J.K. v. Jefferson County Department of Human Resources

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 12/7/12 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, 2012-2013 2110493 J.K. 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-04-51146.02 and JU-04-51147.02) BRYAN, J u d g e . J.K. ("the f a t h e r " ) from a judgment Juvenile terminated h i s p a r e n t a l r i g h t s t o two o f h i s c h i l d r e n , K.K., girl born i n December ("the j u v e n i l e of the Jefferson a Court appeals 1 9 9 9 , a n d D.K., court") a girl that born i n 2110493 F e b r u a r y 2001 (hereinafter referred to c o l l e c t i v e l y as " t h e children"). On March 24, Human R e s o u r c e s 2004, ("DHR") f i l e d c h i l d r e n were d e p e n d e n t . Je.K. that the I n t h o s e p e t i t i o n s , DHR a l l e g e d that that the father and t h a t had s e x u a l l y alleging had o c c u r r e d t h e m o t h e r was abused the c h i l d r e n . her between concerned On March 2004, t h e c h i l d r e n were f o u n d d e p e n d e n t as t o t h e m o t h e r o n l y b a s e d on a s t i p u l a t i o n . t h e r e were c r i m i n a l parties" were restrained was a w a r d e d t o S.R. 2004, children However, due t o t h e f a c t that charges pending a g a i n s t the f a t h e r , " a l l c h i l d r e n and t h e f a t h e r , 20, petitions domestic violence m o t h e r and t h e f a t h e r , that 30, County Department o f ("the m o t h e r " ) d i d n o t t a k e m e d i c a t i o n t o c o n t r o l mental i l l n e s s , the the Jefferson from a l l o w i n g and p h y s i c a l contact between the custody of the c h i l d r e n ("the m a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r " ) . On A u g u s t the j u v e n i l e court entered an order d e p e n d e n t as t o t h e f a t h e r ; h o w e v e r , finding the the juvenile c o u r t awarded p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d r e n t o t h e f a t h e r . In an amended j u d g m e n t , t h e j u v e n i l e 1 court ordered both the The juvenile c o u r t n o t e d i n i t s judgment t h a t t h e d o m e s t i c - v i o l e n c e charges p e n d i n g a g a i n s t t h e f a t h e r had been d i s m i s s e d and t h a t an i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f a l l e g a t i o n s o f s e x u a l abuse b y t h e f a t h e r h a d b e e n " u n s u b s t a n t i a t e d . " 1 2 2110493 m o t h e r and t h e f a t h e r t o s u b m i t t o a p s y c h o l o g i c a l to p a r t i c i p a t e i n counseling, and s u i t a b l e housing employment. The record indicates a l l e g a t i o n s of sexual 25, and t o m a i n t a i n evaluation, that the abuse a g a i n s t children the juvenile court found the children g r a n t e d c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d r e n t o DHR. f a t h e r were a w a r d e d v i s i t a t i o n w i t h b y DHR. The further t h e f a t h e r , and on M a r c h 2005, when K.K. was f i v e y e a r s o l d and D.K. old, made was f o u r years dependent and The m o t h e r and t h e the c h i l d r e n , c h i l d r e n were n e v e r r e t u r n e d supervised to the custody of the mother o r t h e f a t h e r . A t t h e t e r m i n a t i o n - o f - p a r e n t a l - r i g h t s h e a r i n g i n December 2011, Tessa Terrell, a caseworker with DHR who had been i n v o l v e d i n t h i s c a s e s i n c e 2005, t e s t i f i e d t h a t DHR h a d a s k e d the f a t h e r t o complete p a r e n t i n g complete a p s y c h o l o g i c a l testing. father claimed Terrell had not evaluation, testified completed classes, attend that, any of counseling, and p a r t i c i p a t e i n d r u g as o f December 2011, those goals. The the father t h a t he h a d c o m p l e t e d t h o s e g o a l s b u t c o u l d n o t o f f e r any e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t h i s c l a i m s . On May 17, 2005, t h e a t t o r n e y 3 who had been a p p o i n t e d t o 2110493 represent that The t h e f a t h e r f i l e d a m o t i o n t o w i t h d r a w and another attorney juvenile Although court be appointed granted that on the motion requested father's on May behalf. 18, 2005. t h e r e i s no o r d e r a p p o i n t i n g a n o t h e r a t t o r n e y f o r t h e f a t h e r i n the r e c o r d , the r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t the f a t h e r an attorney present at the c o u r t on O c t o b e r 3, On October children, motion children. 