h e r p e r t a i n i n g t o c u s t o d y and c h i l d that was at the support. action declared child. i n the dependent The i l l and u n a b l e t o c a r e aunt f o r the c h i l d and t h a t t h e m o t h e r f u l l y s u p p o r t e d an a w a r d o f c u s t o d y of the child to the aunt. In an affidavit submitted in s u p p o r t of her dependency p e t i t i o n , the aunt a l l e g e d t h a t the father lived in a home with including a disabled brother a juvenile court custody of the c h i l d entered of his relatives, who p o s e d a t h r e a t t o t h e c h i l d , who was f i v e y e a r s o l d a t t h e t i m e . the number A l s o on December 2, 2010, an o r d e r t o the aunt. 2 awarding pendente lite 2110104 On J a n u a r y 5, 2011, the father f i l e d t h e a u n t ' s c l a i m t h a t t h e c h i l d was a counterclaim f o r an i n J a n u a r y 2011, she The 2011. evaluated ad granted the guardian a court conducted 2011, mental-health aunt's litem On the motion approve O c t o b e r 12, an had 2011 refused Later of death i n which m o t h e r had ore tenus professional. and motion. died hearing The The the 2011, parties' the child on the be court child's selection aunt f i l e d on child's juvenile s p e c i f i e d that t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t a l l e g i n g t h a t she was t h e May child. t h e a u n t moved t h a t t h e l i t e m opposed t h a t ad therapist. that asserted 1 I n May by guardian award of c u s t o d y of the j u v e n i l e court 2010. juvenile M a r c h 9, d e p e n d e n t , and he the aunt f i l e d a s u g g e s t i o n i n f o r m e d the December 23, an answer d i s p u t i n g of a a notice in unable t o comply w i t h o r d e r b e c a u s e , she a l l e g e d , t h e g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m to approve a counselor f o r the c h i l d because he The m o t h e r and t h e p a r t i e s b e l i e v e d t h a t t h e m o t h e r was s u f f e r i n g f r o m symptoms o f f i b r o m y a l g i a . The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e m o t h e r l e a r n e d o n l y s h o r t l y b e f o r e h e r d e a t h t h a t she had t e r m i n a l c a n c e r . I t i s n o t c l e a r , however, when t h e m o t h e r l e a r n e d o f t h a t d i a g n o s i s , o r when t h e f a t h e r was informed of t h a t d i a g n o s i s . 1 3 2110104 had stated that he d i d not feel that the c h i l d needed counseling. On October 18, 2011, t h e j u v e n i l e court entered a judgment f i n d i n g t h e c h i l d dependent and a w a r d i n g c u s t o d y o f her t o the aunt. The f a t h e r t i m e l y appealed. The e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l i n d i c a t e s t h a t , f r o m the time of the child's birth i n July 2005 until December 2009, t h e f a t h e r v i s i t e d t h e c h i l d o n l y i n t h e m o t h e r ' s home. The f a t h e r s t a t e d t h a t t h e m o t h e r ' s moods h a d v a r i e d a n d t h a t he h a d f o u n d i t e a s i e r t o a l l o w h e r t o a r r a n g e h i s v i s i t a t i o n at her convenience rather than t o request s p e c i f i c with the c h i l d . visitation The f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t u n t i l December 2009 h i s v i s i t a t i o n w i t h t h e c h i l d h a d b e e n r e g u l a r a n d t h a t he h a d sometimes stayed overnight i n t h e m o t h e r ' s home i n o r d e r t o exercise v i s i t a t i o n with the c h i l d . The f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t he began h a v i n g r e g u l a r visitation that week. with he o f t e n the c h i l d helped The f a t h e r deteriorating i n h i s home i n December 2009 a n d t h e mother testified health during weekend with that, the f a l l the c h i l d because during the o f t h e mother's o f 2010, he o f t e n took t h e c h i l d t o o r r e t r i e v e d h e r f r o m s c h o o l , a n d he s t a t e d that 4 2110104 the child during sometimes v i s i t e d that on s c h o o l nights time. According mother him o v e r n i g h t to the father, informed him before that the Thanksgiving