D.V. v. Colbert County Department of Human Resources (Appeal from Colbert Circuit Court: JU-08-141.03 and CV-10-107)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 12/14/2012 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o 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 2110590 D.V. v. C o l b e r t County Department o f Human Resources 2110591 W.C.C., S r . v. C o l b e r t County Department o f Human Resources Appeals from C o l b e r t C i r c u i t Court (JU-08-141.03 and CV-10-107) 2110590 a n d 2110591 MOORE, J u d g e . D.V. ("the m o t h e r " ) a n d W.C.C., S r . ("the f a t h e r " ) , s e p a r a t e l y a p p e a l from a judgment o f t h e C o l b e r t C i r c u i t C o u r t terminating child"), their parental rights t o W.C.C., who was b o r n on M a r c h 20, 2008. Jr. ("the We a f f i r m . Background In April Resources Juvenile 2008, the Colbert ("the C o l b e r t Court County County Department DHR") f i l e d ("the j u v e n i l e c o u r t " ) o f Human i n the Colbert a dependency petition a s s e r t i n g t h a t the c h i l d had t e s t e d p o s i t i v e f o r n a r c o t i c s a t his birth place and t h a t by the C o l b e r t That dependency two s a f e t y p l a n s that h a d been p u t i n t o C o u n t y DHR w i t h t h e m o t h e r h a d f a i l e d . a c t i o n was a s s i g n e d case 1 no. JU-08-141.01. The C o l b e r t C o u n t y DHR was a w a r d e d c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d , a n d the c h i l d was p l a c e d w i t h foster parents, l i v e d i n L a u d e r d a l e County. L . S . a n d T.S., who L . S . , t h e f o s t e r f a t h e r , was a t t h a t time and a t a l l times r e l e v a n t t o t h i s a p p e a l employed by the Lauderdale County Department o f Human R e s o u r c e s ("the L a u d e r d a l e C o u n t y DHR"); he s u p e r v i s e s c a s e w o r k e r s a s s i g n e d t o 1 The f a t h e r ' s p a t e r n i t y h a d n o t been a d j u d i c a t e d time. 2 a t that 2110590 and the 2110591 f o s t e r - c a r e and C o u n t y DHR p r o t e c t i v e - c a r e u n i t s i n the office. On J u l y 14, 2009, t h e C o l b e r t C o u n t y DHR seeking to terminate f a t h e r to the c a s e no. filed a petition t h e p a r e n t a l r i g h t s o f t h e m o t h e r and child. T h a t t e r m i n a t i o n p e t i t i o n was the assigned JU-08-141.02. On February juvenile rights Lauderdale court of the 4, 2010, entered mother a and after an judgment the ore tenus terminating father. The hearing, the the parental mother and the f a t h e r s e p a r a t e l y a p p e a l e d from t h a t judgment t o t h i s court. The not juvenile court certified court, as determined a d e q u a t e f o r an that the appeal, record and, as could a result, p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 2 8 ( D ) , A l a . R. Juv. P., the cause to the C o l b e r t C i r c u i t Court ("the circuit for a trial c a s e no. de novo. The circuit-court CV-10-107; however, proceedings the b e f o r e t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t as c a s e no. be this transferred a c t i o n was parties also 2 court") assigned r e f e r to the JU-08-141.03. R.R. and T.R., t h e c h i l d ' s p a t e r n a l a u n t and u n c l e , who had b e e n a l l o w e d t o i n t e r v e n e i n t h e t e r m i n a t i o n a c t i o n i n t h e juvenile court, also f i l e d a n o t i c e of appeal from the F e b r u a r y 4, 2010, j u d g m e n t . 