21, and E.N., to 2005, intervene On 3 indicating attorney at J a n u a r y 4, a and J a n u a r y 5, that a remained the the j u v e n i l e the great-aunt of the petition 2006, t h e for vested hearing DHR the custody of was that present was and the a the j u v e n i l e court entered father with of children, filed a with an conducted on P u r s u a n t t o t h a t judgment, custody r e s t r a i n e d f r o m a l l o w i n g any the B.N., dispositional 2006. before 2 the g r e a t - u n c l e judgment children 2005. next hearing had of parties the were c o n t a c t b e t w e e n t h e c h i l d r e n and father. At the f i n a l hearing i n December 2011, the father i n d i c a t e d t h a t he had h i r e d an a t t o r n e y t o r e p r e s e n t him i n the dependency p r o c e e d i n g . However, t h e r e i s no n o t i c e o f appearance f i l e d by t h a t a t t o r n e y i n the r e c o r d . 2 B.N. and E.N. a r e t h e a u n t and u n c l e o f t h e f a t h e r . r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e f a t h e r was r a i s e d b y B.N. 3 4 The 2110493 D u r i n g t h e o r e t e n u s h e a r i n g i n December 2011, testified t h a t , upon t h e advice come b a c k t o c o u r t f o r a l m o s t that the January f a t h e r d i d not 2006 t h r o u g h o f h i s a t t o r n e y , he three years. v i s i t or January the f a t h e r 2010 contact I t was the did not undisputed children and t h a t he d i d n o t from provide any f i n a n c i a l o r m a t e r i a l s u p p o r t f o r t h e c h i l d r e n d u r i n g t h a t time. was However, t h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e f a t h e r ' s a b s e n c e not the result of the no-contact f i n a l h e a r i n g i n December 2011, n o t know t h e r e was order because, at the t h e f a t h e r c l a i m e d t h a t he d i d a no-contact order entered u n t i l l a t e 2010. T e r r e l l t e s t i f i e d t h a t she had no c o n t a c t w i t h t h e f a t h e r f r o m 2006 t h r o u g h 2010. i n 2006, t h e f a t h e r moved f r o m T r u s s v i l l e t o M i s s o u r i . On A p r i l 28, after conducting father was judgment court left entered indicated father not was conducted that The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t , a t some p o i n t 2006, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t e n t e r e d a j u d g m e n t a permanency/dispositional present, the but h i s a t t o r n e y was no-contact another judgment n e i t h e r the present order at on O c t o b e r 17, a on hearing. present. i n place. October f a t h e r nor an 20, The attorney 5 The The juvenile 2006, permanency/dispositional 2006. The which for the hearing judgment s t a t e d t h a t the 2110493 father had not s u b m i t t e d ordered. judgment Another The was t o a p s y c h o l o g i c a l e v a l u a t i o n as no-contact continued, provision a n d no j u d g m e n t was e n t e r e d permanency h e a r i n g . of other the January changes on December 2006 were 9, 2006, made. after a T h e r e i s no 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 f a t h e r o r an a t t o r n e y r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e f a t h e r was p r e s e n t at that hearing. April No c h a n g e s t o p r e v i o u s o r d e r s were made. 13, 2007, E.N. custody of the children. h e a r i n g was c o n d u c t e d judgment a n d B.N. w i t h d r e w awarded Another court on S e p t e m b e r 26, 2007, a n d a physical continued f a t h e r and t h e c h i l d r e n . had petition for dispositional/permanency custody o f K.K. g r a n d m o t h e r , b u t c u s t o d y o f D.K. r e m a i n e d juvenile their On the no-contact subsequent t o the maternal v e s t e d i n DHR. order The between t h e T e r r e l l t e s t i f i e d t h a t D.K. a n d K.K. t o be p l a c e d i n s e p a r a t e homes b e c a u s e t h e y were acting o u t s e x u a l l y w i t h one a n o t h e r . On O c t o b e r 4, 2007, DHR f i l e d a p e t i t i o n t o t e r m i n a t e t h e p a r e n t a l r i g h t s o f t h e mother and t h e f a t h e r t o t h e c h i l d r e n . On F e b r u a r y 4, 2008, custody o f K.K. another motion the maternal t o DHR. On to intervene grandmother August 28, 2008, and r e q u e s t e d 6 relinquished B.N. custody filed of the 2110493 children. On O c t o b e r 8, 2008, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t c o n d u c t e d a dispositional custody hearing o f K.K. and t o B.N. subsequently a n d E.N., Missouri. The j u v e n i l e c o u r t visitation w i t h K.K. father o r an hearing. awarded who physical are residents awarded t h e f a t h e r of supervised T h e r e i s no i n d i c a t i o n t h a t e i t h e r t h e attorney on h i s behalf was present at the On December 19, 2008, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r a p p o i n t i n g an a t t o r n e y t o r e p r e s e