child would 2010 t h e spend the T h a n k s g i v i n g h o l i d a y w i t h t h e a u n t a n d t h a t he w o u l d have t h e child f o r the Christmas h o l i d a y s . aunt, s h o r t l y before attorney Thanksgiving, However, a c c o r d i n g t h e m o t h e r a r r a n g e d f o r an t o d r a f t an a g r e e m e n t p u r s u a n t t o w h i c h she her c u s t o d i a l r i g h t s t o t h e c h i l d t o t h e a u n t . e a r l y December 2010, t h e a u n t f i l e d and to the assigned Thereafter, i n h e r dependency was a w a r d e d t e m p o r a r y c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d . petition The father t e s t i f i e d t h a t he f i r s t l e a r n e d t h a t t h e c h i l d was l i v i n g w i t h the aunt when he was served with the paperwork f o r the d e p e n d e n c y a c t i o n i n mid-December 2 0 1 0 . The served with the p a p e r w o r k f o r t h e d e p e n d e n c y a c t i o n he i m m e d i a t e l y contacted his father attorney. contact the testified that when he was The f a t h e r s t a t e d t h a t he d i d n o t a t t e m p t t o aunt because he d i d not know her contact information. The f a t h e r s t a t e d t h a t a f r i e n d had i n f o r m e d him o f the mother's death f i v e days a f t e r i t o c c u r r e d 5 when t h e m o t h e r ' s 2110104 o b i t u a r y was that, published when t h e telephone mother number and, i n a newspaper. died, she The d i d not aunt have testified the t h u s , d i d n o t a t t e m p t t o c o n t a c t him i n f o r m him o f t h e m o t h e r ' s d e a t h u n t i l December 30, aunt testified contact f a t h e r had she that information she from 2010. u l t i m a t e l y obtained the an and Internet search father's that the time him. father acknowledged that between December 2, 2010, pendente l i t e custody 2011, hearing the m e r i t s twice by on telephone and he that J a n u a r y and F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 1 . had those The the entry of explained that he did contacted contacts the had child contact only occurred f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t he not the o r d e r and t h e M a r c h 9, n o t have t h e a u n t ' s c o n t a c t i n f o r m a t i o n i n December 2 0 1 0 . father to The a l r e a d y l e a r n e d of the mother's death at the contacted The father's the child in did The more f r e q u e n t l y b e c a u s e he d i d n o t want t o do a n y t h i n g t o u p s e t t h e child. the I n a d d i t i o n , the aunt arranged f a t h e r on t h e t e l e p h o n e on two f o r the other child occasions. to call I t does not appear t h a t the f a t h e r v i s i t e d the c h i l d between the time the aunt o b t a i n e d pendente l i t e custody 2011, hearing. The aunt argued b e f o r e 6 the and t h e M a r c h 9, j u v e n i l e court that the 2110104 father's failure to maintain regular d e m o n s t r a t e d a l a c k o f commitment The aunt also based a contact with the c h i l d t o the c h i l d . portion of her dependency a l l e g a t i o n s on t h e f a c t t h a t , u n t i l s h o r t l y a f t e r t h e m o t h e r ' s death, t h e f a t h e r had r e s i d e d w i t h h i s d i s a b l e d b r o t h e r . father's brother i s d i s a b l e d as a r e s u l t o f a b r a i n i n j u r y he s u f f e r e d i n an a u t o m o b i l e a c c i d e n t . his disabled The brother has The f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d neurological and d e f i c i t s a n d t h a t he a l s o has p h y s i c a l i n j u r i e s t h a t he u s e a w a l k e r or a wheelchair. that intellectual that The f a t h e r require testified t h a t h i s d i s a b l e d b r o t h e r needs c o n t i n u a l s u p e r v i s i o n a n d t h a t the f a t h e r ' s mother p r o v i d e s In 2001, inappropriate girl. the sexual The f a t h e r that disabled contact insisted care. brother with that The f a t h e r e x p l a i n e d his brother arose, a four- accused about those t h a t he d i d n o t l i v e a n d h i s m o t h e r when t h o s e t h a t he d i d n o t want t o have a n y t h i n g of or f i v e - y e a r - o l d he knew n o t h i n g allegations. disabled was with allegations t o do w i t h s i t u a t i o n , and t h a t h i s mother had h a n d l e d t h e s i t u a t i o n . that The f a t h e r s t a t e d t h a t , even a f t e r t h e b i r t h o f t h e c h i l d and t h e t i m e when t h e c h i l d v i s i t e d h i m i n t h e home he s h a r e d w i t h h i s 7 2110104 disabled brother, also he h a d n o t i n q u i r e d a b o u t t h a t i n c i d e n t . He acknowledged that the c h i l d ' s concern about t h e c h i l d ' s b e i n g mother had expressed around h i s d i s a b l e d b e c a u s e o f t h e 2001 abuse a l l e g a t i o n s . that, had The f a t h e r brother testified i n s p i t e o f t h o s e c o n c e r n s e x p r e s s e d b y t h e m o t h e r , he s t i l l n o t i n q u i r e d a b o u t t h e 2001 a l l e g e d abuse i n c i d e n t . The father insisted, however, t h a t the c h i l d been a l o n e i n t h e p r e s e n c e o f h i s d i s a b l e d b r o t h e r visited h i m i n t h e home brother. he h a d s h a r e d The f a t h e r e x p l a i n e d h i s disabled brother. 2 0 1 1 , t h e f a t h e r moved f r o m t h e home he h a d shared with h i s d i s a b l e d brother home. when s h e t h a t t h e c h i l d had had l i t t l e interaction with his disabled In January with had never i n t o a three-bedroom mobile At the d i r e c t i o n of the j u v e n i l e court, the Calhoun 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") c o n d u c t e d a homestudy evaluation on t h e f a t h e r ' s f a t h e r ' s home a s a p p r o p r i a t e the home. DHR and adequate f o r t h e f a t h e r and child. A DHR social worker who had investigated a l l e g a t i o n o f abuse a g a i n s t t h e d i s a b l e d b r o t h e r the approved the hearing. t h e 2001 t e s t i f i e d at The s o c i a l w o r k e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e h a d f o u n d 8 2110104 t h e a l l e g a t i o n s o f abuse t o be c r e d i b l e b u t t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t attorney because had d e c l i n e d t o prosecute of h i s i n t e l l e c t u a l t e s t i f i e d t h a t , assuming with the disabled the disabled deficiencies. brother The s o c i a l worker a y o u n g g i r l was l i v i n g i n t h e home brother i n 2001, she would c a u t i o n e d " t h e c h i l d ' s p a r e n t s about contact with the disabled brother. have restricting "strongly the c h i l d ' s However, t h e s o c i a l worker s t a t e d , s h e w o u l d n o t have recommended t h e r e m o v a l o f a c h i l d f r o m t h e home a t t h e t i m e s h e c o n d u c t e d t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f the abuse a l l e g a t i o n s . The father t e s t i f i e d that t h e mobile-home p a r k i n w h i c h his m o b i l e home was l o c a t e d b e l o n g e d t o an e s t a t e his mother f o r the benefit of h i s disabled m o b i l e - h o m e p a r k was l o c a t e d the home disabled The the father managed b y brother. That b e t w e e n 300 a n d 500 y a r d s had shared with h i s mother from and h i s brother. father t e s t i f i e d that, home p a r k , h i s f a m i l y also i n addition t o the mobile- owned a h o r s e s t a b l e . He stated that h i s p r i m a r y employment c o n s i s t e d o f m a n a g i n g t h e m o b i l e - home park and t h e horse stable f o r h i s family and that, a l t h o u g h he d i d n o t have a s e t s a l a r y i n t h a t employment, he 9 2110104 w i t h d r e w money f r o m t h e f a m i l y business The he o b t a i n e d father also testified that income w o r k i n g a s a f a r r i e r and t h a t income p a i n t i n g o r r e m o d e l i n g homes. his work schedule was flexible when he n e e d e d i t . some additional he o c c a s i o n a l l y The f a t h e r and t h a t , earned stated i f he that received c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d , he d i d n o t e x p e c t t o n e e d f o r t h e c h i l d to attend testified nearby willing an a f t e r - s c h o o l care that and h i s grandmother h i s mother