2 3 2110590 a n d 2110591 Beginning i n November 2011 a n d c o n c l u d i n g 2012, t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t c o n d u c t e d a f o u r - d a y ore tenus on t h e C o l b e r t C o u n t y DHR's p e t i t i o n t o t e r m i n a t e rights o f t h e mother and t h e f a t h e r . c i r c u i t court entered dependent; that hearing the parental On M a r c h 8, 2012, the i t s j u d g m e n t f i n d i n g t h a t t h e c h i l d was t h e mother u n w i l l i n g to discharge i n February and t h e f a t h e r were unable or t h e i r d u t i e s t o and f o r t h e c h i l d ; t h a t t h e p a r e n t s ' c o n d u c t o r c o n d i t i o n was u n l i k e l y t o c h a n g e ; t h a t the Colbert County DHR had made reasonable efforts r e h a b i l i t a t e t h e mother and t h e f a t h e r b u t t h a t t h o s e to efforts h a d f a i l e d ; a n d t h a t no v i a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s t o t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e p a r e n t s ' p a r e n t a l r i g h t s e x i s t e d t h a t w o u l d p r o m o t e o r be consistent with the c h i l d ' s best for permanency. appealed. 3 Both t h e mother and t h e f a t h e r timely We have c o n s o l i d a t e d t h e a p p e a l s . 2110590 The i n t e r e s t s o r f o s t e r h i s need mother appeals, The M o t h e r ' s A p p e a l arguing that the evidence at t r i a l was i n s u f f i c i e n t t o e s t a b l i s h g r o u n d s f o r t e r m i n a t i o n a n d t h e lack of a v i a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e t o termination of her parental On M a r c h 23, 2012, t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t e n t e r e d an amended j u d g m e n t , m a k i n g c l e r i c a l c o r r e c t i o n s t o t h e M a r c h 8, 2012, j u d g m e n t , p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 6 0 ( a ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. 3 4 2110590 and rights. 2110591 The mother also maintains e r r e d i n r e c e i v i n g e v i d e n c e f r o m DHR had a patent c o n f l i c t of that the circuit w o r k e r s who, court she a l l e g e s , interest. Grounds f o r Termination S e c t i o n 12-15-319, A l a . Code 1975, Juvenile J u s t i c e Act ("the Code 1975, in pertinent part: provides, AJJA"), a p a r t of the Alabama § 12-15-101 e t s e q . , Ala. "(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 c o n d u c t o r c o n d i t i o n o f t h e p a r e n t s r e n d e r s them 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 to 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 : " "(2) ... e x c e s s i v e use o f a l c o h o l c o n t r o l l e d substances, of a d u r a t i o n n a t u r e as t o r e n d e r t h e p a r e n t u n a b l e c a r e f o r needs o f t h e c h i l d . " The mother terminated County DHR contends that the circuit h e r p a r e n t a l r i g h t s b e c a u s e , she based i t s petition 5 solely on or or to court improperly says, her the Colbert alleged drug 2110590 a n d 2110591 dependency, continuing which, she a t the time claims, was not proven of the t r i a l . C n t y . Dep't o f Human Res., See D.O. 859 So. 2d 439, t o be v. C a l h o u n 444 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2003) ( " e v i d e n c e o f c u r r e n t c o n d i t i o n s o r c o n d u c t r e l a t i n g t o a parent's children inability i s implicit or unwillingness t o care for his orher i n the requirement that termination of p a r e n t a l r i g h t s be b a s e d on c l e a r a n d c o n v i n c i n g The child undisputed evidence"). evidence i n the record i n d i c a t e s that the t e s t e d p o s i t i v e f o r methadone a n d m a r i j u a n a a t b i r t h , indicating that pregnant. hospitalized t h e mother Following had his used birth, f o r two weeks t o d e a l exposure t o n a r c o t i c s i n utero. those the with drugs child while remained the e f f e c t s of h i s A f t e r t h a t two-week p e r i o d , t h e m o t h e r moved i n w i t h t h e f a t h e r u n d e r t h e s u p e r v i s i o n o f W.R., plan one o f t h e m o t h e r ' s m a t e r n a l a u n t s , p u r s u a n t t o a s a f e t y d e v e l o p e d by t h e C o l b e r t County DHR. r e p o r t s o f g u n f i r e i n t h e home f r o m W.R., After receiving the Colbert County DHR i m p l e m e n t e d a new s a f e t y p l a n r e q u i r i n g t h e m o t h e r a n d t h e child aunts, to reside with without D.T., a n o t h e r o f t h e m o t h e r ' s the father. That p l a n failed, maternal according to C h a