n t t h e f a t h e r , and t h e t e r m i n a t i o n - o f - p a r e n t a l - r i g h t s h e a r i n g was s c h e d u l e d f o r A p r i l 2009. On April 13, 2009, the j u v e n i l e court conducted pretrial hearing father, was entered a judgment a w a r d i n g t h e f a t h e r s u p e r v i s e d with a a t which the f a t h e r ' s attorney, but not the present, the c h i l d r e n . and t h e j u v e n i l e The permanency/dispositional juvenile court court subsequently visitation conducted another h e a r i n g on J a n u a r y 4, 2010. A t t h a t h e a r i n g , DHR made an o r a l m o t i o n t o be r e l i e v e d o f i t s d u t y t o make reasonable efforts to reunite the c h i l d r e n with the father due t o abandonment. The j u v e n i l e c o u r t g r a n t e d motion i n a judgment d a t e d January indicates 5, 2010. t h a t t h e f a t h e r was n o t p r e s e n t 7 that The j u d g m e n t a t t h e J a n u a r y 4, 2110493 2010, h e a r i n g b u t t h a t h i s a t t o r n e y was p r e s e n t . The j u d g m e n t n o t e d t h a t s e r v i c e b y p u b l i c a t i o n h a d b e e n p e r f e c t e d on t h e f a t h e r and t h a t t h e f a t h e r h a d a b a n d o n e d t h e c h i l d r e n b e c a u s e he h a d n o t h a d any s i g n i f i c a n t a period entered of a father. over four no-contact contact w i t h the c h i l d r e n f o r months. order The f a t h e r was The between ordered juvenile the a month juvenile awarded p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y B.N. court The judgment beginning noted objection of the f a t h e r ' s At B.N. the f i n a l testified children approximately that i n December had a l l o w e d four times c o u r t ' s J a n u a r y 2010 n o - c o n t a c t F e b r u a r y 2010. children B.N. during claimed their h i s wife visits i n Missouri. r e c e i v e d an i n j u r y i n the The t o E.N. entered and over the 2011, the f a t h e r and the f a t h e r to v i s i t the in violation order of the trial i n J a n u a r y and p a r t o f t h a t she c l o s e l y s u p e r v i s e d t h e with the f a t h e r . r e v e a l s t h a t t h e f a t h e r had r e m a r r i e d with the 1, 2010. o f D.K. i t was and support on F e b r u a r y again attorney. hearing t h a t B.N. children t o pay c h i l d amount o f $237 court The record and h a d t h r e e c h i l d r e n record to her face while The indicates that living i n Missouri K.K. and t h a t she h a d a c c u s e d t h e f a t h e r ' s w i f e o f c a u s i n g t h e i n j u r y . 8 2110493 B a s e d on t h a t a l l e g a t i o n , DHR b e g a n i n v e s t i g a t i n g t h e i n c i d e n t and apparently have c o n t a c t court's learned with January children were B.N. had a l l o w e d the c h i l d r e n i n v i o l a t i o n 2010 order. returned placed in foster return t o Alabama, abuse p e r p e t r a t e d that The record t o Alabama care. According the f a t h e r of the j u v e n i l e indicates that i n late October to T e r r e l l , upon them b y t h e f a t h e r , E.N., the 2010 t h e c h i l d r e n made a l l e g a t i o n s o f against to and their sexual and B.N. The c h i l d r e n s t a t e d t h a t t h e f a t h e r h a d t o u c h e d t h e i r " p r i v a t e area," that E.N. and B.N. had f o r c e d them have i n t e r c o u r s e , and t h a t E.N. the c h i l d r e n t o watch and B.N. had f o r c e d t o have i n t e r c o u r s e w i t h h e r e i g h t - y e a r - o l d h a l f b r o t h e r was i n t h e c u s t o d y o f E.N. On October 22, 2010, and filed custody filed a third motion of the c h i l d r e n . a second motion who B.N. the motion for On November 30, 2010, E.N. v i s i t a t i o n with the c h i l d r e n . B.N. K.K. father and to intervene On January for visitation filed a and a p e t i t i o n f o r 12, 2011, with the the father children, a l l e g i n g t h a t h i s f i r s t m o t i o n h a d been h e l d i n a b e y a n c e w h i l e he waited service. f o r information On M a r c h from Missouri's child-protective 15, 2011, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t 9 entered an 2110493 order was awarding the f a t h e r v i s i t a t i o n t o be " s t r i c t l y with the children that s u p e r v i s e d " b y DHR " t o be s e t up as soon as p o s s i b l e . " On May 2, 2 0 1 1 , t h e f a t h e r f i l e d a m o t i o n f o r v i s i t a t i o n , i n d i c a t i n g t h a t DHR h a d n o t s c h e d u l e d with the c h i l d r e n . visitation to a time f o r him t o v i s i t The f a t h e r f i l e d an i d e n t i c a l on J u l y 5, 2 0 1 1 . DHR s u b s e q u e n t l y motion f o r f i l e d a motion suspend t h e f a t h e r ' s 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 i n l i g h t of t h e f a c t t h a t , d u r i n g c o u n s e l i n g i n Alabama, t h e c h i l d r e n had d i s c l o s e d sexual and B.N. w h i l e conducting abuse p e r p e t r a t e d t h e c h i l d r e n were l i v i n g a different The t h e c a s e was t r a n s f e r r e d j u v e n i l e - c o u r t judge. j u v e n i l e court conducted DHR's p e t i t i o n t o t e r m i n a t e and i n Missouri. After a h e a r i n g , t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t g r a n t e d DHR's m o t i o n on A u g u s t 12, 2 0 1 1 . On t h e same day, to b y t h e f a t h e r , E.N., an o r e t e n u s hearing on t h e p a r e n t a l r i g h t s o f t h e mother t h e f a t h e r on December 5 a n d 6, 2 0 1 1 . A t t h e c o n c l u s i o n o f t h e f i n a l h e a r i n g , E.N. a n d B.N. w i t h d r e w t h e i r r e q u e s t custody of the c h i l d r e n . court entered On F e b r u a r y for 6, 2012, t h e j u v e n i l e an o r d e r t e r m i n a t i n g t h e p a r e n t a l r i g h t s o f t h e mother and t h e f a t h e r t o t h e c h i l d r e n . 10 The j u v e n i l e court 2110493 found the c h i l d r e n dependent p u r s u a n t to § 12-15-102(8), A l a . Code 1975; provide f a t h e r had failed to f o r t h e m a t e r i a l needs o f t h e c h i l d r e n , had failed to failed to maintain f o u n d t h a t t h e m o t h e r and regular v i s i t a t i o n with maintain consistent children, and had maintenance of the contact failed the the or to c h i l d r e n , had communication provide for with care the the and c h i l d r e n pursuant to § 12-15-319(a), A l a . Code 1975; f o u n d t h a t t h e f a t h e r and t h e m o t h e r were u n a b l e t o discharge their found that m o t h e r was the the responsibilities c o n d u c t and to and condition of for the the children; father s u c h as t o r e n d e r them u n a b l e t o p r o p e r l y c h i l d r e n and t o change i n t h e t h a t s u c h c o n d u c t o r c o n d i t i o n was future; a b i d e by t h e o r d e r s found t h a t the f a t h e r had o f t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ; and and the care for unlikely failed found t h a t to the f a t h e r had an open c a s e c o n c e r n i n g abuse a n d / o r n e g l e c t o f h i s other children in Missouri. I n a d d i t i o n , the found, pursuant to § 12-15-319(b), A l a . f a t h e r had abandoned the f o u r months and t h a t DHR 4, 2010. The Code 1975, children for a period court that the o f more t h a n had b e e n r e l i e v e d o f i t s d u t y t o make reasonable e f f o r t s to r e u n i t e the January juvenile juvenile 11 f a t h e r and court also the children found that on the 2110493 f a t h e r h a d made no e f f o r t t o a d j u s t h i s c i r c u m s t a n c e s the needs of the children DHR i n accordance and t h e o r d e r s with t o meet agreements reached with of the juvenile Finally, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t f o u n d t h a t t h e r e were no s u i t a b l e relative resources willing children and t h a t there or able were no t o take postjudgment appeal. motion, the father custody viable terminating the father's parental rights. timely court. of the alternatives Without filed to filing a a notice of 4 Our s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w o f a j u d g m e n t t e r m i n a t i n g p a r e n t a l r i g h t s i s w e l l s e t t l e d . "A j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s f a c t u a l based on parental ore tenus rights evidence, a r e presumed in a judgment findings, terminating t o be c o r r e c t a n d w i l l n o t be d i s t u r b e d u n l e s s t h e y a r e p l a i n l y a n d p a l p a b l y w r o n g . " J.C. v. S t a t e Dep't o f Human R e s . , 986 So. 2d 1172, 1183 ( A l a . App. to 2007). undisputed However, Civ. a t r i a l court's a p p l i c a t i o n of the law f a c t s i s not given a presumption of correctness on a p p e a l , a n d t h i s c o u r t a p p l i e s a de novo s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w to questions o f l a w . See J.A. v. C.M., 93 So. 3d 953, 954 T h e m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d a t t h e f i n a l h e a r i n g t h a t s h e was not 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 , and she d i d n o t f i l e a notice of appeal. 