i n the family to assist program. home a n d t h a t him i n c a r i n g The f a t h e r both also lived b o t h were a v a i l a b l e a n d f o r the c h i l d i f t h e need arose. The the father t e s t i f i e d that his child-support mother had been reimbursing child. $700 p e r month, p l u s t h e mother f o r h e a l t h - i n s u r a n c e obligation to t h e $110 c o s t o f coverage f o r the A c c o r d i n g t o t h e f a t h e r , he h a d n o t m i s s e d a n y c h i l d - s u p p o r t payments t o t h e m o t h e r , a n d he h a d p a i d c h i l d to t h e aunt d u r i n g pendente l i t e The the time t h a t the c h i l d support has b e e n i n h e r custody. a u n t 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 t h e c h i l d was doing well i n h e r home a n d p e r f o r m i n g w e l l aunt a l s o p r e s e n t e d evidence indicating 10 that i n school. The she had always 2110104 been a c t i v e l y i n v o l v e d i n t h e c h i l d ' s l i f e a n d t h a t t h e c h i l d h a d s p e n t a g r e a t d e a l o f t i m e i n t h e a u n t ' s home d u r i n g h e r life. The a u n t t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e m o t h e r h a d w a n t e d t h e a u n t , r a t h e r t h a n t h e f a t h e r , t o have c u s t o d y she o f t h e c h i l d and t h a t h a d "made p r o m i s e s " t o t h e m o t h e r . On a p p e a l , t h e f a t h e r a r g u e s t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e does n o t support t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s dependency f i n d i n g . A "dependent c h i l d " i s one "who h a s b e e n a d j u d i c a t e d d e p e n d e n t b y a j u v e n i l e c o u r t and i s i n need o f care o r s u p e r v i s i o n and meets any o f t h e f o l l o w i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s : "1. custodian, any o t h e r defined i n n e g l e c t as 12-15-301, Whose p a r e n t , legal guardian, legal or other custodian subjects the c h i l d or child i n t h e h o u s e h o l d t o a b u s e , as s u b d i v i s i o n ( 2 ) o f S e c t i o n 12-15-301 o r defined i n s u b d i v i s i o n ( 4 ) of Section o r a l l o w s t h e c h i l d t o be so s u b j e c t e d . " 2 . Who i s w i t h o u t a p a r e n t , l e g a l g u a r d i a n , o r l e g a l c u s t o d i a n w i l l i n g and a b l e t o p r o v i d e f o r t h e care, support, or education of the c h i l d . "3. Whose p a r e n t , legal guardian, legal custodian, or other custodian neglects or refuses, when a b l e t o do s o o r when t h e s e r v i c e i s o f f e r e d without charge, to provide or allow medical, s u r g i c a l , or other care necessary f o rthe h e a l t h or well-being of the c h i l d . "4. Whose p a r e n t , legal guardian, legal custodian, or other custodian f a i l s , refuses, or n e g l e c t s t o send the c h i l d t o s c h o o l i n accordance 11 2110104 w i t h t h e terms o f t h e compulsory s c h o o l laws o f t h i s s t a t e . attendance "5. Whose p a r e n t , legal guardian, legal c u s t o d i a n , o r o t h e r c u s t o d i a n has abandoned t h e c h i l d , as d e f i n e d i n s u b d i v i s i o n ( 1 ) o f S e c t i o n 12-15-301. "6. Whose p a r e n t , legal guardian, legal custodian, or other custodian i s unable or u n w i l l i n g to d i s c h a r g e h i s o r h e r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s t o and f o r the c h i l d . "7. Who h a s b e e n p l a c e d f o r c a r e o r a d o p t i o n i n v i o l a t i o n of the law. "8. Who, f o r any o t h e r c a u s e , i s i n n e e d o f t h e care and p r o t e c t i o n o f t h e s t a t e . " § 1 2 - 1 5 - 1 0 2 ( 8 ) , A l a . Code 1975. 