s i t y B u t l e r , a C o l b e r t C o u n t y DHR s o c i a l w o r k e r , when t h e 6 2110590 and 2110591 mother the left oldest child, child where D.T. locked c o u l d not p o i n t , t h e C o l b e r t C o u n t y DHR p l a c e d the child i n a bedroom w i t h reach the Da.V., child. took the c h i l d i n t o custody the d i r e c t o r of Turning Leaf a s u b s t a n c e - a b u s e a s s e s s m e n t on t h e m o t h e r a t t h e t h e C o l b e r t C o u n t y DHR. the mother, Geiske intensive and Therapeutic and S o c i a l S e r v i c e P r o v i d e r s , t e s t i f i e d t h a t she had an that i n f o s t e r care. Angel Geiske, in At her performed request of B a s e d on t h e i n f o r m a t i o n p r o v i d e d by concluded t h a t the mother c o u l d p a r t i c i p a t e outpatient-treatment program, but, Geiske t e s t i f i e d , she a l s o had d e t e r m i n e d t h a t , i f t h e m o t h e r was not m a i n t a i n i n g a b s t i n e n c e f r o m o p i a t e s / o p i o i d s and m a r i j u a n a , the m o t h e r w o u l d n e e d t o c o m p l e t e an i n p a t i e n t - t r e a t m e n t p r o g r a m . Geiske t e s t i f i e d t h a t , b a s e d on h e r e v a l u a t i o n , she t h a t t h e m o t h e r was at h i g h r i s k of a d d i c t i v e B u t l e r t e s t i f i e d that, although e n r o l l at the concluded behaviors. t h e m o t h e r had agreed to "Freedom House" i n p a t i e n t - t r e a t m e n t p r o g r a m i n June 2008, t h e m o t h e r e l e c t e d t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n an o u t p a t i e n t treatment program i n s t e a d . The C o l b e r t C o u n t y DHR i n t o evidence a l e t t e r dated A p r i l the program coordinator of 20, 2009, f r o m B e t h Sweat, Freedom House. 7 admitted In that letter, 2110590 2110591 stated Sweat and that, although t h e mother had graduated Freedom House's o u t p a t i e n t p r o g r a m , t h e m o t h e r h a d issues while p a r t i c i p a t i n g failed to report medications a result, obtaining stated repeated that she refills 2009 also and t h a t insisted testified Freedom that the program but t h a t complete completion of mother had recommended the mother and t h e C o l b e r t complete t h e mother an As that the program. had relapsed i n C o u n t y DHR had inpatient-treatment had r e f u s e d , program. pain again Butler choosing testified to that o f an i n p a t i e n t - t r e a t m e n t p r o g r a m r e m a i n e d a p a r t C o u n t y DHR's r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r the mother t h e t e r m i n a t i o n h e a r i n g , b u t , she s a i d , complied with that According she s a i d , testified that programs, one requirement. program w i t h o u t failing a drug she d i d n o t want t o t e s t p o s i t i v e . she up the mother had t o t h e m o t h e r , she c o u l d n o t be a d m i t t e d inpatient-treatment and, House outpatient the C o l b e r t until not an that of on o t h e r o c c a s i o n s . mother complete a r e s i d e n t i a l - r e h a b i l i t a t i o n Butler experienced i n t h e o u t p a t i e n t program and had and u s i n g p a i n m e d i c a t i o n Sweat from had a t Freedom c o m p l e t e d two House 8 and t o an screen, The m o t h e r outpatient-treatment another at "RiverBend." 2110590 a n d 2110591 Records from Turning Leaf, which were introduced e v i d e n c e , e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t Turning Leaf had conducted into 27 d r u g s c r e e n s on t h e m o t h e r b e t w e e n A p r i l 23, 2008, a n d May 5, 2 0 1 1 . A c c o r d i n g t o G e i s k e , n i n e o f t h o s e s c r e e n s had been "specimen positive" f o r some narcotic "inferred positives." drug 4 or drug The r e m a i n i n g and three had been 15 o f t h e m o t h e r ' s 27 s c r e e n s had been n e g a t i v e . The m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t she h a d d i s p u t e d t h e r e s u l t s o f many o f t h o s e 12 p o s i t i v e d r u g s c