4 12 2110493 (Ala. C i v . App. 2 0 1 2 ) . On court appeal, lost petition the father subject-matter to terminate repealed court January did not 1, have jurisdiction to the j u v e n i l e rule on DHR's r i g h t s when the Child ("the C P A " ) , see f o r m e r 2 6 - 1 8 - 1 , A l a . and r e p l a c e d b y t h e A l a b a m a J u s t i c e A c t ("the A J J A " ) , effective argues that his parental P r o t e c t i o n A c t o f 1984 Code 1975, was first Juvenile § 12-15-101 e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1975, 2009. He contends that jurisdiction to enter the j u v e n i l e the judgment t e r m i n a t i n g h i s p a r e n t a l r i g h t s b e c a u s e DHR f i l e d i t s p e t i t i o n to terminate but h i s p a r e n t a l r i g h t s w h i l e t h e CPA was i n e f f e c t , the judgment entered contends jurisdiction We terminate the juvenile r i g h t s was not court was commenced u n d e r t h e as t o a l l t h e f a t h e r ' s a r g u m e n t s . we n o t e t h a t no p r o v i s i o n o f t h e CPA upon a j u v e n i l e c o u r t parental rights. to terminate without t h e j u d g m e n t b e c a u s e t h e A J J A does n o t provision for actions disagree Initially, jurisdiction that to enter a "saving [CPA]." petition his parental u n t i l a f t e r t h e CPA h a d been r e p e a l e d b y t h e A J J A . He further contain terminating conferred t o r u l e on a p e t i t i o n I n O c t o b e r 2007, when DHR the father's 13 parental rights, to filed a former 2110493 Ala. Code 1975, § 1 2 - 1 5 - 3 0 ( b ) ( 6 ) , c o n f e r r e d e x c l u s i v e jurisdiction upon t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t s t o c o n d u c t of-parental-rights proceedings. original termination- S e c t i o n 12-15-30(b)(6) amended a n d r e n u m b e r e d b y A c t 2008-277, § 3, c o d i f i e d 15-114, A l a . Code 1975, p a r t o f t h e A J J A , e f f e c t i v e 2009. was as § 12¬ J a n u a r y 1, L i k e former § 12-15-30(b)(6), § 12-15-114(c)(2), A l a . Code 1975, c o n f e r s upon t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t s e x c l u s i v e jurisdiction rights. over Although exclusive proceedings f o r termination of the statute providing original jurisdiction original parental the j u v e n i l e over courts proceedings for termination of parental rights was amended a n d r e n u m b e r e d b y t h e A J J A w h i l e DHR's p e t i t i o n i n this c a s e was p e n d i n g , t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t never l o s t s u b j e c t - m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n DHR's p e t i t i o n father cites 471 (1917) (1878)), t o hear to terminate the father's parental rights. The C o k e r v . F o u n t a i n , 200 A l a . 95, 95, 75 So. 4 7 1 , ( q u o t i n g R a i l r o a d Co. v. G r a n t , f o r the proposition that 98 U.S. 398, 401 " ' i fa law conferring j u r i s d i c t i o n i s r e p e a l e d w i t h o u t any r e s e r v a t i o n as t o p e n d i n g cases, a l l such cases f a l l w i t h t h e law.'" above, § 12-15-30(b)(6) was amended r e p l a c e d by § 12-15-114(c)(2). 14 However, as n o t e d and renumbered, i . e . , A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e r e was n e v e r 2110493 a time that the j u v e n i l e court jurisdiction to rule father's parental Next, the incorrectly d i d n o t have on DHR's petition subject-matter t o terminate the rights. father applied argues that the juvenile court t h e law t o t h e f a c t s because i t a p p l i e d the provisions of the AJJA i n s t e a d of the p r o v i s i o n s CPA i n t h e judgment t e r m i n a t i n g h i s p a r e n t a l r i g h t s . the record indicates that the father i s correct of the Although i n stating t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t a p p l i e d t h e A J J A t o DHR's p e t i t i o n , we cannot consider h i s argument b e c a u s e t h e f a t h e r i s r a i s i n g i t for the f i r s t t i m e on a p p e a l . See Andrews v . M e r r i t t O i l Co., 612 So. 2d 409, 410 ( A l a . 1992) ( t h i s c o u r t may n o t c o n s i d e r arguments t h a t a r e p r e s e n t e d f o r t h e f i r s t The father court's also specific evidence. juvenile findings Within court erred several of the j u v e n i l e o f f a c t a r e not supported by t h e by f a i l i n g to provide him w i t h court- throughout t h e dependency and t e r m i n a t i o n - of-parental-rights concedes that appeal). t h a t argument, t h e f a t h e r contends t h a t t h e appointed counsel father contends t i m e on proceedings. that In h i s reply he d i d n o t r a i s e t h i s However, he a r g u e s t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s 15 brief, argument the below. error should be 2110493 considered failed the because to provide the j u v e n i l e court's f o r the m a i n t e n a n c e , and c h i l d r e n i s i n e q u i t a b l e i n l i g h t of the children. We