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 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 clear and convincing 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, matters of dependency are w i t h i n the 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 a t r i a l c o u r t ' s r u l i n g on a d e p e n d e n c y a c t i o n i n w h i c h 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 R e s . , 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 R e s . , 686 So. 2d 1253 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 6 ) . " 12 in 2110104 J.S.M. v . P . J . , 902 So. 2d 89, 95 "Clear and c o n v i n c i n g (Ala. C i v . App. 2004). evidence" i s " [ e ] v i d e n c e t h a t , when w e i g h e d a g a i n s t e v i d e n c e i n o p p o s i t i o n , w i l l produce i n t h e mind o f t h e t r i e r o f f a c t a f i r m c o n v i c t i o n as t o e a c h e s s e n t i a l e l e m e n t o f t h e c l a i m a n d a h i g h p r o b a b i l i t y as t o t h e correctness of the conclusion. P r o o f by c l e a r and convincing evidence requires a level of proof greater than a preponderance of the evidence or the s u b s t a n t i a l weight of the evidence, but l e s s than beyond a r e a s o n a b l e doubt." § 6 - 1 1 - 2 0 ( b ) ( 4 ) , A l a . Code 1975. The evidence i n the record on a p p e a l i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e f a t h e r has r e g u l a r l y v i s i t e d t h e c h i l d a n d p a i d c h i l d s u p p o r t . In the year before t h e m o t h e r ' s d e a t h , t h e f a t h e r became more involved child's in assistance the considerations that and provided i n caring f o r the c h i l d during In her b r i e f before contention life that that the time. t h i s c o u r t , the aunt c i t e s financial pertaining to the father as s u p p o r t f o r her the c h i l d i s dependent. The a u n t contends the father's employment i s unstable and that d e p e n d e n t on h i s m o t h e r , who manages t h e d i s a b l e d estate, mother f o r h i s income. The father's testimony, he i s brother's however, i n d i c a t e s t h a t he manages a f a m i l y b u s i n e s s a n d has s u p p o r t e d himself f r o m t h e income he r e c e i v e s 13 from t h a t b u s i n e s s . The 2110104 record contains no evidence indicating that the father's d e p e n d e n c e upon t h e f a m i l y b u s i n e s s f o r h i s income i s any more unstable than that of any other person working for an employer. The f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t he paid child that he There s u p p o r t and could is no support evidence failed to contribute unable to support f o r the the child's child the at that child's the health i f she indicating to her r e g u l a r l y and time was insurance in his the the or and custody. father support of consistently has that hearing he in ever was this matter. The aunt also contends b e c a u s e t h e f a t h e r has f o r the c h i l d . for that is dependent health-insurance Further, the evidence health insurance hearing, the father f o r the coverage indicates that child, indicated covered under the aunt's h e a l t h - i n s u r a n c e evidence child r e i m b u r s e d t h e m o t h e r f o r t h e premiums she had to maintain the not o b t a i n e d the d e c l i n e to agree t h a t a c h i l d i s dependent reason. f a t h e r had of We that indicating that the father 14 and, that not paid at the time child was the policy. could the T h e r e i s no or would not 2110104 obtain health-insurance awarded t o The coverage f o r the c h i l d i f custody him. aunt also involvement i n the contends child's that life the during father's lack of period after the the m o t h e r ' s d e a t h d e m o n s t r a t e s a l a c k o f commitment t o t h e on the part of did father not However, t h e the aunt the father. attempt The points see to aunt the child e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e s t h a t the had December 2010 pendente and lite t h a t he custody of to a p p r o p r i a t e l y handle the testified that he d i d not know how t h e a u n t ' s t e s t i m o n y t h a t she had him that at contact evidence and father learned that the mid- child to contact in his attorney The father the contact assertive with regard indicated discretion that knowledge about each indicates he aunt, the father the father had effort visited d i d not the child want t o to contact the "rock has at never The the the to had been father mother's boat." c h i l d during b e t w e e n t h e m o t h e r ' s