r e e n s a n d t h a t , as a r e s u l t of what she d e s c r i b e d as r e p e a t e d false positives on those d r u g s c r e e n s , she grew d i s t r u s t f u l o f t h e C o l b e r t C o u n t y DHR's drug s c r e e n e r s . results of the The m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t , t o p r o v e t h a t t h e Colbert County inaccurate, she h a d s u b m i t t e d independent drug screeners come b a c k n e g a t i v e . r e f u s e d t o submit DHR's t o drug drug screens and t h a t t h o s e drug screens were conducted by screens had She a d m i t t e d t h a t , a t some p o i n t , she h a d t o any f u r t h e r d r u g s c r e e n s b y t h e C o l b e r t G e i s k e e x p l a i n e d t h a t an " i n f e r r e d p o s i t i v e " i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e m o t h e r h a d r e f u s e d t o be s c r e e n e d o r h a d n o t r e t u r n e d T u r n i n g L e a f ' s c a l l w i t h i n a c e r t a i n p e r i o d and t h a t , p u r s u a n t to t h e agreement e n t e r e d i n t o by t h e mother, T u r n i n g L e a f i n f e r r e d t h a t she w o u l d have t e s t e d p o s i t i v e i f she h a d submitted t o the t e s t . Geiske t e s t i f i e d t h a t the time a l l o w e d f o r t h e r e t u r n c a l l was s e t b y a g r e e m e n t . 4 9 2110590 and 2110591 C o u n t y DHR's a g e n t , b u t , t h e m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d , to obtain County an DHR mother's wanted one. independently specifically performed independent drug screen by T u r n i n g whenever According to obtained drug t e s t e d f o r methadone as she had o f f e r e d Geiske, the however, screens had the drug not screens Leaf. had to r e h a b i l i t a t e her or to r e u n i t e her w i t h the s i n c e 2009. the had A c c o r d i n g t o t h e m o t h e r , t h e C o l b e r t C o u n t y DHR attempted Colbert not child The m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e C o l b e r t C o u n t y DHR had n o t s o u g h t a d r u g s c r e e n f r o m h e r f o r a t l e a s t s i x months p r e c e d i n g the t e r m i n a t i o n h e a r i n g . The m o t h e r a d m i t t e d t h r e e months b e f o r e t h e t e r m i n a t i o n h e a r i n g , she had a narcotic pain; pain medication she testified, however, m e d i c a t i o n o n l y when n e e d e d . Butler, to "being numerous on times that to her the p h y s i c i a n f o r her that she was taking t h a t t h e m o t h e r had o p i a t e s , which being obtained back that 5 however, t e s t i f i e d back acknowledged from that, an mother she has opiate had a been admitted documented addict." prescription Butler for the I t i s u n c l e a r w h e t h e r t h e m o t h e r ' s t e s t i m o n y was i n t e n d e d t o r e f e r t o t h e November 2011 o r t o t h e F e b r u a r y 2012 h e a r i n g date. 5 10 2110590 and 2110591 o p i a t e s , b u t , B u t l e r t e s t i f i e d , t h a t u s a g e was c o n s i d e r e d be a r e l a p s e b e c a u s e t h e m o t h e r was an o p i a t e a d d i c t . also t e s t i f i e d t h a t the mother had r e f u s e d a t o t a l drug screens May Butler of e i g h t b e t w e e n t h e December 2009 t e r m i n a t i o n h e a r i n g i n t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t and May 2011. of to 2011, the Colbert B u t l e r a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t , as C o u n t y DHR t e c h n i c i a n t o the mother's r e s i d e n c e had stopped sending t o perform drug a screens b e c a u s e o f s a f e t y c o n c e r n s p r o m p t e d by t h e i n t i m i d a t i n g and threatening behaviors o f t h e m o t h e r and h e r p a r a m o u r , w i t h whom t h e m o t h e r was living. Butler explained mother had r e f u s e d t o submit t o a drug s c r e e n February she 2012 at the North that the as r e c e n t l y as Alabama V i s i t a t i o n Center, where circuit court e x e r c i s e d v i s i t a t i o n with the c h i l d . Based reasonably on the