disagree. provided during the any father was when I t was undisputed or t h a t the f a t h e r maintenance y e a r s t h a t the for the business moved had been approximately have that children out d u r i n g most o f t h e t i m e i n q u e s t i o n , the by an attorney. to Missouri Furthermore, the the business and that, up until good" "real[ly] $35,000 a y e a r . concluded had c h i l d r e n were represented he of the f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t he p u r c h a s e d a t r e e - r e m o v a l 2006 support did one-half o f h i s c u s t o d y , and, he f a c t t h a t he support s i x and that a t t o r n e y t e l l i n g him t o s u p p o r t n o t have a c o u r t - a p p o i n t e d not care, conclusion and he had 2011, earned Thus, the j u v e n i l e c o u r t f a t h e r had the f o r m o f s u p p o r t f r o m 2006 t h r o u g h 2010 ability and in could t o pay some t h a t he d i d n o t do so. The f a t h e r a l s o argues t h a t the j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g t h a t he had v o l u n t a r i l y a b a n d o n e d t h e c h i l d r e n b e c a u s e he no m e a n i n g f u l c o n t a c t than the w i t h the f o u r months i s " l e g a l l y applicable law, had c h i l d r e n f o r a p e r i o d o f more insufficient." i . e . , the 16 CPA, required He argues a that finding of 2110493 abandonment f o r a p e r i o d o f s i x m o n t h s . The f a t h e r makes t h e 5 same a r g u m e n t t h a t was a d d r e s s e d above that the j u v e n i l e c o u r t e r r e d by a p p l y i n g t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e A J J A i n s t e a d o f t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e CPA to f u r t h e r consider and, as we d i d b e f o r e , we d e c l i n e t h e argument b e c a u s e t h e f a t h e r f a i l e d t o r a i s e i t b e l o w . See A n d r e w s , The father further supra. argues that the juvenile court's f i n d i n g s t h a t he h a d a b a n d o n e d t h e c h i l d r e n were n o t s u p p o r t e d by t h e e v i d e n c e b e c a u s e t h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t e d t h a t he was u n d e r a n o - c o n t a c t o r d e r f o r more t h a n s i x months n e x t p r e c e d i n g filing of the p e t i t i o n Thus, he contends, to termination both the his parental January 2010 the rights. finding of abandonment a n d t h e F e b r u a r y 2012 f i n d i n g o f abandonment, as well as t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s finding that he h a d f a i l e d to Former § 26-18-7(b), A l a . Code 1975, p r o v i d e d a r e b u t t a b l e p r e s u m p t i o n t h a t a p a r e n t was u n w i l l i n g o r u n a b l e t o a c t as a p a r e n t i f t h e p a r e n t a b a n d o n e d t h e c h i l d f o r a p e r i o d o f s i x months n e x t p r e c e d i n g t h e f i l i n g o f a p e t i t i o n t o t e r m i n a t e p a r e n t a l r i g h t s . S e c t i o n 1 2 - 1 5 - 3 1 9 ( b ) , A l a . Code 1975, p a r t o f t h e A J J A , m o d i f i e d f o r m e r § 2 6 - 1 8 - 7 ( b ) so t h a t t h a t r e b u t t a b l e p r e s u m p t i o n i s c r e a t e d when a p a r e n t abandons a c h i l d f o r a p e r i o d o f f o u r months n e x t p r e c e d i n g t h e f i l i n g of a p e t i t i o n t o t e r m i n a t e p a r e n t a l r i g h t s . However, t h e CPA had, a n d t h e A J J A h a s , a p r o v i s i o n t h a t a l l o w s a j u v e n i l e c o u r t t o c o n s i d e r abandonment as a g r o u n d f o r t e r m i n a t i n g p a r e n t a l r i g h t s absent c o n s i d e r a t i o n of a s p e c i f i c p e r i o d of abandonment. See f o r m e r § 2 6 - 1 8 - 7 ( a ) ( 1 ) , A l a . Code 1975, a n d § 1 2 - 1 5 - 3 1 9 ( a ) ( 1 ) , A l a . Code 1975. 5 17 2110493 maintain consistent contact c h i l d r e n , are erroneous. that those order, visitation with the Even i f we assume, w i t h o u t d e c i d i n g , f i n d i n g s are erroneous because o f t h e no-contact despite approximately children and r e g u l a r t h e f a c t t h a t t h e f a t h e r a d m i t t e d t h a t he went four years without when he was s u p p o s e d l y o r d e r had been e n t e r e d , contacting unaware that DHR a or the no-contact t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t made o t h e r findings of f a c t t h a t a r e s u p p o r t e d by 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 the record the that provide juvenile parental In juvenile court's rights. for affirming judgment the terminating father's 6 determining court two i n d e p e n d e n t b a s e s whether i s required c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g t o