d e a t h and t h e M a r c h 9, 2011, 15 and other. to h i s r i g h t s to the c h i l d . b e c a u s e he a l s o made l i t t l e that the Christmas. situation. c o u l d not child a b o u t t h e m o t h e r ' s d e a t h i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e two little The out immediately consulted a b o u t how alert was the hearing; He time the 2110104 father explained his f a i l u r e t o maintain the child as h i s a t t e m p t way." The father regular contact "not t o upset also [the c h i l d ] testified that he with i n any was not c o n f r o n t a t i o n a l , t h a t he b e l i e v e d t h a t t h e a u n t was p r o v i d i n g excellent aunt care f o r the c h i l d , was d o i n g interests. what We However, t h e r e the that she b e l i e v e d agree sometimes f a i l e d a n d t h a t he b e l i e v e d with to actively was t h e aunt assert that the i n the c h i l d ' s that the father best has h i s r i g h t s as a f a t h e r . i s no i n d i c a t i o n i n t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l that f a t h e r h a s a b a n d o n e d t h e c h i l d o r t h a t he d i d n o t b e l i e v e the c h i l d was b e i n g pendency o f t h i s The aunt appropriately cared f o r during the matter. also concerns regarding bases h e r dependency the father's a l l e g a t i o n s on h e r disabled brother. However, s h o r t l y a f t e r t h e m o t h e r ' s d e a t h , t h e f a t h e r moved o u t o f t h e home he h a d s h a r e d w i t h residence f o rhimself h i s family and t h e c h i l d . a n d e s t a b l i s h e d h i s own The DHR s o c i a l worker who h a d i n v e s t i g a t e d t h e 2001 abuse a l l e g a t i o n s a g a i n s t t h e disabled brother stated that, even g i v e n those a l l e g a t i o n s , w h i c h she f o u n d c r e d i b l e , she w o u l d n o t have recommended t h e r e m o v a l o f a young c h i l d f r o m t h e home; r a t h e r , she t e s t i f i e d 16 2110104 she w o u l d have c a u t i o n e d child The with her t o be around the the c h i l d ' s p a r e n t s not to a l l o w disabled brother without f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e c h i l d has his disabled brother alone evidence with him i n the indicating unsupervised with and that the t h a t he future. the d i d not The the juvenile supported by court's clear and plan record has to leave contains ever been no left brother. Given the t o t a l i t y of the circumstances, that supervision. n e v e r been l e f t a l o n e child disabled the dependency convincing we must c o n c l u d e determination not Rather, evidence. is the e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e f a t h e r has b e e n r e g u l a r l y i n v o l v e d i n t h e c h i l d ' s l i f e and her support. the child The the ability possible exposure speculative, to to she was the the disabled brother. The left crisis in the the child, father's given f a t h e r has ever for concerns regarding The the that or disabled there the child's brother, is no unsupervised record contains with the are evidence f a i l e d to support the c h i l d 17 for in caring mother's h e a l t h support particularly i n d i c a t i n g t h a t the that to mother's death. father's consistently provided f a t h e r became more i n v o l v e d i n response year before t h a t he has or father's no e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g 2110104 that the father p a r e n t and c a r e The i s not ready and w i l l i n g appropriately f o r the c h i l d . aunt based her c l a i m f o r custody of the c h i l d a s s e r t i o n t h a t the c h i l d i s dependent. support a f i n d i n g that the c h i l d we r e v e r s e for to the j u v e n i l e court's the entry The e v i d e n c e does n o t i s dependent. Accordingly, judgment a n d remand t h e c a u s e o f a judgment c o n s i s t e n t w i t h this opinion. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Pittman, Thomas, a n d Moore, J J . , c o n c u r . Bryan, J . , concurs i n the r e s u l t , 18 on an without writing.

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.