foregoing evidence, c o u l d have b e e n c l e a r l y the convinced t h a t t h e mother s u f f e r s f r o m an a d d i c t i o n t o o p i a t e s t h a t h a d d i r e c t l y the L.R., child child while i n utero and that continued t o expose the t o harm e v e n up t o t h e t i m e o f t h e t r i a l . Jefferson Cnty. Dep't ( A l a . C i v . App. 2010) been c l e a r l y convinced o f Human R e s . , 42 So. harmed See M.H. 3d ("If a f a c t - f i n d e r reasonably 1291, v. 1294 c o u l d have from the evidence i n the r e c o r d t h a t a 11 2110590 a n d 2110591 parent i s u n w i l l i n g or unable t o discharge responsibilities reverse ore a judgment t e r m i n a t i n g tenus case."). obtain t o and f o r t h e c h i l d , proceedings in a h i s or her p a r e n t a l this parental court may rights arising not from termination-of-parental-rights The mere f a c t t h a t t h e C o l b e r t C o u n t y DHR d i d n o t a p o s i t i v e d r u g t e s t f r o m t h e m o t h e r s h o w i n g she h a d abused i l l e g a l d r u g s i n t h e two y e a r s p r e c e d i n g i t s p e t i t i o n to terminate the t r i a l on t h e m o t h e r ' s p a r e n t a l r i g h t s , as t h e m o t h e r a r g u e s , does n o t r e q u i r e t h i s c o u r t t o i g n o r e t h e o t h e r e v i d e n c e t e n d i n g t o p r o v e t h a t t h e m o t h e r h a d n o t overcome h e r addiction to legal evidence the drugs circuit by the time court of the t r i a l , obviously found clear which and convincing. The m o t h e r n e v e r t h e l e s s could n o t be t e r m i n a t e d contends t h a t her p a r e n t a l r i g h t s b e c a u s e she i s c u r r e n t l y e x e r c i s i n g c u s t o d y o f h e r two o t h e r c h i l d r e n , one o f w h i c h was b o r n a f t e r the c h i l d , w i t h the a p p r o v a l o f Human R e s o u r c e s o f t h e F r a n k l i n County Department ("the F r a n k l i n C o u n t y DHR"). The m o t h e r a r g u e s t h a t i t w o u l d be i n c o n s i s t e n t f o r t h e S t a t e t o c o n c l u d e t h a t she i s c a p a b l e o f c a r i n g f o r h e r two o t h e r c h i l d r e n w h i l e 12 2110590 a n d 2110591 at t h e same t i m e f i n d i n g h e r i n c a p a b l e o f c a r i n g f o r t h e c h i l d s u c h t h a t h e r p a r e n t a l r i g h t s s h o u l d be t e r m i n a t e d . The evidence relating to that m o t h e r h a s two o t h e r c h i l d r e n L.R., h e r p a r a m o u r , trial. the argument shows who were l i v i n g i n Franklin County that the w i t h h e r and a t the time of the The o l d e r c h i l d was 15 a t t h e t i m e o f t h e t r i a l , a n d younger child DHR was 2. Franklin County children and had p l a c e d According had opened dependency "FOCUS" s u p e r v i s e t h e mother's p a r e n t i n g . testified, those unrestricted children workers cases been i n part, on the those i n t h e home A t some p o i n t , had custody based, t o t h e mother, to t h e mother returned on t h e FOCUS to her reports. N e i t h e r p a r t y i n t r o d u c e d any r e c o r d s f r o m FOCUS, t h e F r a n k l i n County other DHR, o r t h e F r a n k l i n children, J u v e n i l e Court i n regard t o the and n e i t h e r party presented any evidence r e g a r d i n g t h e c o n d i t i o n s and c i r c u m s t a n c e s under w h i c h those c h i l d r e n were r e s i d i n g a t t h e t i m e o f t h e t r i a l . The m o t h e r h a s n o t d i r e c t e d us t o any s t a t u t e o r c a s e l a w that prevents rights a c o u r t from t o one c h i l d solely terminating a parent's because the parent e x e r c i s i n g c u s t o d y as t o o t h e r c h i l d r e n . 