terminate t o apply parental a two-prong rights, a t e s t : "(1) e v i d e n c e must s u p p o r t a f i n d i n g t h a t t h e T h e f a t h e r a l s o a r g u e s t h a t t h e J a n u a r y 5, 2010, j u d g m e n t f i n d i n g t h a t he h a d a b a n d o n e d t h e c h i l d r e n was v o i d f o r want o f due p r o c e s s b e c a u s e he was n o t g i v e n n o t i c e t h a t DHR w o u l d attempt t o a d j u d i c a t e a f i n d i n g o f abandonment a t t h a t hearing. Even i f we assume t h a t t h e J a n u a r y 5, 2010, j u d g m e n t i s v o i d i n s o f a r as i t f o u n d t h a t t h e f a t h e r h a d a b a n d o n e d t h e c h i l d r e n , we c a n s t i l l a f f i r m 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 on the independent bases, d i s c u s s e d i n f r a . Furthermore, the f a t h e r does n o t a r g u e on a p p e a l t h a t DHR h a d a d u t y t o make r e a s o n a b l e e f f o r t s t o r e h a b i l i t a t e him and t h a t i t f a i l e d t o do s o . See Brown v. W a l - M a r t S t o r e s , I n c . , 864 So. 2d 1100, 1104 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2002) ("We w i l l n o t r e v e r s e a t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t b a s e d ... on a r g u m e n t s n o t made t o t h i s court."). 6 18 2110493 c h i l d i s d e p e n d e n t ; and and reject parental C i v . App. a l l viable rights." 2004) (Ala. 1990)). must B.M. c o u r t must p r o p e r l y a l t e r n a t i v e s to v. State, 895 consider a termination 2d 319, 564 So. 331 of (Ala. 2d 950, 954 j u v e n i l e c o u r t , f o r a f i n d i n g of dependency, whether there are grounds p a r e n t a l r i g h t s . K.A.P. v. ( A l a . C i v . App. So. ( c i t i n g Ex p a r t e B e a s l e y , The consider parent's (2) t h e 2008). D.P., for 11 terminating So. 3d 812, a 817 7 S e c t i o n 12-15-319, A l a . Code 1975, grounds f o r t e r m i n a t i n g a parent's p r o v i d e s the s t a t u t o r y p a r e n t a l r i g h t s and states as f o l l o w s : "(a) I f t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t f i n d s f r o m c l e a r and convincing evidence, competent, material, and r e l e v a n t i n nature, t h a t the p a r e n t s of a c h i l d are unable or unwilling to discharge their r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s t o and f o r t h e c h i l d , o r t h a t t h e conduct or c o n d i t i o n of the p a r e n t s renders them I n the f i n a l judgment, the j u v e n i l e c o u r t found the c h i l d r e n d e p e n d e n t , f o u n d c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e t o support s t a t u t o r y grounds for terminating the father's parental rights, and found that there were no viable a l t e r n a t i v e s t o t e r m i n a t i n g the f a t h e r ' s p a r e n t a l r i g h t s . The f a t h e r does n o t c h a l l e n g e t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g o f dependency or i t s finding that there were no viable a l t e r n a t i v e s to terminating h i s p a r e n t a l r i g h t s . Accordingly, t h o s e a r g u m e n t s a r e w a i v e d . See G a r y v. C r o u c h , 923 So. 2d 1130, 1136 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2005) ( " [ T ] h i s c o u r t i s c o n f i n e d i n i t s r e v i e w t o a d d r e s s i n g t h e a r g u m e n t s r a i s e d by t h e p a r t i e s i n t h e i r b r i e f s on a p p e a l ; a r g u m e n t s n o t r a i s e d by t h e p a r t i e s are waived."). 7 19 2110493 u n a b l e t o p r o p e r l y c a r e f o r t h e c h i l d and t h a t t h e c o n d u c t o r c o n d i t i o n i s u n l i k e l y t o change i n t h e f o r e s e e a b l e f u t u r e , i t may t e r m i n a t e t h e p a r e n t a l r i g h t s of the p a r e n t s . In d e t e r m i n i n g whether or not the p a r e n t s are unable or u n w i l l i n g t o d i s c h a r g e t h e i r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s t o and f o r t h e c h i l d and t o terminate the p a r e n t a l r i g h t s , the j u v e n i l e c o u r t s h a l l c o n s i d e r the f o l l o w i n g f a c t o r s i n c l u d i n g , but not l i m i t e d t o , the f o l l o w i n g " Section 12-15-319 subsections Subsection the to be then considered provide f o r the f a t h e r was court to maintain consider subsection whether m a t e r i a l needs o f portion of support consider whether for numbered to consider consistent the subsection c o n s i d e r whether the (12) failed t o pay children, where failed subsection the to to a the maintain (11) allows the father failed to communication with the r e q u i r e s the j u v e n i l e c o u r t t o f a t h e r demonstrated a l a c k of e f f o r t adjust h i s circumstances accordance w i t h or father the (10) a l l o w s t h e j u v e n i l e whether contact (9) a l l o w s c h i l d r e n or father w i t h the c h i l d r e n ; court c h i l d r e n ; and the the the a b l e t o do s o ; s u b s e c t i o n regular v i s i t s juvenile 12 whether children; the of (1) a l l o w s t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t t o c o n s i d e r to by list court. court reasonable a juvenile f a t h e r abandoned the juvenile provides to t o meet t h e needs o f t h e c h i l d r e n i n agreements reached with 20 DHR. See § 12-15- 2110493 319(a)(1), In (9), (10), i t s judgment, (11), and ( 1 2 ) . the j u v e n i l e 8 court found that the f a t h e r ' s p a r e n t a l r i g h t s were due t o be t e r m i n a t e d b e c a u s e t h e father was unable responsibilities finding, with unwilling to discharge To s u p p o r t t o and f o r t h e c h i l d r e n . his that t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t made f i n d i n g s o f f a c t c o n s i s t e n t subsections 319(a), or listed (1), ( 9 ) , ( 1 0 ) , ( 1 1 ) , a n d (12) o f § 12-15- above. However, on a p p e a l , t h e f a t h e r argues that the j u v e n i l e court's findings r e l a t e d to only (1), (9), have already evidence subsections ( 1 0 ) , a n d (11) a r e u n s u p p o r t e d b y t h e e v i d e n c e . concluded t o support that there a finding was c l e a r that, pursuant We and c o n v i n c i n g to subsection (9), the f a t h e r had f a i l e d t o p r o v i d e f o r t h e m a t e r i a l needs of t h e c h i l d r e n o r t o pay a reasonable p o r t i o n of support f o r the c h i l d r e n when he was a b l e least four years. Furthermore, t h e f a t h e r does i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence pursuant t o do so f o r a p e r i o d o f a t t o support to subsection (12), n o t argue that there the j u v e n i l e court's i . e . , that was finding t h e f a t h e r made no F o r p u r p o s e s o f c o m p a r i s o n w i t h t h e CPA, s e e f o r m e r § 261 8 - 7 ( a ) ( 1 ) a n d ( b ) ( 1 ) - ( 4 ) , w h i c h a r e n e a r l y i d e n t i c a l t o § 121 5 - 3 1 9 ( a ) ( 1 ) , ( 9 ) , ( 1 0 ) , (11), and ( 1 2 ) . 8 21 2110493 effort to adjust children Terrell been with h i s c i r c u m s t a n c e s t o meet t h e needs o f t h e i n accordance testified involved DHR's that, with submit agreements i n almost the family, requirements evaluation, counseling with to and p a r e n t i n g seven years the father that drug reached he classes. that DHR. she had had n o t c o m p l i e d obtain testing, with a or psychological participate i n The j u v e n i l e c o u r t was w e l l w i t h i n i t s d i s c r e t i o n t o b e l i e v e T e r r e l l ' s testimony over the father's testimony t o the extent testimony. See J.C. v. S t a t e Accordingly, the Dep't that there was clear support the j u v e n i l e court's parental Res., supra. b y t h e f a t h e r on a p p e a l , and c o n v i n c i n g order we evidence t o terminating the father's r i g h t s p u r s u a n t t o § 12-15-319(a)(9) and (12). Finally, finding o f Human Terrell's even w i t h o u t c o n s i d e r i n g t h e s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g s i n judgment t h a t a r e c h a l l e n g e d conclude t h a t he d i s p u t e d that the father the argues father had that an the juvenile open abuse/neglect of h i s c h i l d r e n i n Missouri case court's concerning was n o t c o m p e t e n t e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t a judgment t e r m i n a t i n g h i s p a r e n t a l r i g h t s because that evidence was dispositional purposes only. hearsay a n d was One e - m a i l 22 from admitted f o r a foster-care 2110493 w o r k e r i n M i s s o u r i t o T e r r e l l t h a t was i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e r e was i n t o evidence a pending i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the b a s e d on an a l l e g a t i o n t h a t he had y e a r - o l d daughter. submitted Even i f we s e x u a l l y abused h i s c o n c l u d e t h a t i t was the j u v e n i l e c o u r t to c o n s i d e r t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n i n whether to terminate the father's d i s c u s s e d a b o v e , t h e r e were two terminating the j u d g m e n t i s due other father's parental t o be parental father three- error for determining rights, as independent grounds f o r rights. Accordingly, the affirmed. AFFIRMED. Thompson, concur. P.J., and Pittman, 23 Thomas, and Moore, JJ.,

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.