13 parental i s currently See R u l e 28(a) ( 1 0 ) , 2110590 and Ala. R. 2110591 App. P. Admittedly, i t appears i n c o n s i s t e n t f o r a court to terminate a parent's parental r i g h t s t o one child while t h a t p a r e n t r e t a i n s t h o s e r i g h t s as t o o t h e r c h i l d r e n . However, t h e r e c o r d does n o t i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e F r a n k l i n C o u n t y DHR o r t h e F r a n k l i n J u v e n i l e C o u r t h a d t h e same and evidence before hearing before reveal whether i t as was the c i r c u i t the presented court. Franklin at the The r e c o r d DHR and adjudicatory a l s o does n o t the Franklin J u v e n i l e C o u r t h a d a d d i t i o n a l e v i d e n c e t h a t was n o t presented i n the a d j u d i c a t o r y hearing County information i n t h i s c a s e t h a t e n a b l e d them t o reach t h e i r o p i n i o n , i f i n d e e d t h e y d i d , t h a t t h e mother c o u l d s a f e l y and i n d e p e n d e n t l y if a l l concerned evidence, p a r e n t t h e o t h e r two c h i l d r e n . State agencies t h e m o t h e r w o u l d have considered this court the identical assume t h a t error i n creating this seemingly i n c o n s i s t e n t s i t u a t i o n with i n this the c i r c u i t court F r a n k l i n County a u t h o r i t i e s . determined, evidence the circuit to sustain parental rights. Even any lies a c t i o n , r a t h e r than w i t h the However, court had i t s judgment as we have p r e v i o u s l y before terminating i t sufficient the mother's Thus, we r e j e c t t h e m o t h e r ' s c o n t e n t i o n 14 that 2110590 a n d 2110591 the c i r c u i t c o u r t e r r e d i n t e r m i n a t i n g h e r p a r e n t a l r i g h t s f o r the above-stated reason. Viable Alternatives The mother asserts that the c i r c u i t court erred in f i n d i n g t h a t no v i a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s e x i s t e d b e c a u s e , s h e s a y s , t h e C o l b e r t C o u n t y DHR f a i l e d t o p r o p e r l y a u t h e n t i c a t e home studies studies and, as a r e s u l t , into evidence. failed The c i r c u i t t o admit court, certain those however, home allowed B u t l e r t o t e s t i f y t h a t t h e C o l b e r t C o u n t y DHR h a d r e c e i v e d t h e home s t u d i e s and o f R.R. a n d T.R., t h e p a t e r n a l L.D. a n d B.D., t h e f a t h e r ' s niece aunt and u n c l e , and h e r husband, b u t t h a t n e i t h e r o f t h o s e homes h a d b e e n a p p r o v e d . After objecting to the c i r c u i t court's consideration of t h e c o n t e n t s o f t h e home s t u d i e s , t h e m o t h e r ' s a t t o r n e y examined B u t l e r regarding t h e c o n t e n t s o f t h e home Because t h e mother e l i c i t e d now o b j e c t s , information the very i f the c i r c u i t court's cross- studies. t e s t i m o n y t o w h i c h she consideration was e r r o r , i t was i n v i t e d e r r o r . of that See M c K i n l e y v . M c K i n l e y , 277 A l a . 4 7 1 , 172 So. 2d 35 (1965) ( r e c o g n i z i n g a party considered cannot complain on appeal that the t r i a l that court an i s s u e t h a t t h a t p a r t y c o n s e n t e d t o s u b m i t t o t h e 15 2110590 a n d 2110591 trial court). predicate is, I t i s well an argument that "'[a] party f o r r e v e r s a l on " i n v i t e d " e r r o r i n t o w h i c h he h a s l e d o r l u l l e d " ' " a d j u d i c a t i v e body. 422 settled Wood v. S t a t e Pers. may n o t error," that the pertinent B d . , 705 So. 2d 413, ( A l a . C i v . App. 1997) ( q u o t i n g A t k i n s v. L e e , 603 So. 2d 937, 945 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n D i x i e Highway Express, I n c . v. S o u t h e r n Ry., 286 A l a . 646, 651, 244 So. 2d 5 9 1 , 595 (1971)). circuit The We, court's mother therefore, find consideration also no r e v e r s i b l e error i n the o f t h e home s t u d i e s . asserts that the Colbert County DHR f a i l e d t o obtain psychological evaluations of the r e l a t i v e s to corroborate t h e i r a l l e g e d l a c k o f p r o t e c t i v e c a p a c i t y t h a t had been i d e n t i f i e d i n t h e home s t u d i e s . The m o t h e r , h o w e v e r , h a s f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h that the Colbert C o u n t y DHR was r e q u i r e d to o f f e r expert t e s t i m o n y on t h a t i s s u e . A l t h o u g h she r e l i e s on J.A. v. Etowah 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 , 12 So. 3d 1245 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 9 ) , a n d E.S.R. v. M a d i 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 , 11 So. 3d 227 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 8 ) , n e i t h e r o f t h o s e c a s e s s u p p o r t s h e r argument t h a t i s r e q u i r e d t o o b t a i n e x p e r t t e s t i m o n y when e x c l u d i n g 16 DHR relative 2110590 a n d 2110591 resources as a p l a c e m e n t protective option on t h e b a s i s of a lack of capacity. C o n f l i c t of Interest Finally, exceeded t h e mother asserts that i t s discretion i n considering the circuit evidence court o f f e r e d by DHR's e m p l o y e e s who, she a l l e g e s , h a d a c o n f l i c t o f i n t e r e s t . She a s s e r t s t h a t A l a . A d m i n . Code (Dep't o f Human R e s . ) , R u l e 660-5-39-.06, p r o h i b i t s e m p l o y e e s o f DHR who have a c o n f l i c t of i n t e r e s t from p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n dependency cases and t h a t , because such court should a conflict existed i n this case, 6 the c i r c u i t n o t have a c c e p t e d t e s t i m o n y f r o m t h o s e w i t n e s s e s employed by o r a f f i l i a t e d with DHR a n d t h e f o s t e r parents. 7 A s s t a t e d p r e v i o u s l y , t h e f o s t e r f a t h e r was e m p l o y e d b y t h e L a u d e r d a l e C o u n t y DHR as a s u p e r v i s o r . The m o t h e r m a i n t a i n s t h a t s e v e r a l w i t n e s s e s t e s t i f y i n g on b e h a l f o f t h e C o l b e r t C o u n t y DHR, t h e r e f o r e , h a d a c o n f l i c t o f i n t e r e s t . 6 7 .06, A l a . A d m i n . Code (Dep't o f Human R e s . ) , R u l e provides, i n pertinent part: 660-5-39¬ "(1) A c h i l d - p l a c i n g agency w i t h authority to a p p r o v e f o s t e r homes a n d t o p l a c e children i n a p p r o v e d f o s t e r f a m i l y b o a r d i n g homes o r f o s t e r f a m i l y f r e e homes s h a l l : " "(e) The Resources, State Family Department of Human Services Partnership, 17 2110590 a n d 2110591 Assuming w i t h o u t d e c i d i n g which failed t h e mother relies to sufficiently that the administrative supports apprise h e r argument, the c i r c u i t rule t h e mother court argument. O f f i c e o f F o s t e r C a r e , i s t o be n o t i f i e d when a DHR e m p l o y e e , S t a t e O f f i c e o r C o u n t y O f f i c e , o r DHR O f f i c i a l makes a p p l i c a t i o n t o become a f o s t e r c a r e p r o v i d e r . The homes o f DHR O f f i c i a l s o r DHR e m p l o y e e s s h a l l not be a p p r o v e d f o r u s e a s a f o s t e r home p r o v i d e r i f there is a possible conflict of i n t e r e s t s i t u a t i o n , e.g., p e r s o n n e l t h a t engage i n t h e p l a c e m e n t o r supervision of foster children, or personnel that regulate the l i c e n s i n g or a p p r o v a l o f homes o r f a c i l i t i e s f o r t h e placement of children. The State D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s w i l l p r o v i d e a w r i t t e n statement r e g a r d i n g whether t h e r e is a possible conflict. " ( f ) A l i c e n s e d c h i l d - p l a c i n g agency s h a l l n o t c o n d u c t o r a p p r o v e a f o s t e r home s t u d y on a n y o f i t s e m p l o y e e s o r o f f i c i a l s , w h i c h includes b o a r d members, volunteers or anyone e l s e who h a s d i r e c t a f f i l i a t i o n w i t h t h e a g e n c y . A r r a n g e m e n t s must be made w i t h a n o t h e r l i c e n s e d c h i l d - p l a c i n g agency o r licensed social worker t o conduct and approve the study, make a p l a c e m e n t , p r o v i d e p o s t - p l a c e m e n t s u p e r v i s i o n and f o r r e a p p r o v a l o f t h e home." (Underlining and b o l d typeface i n o r i g i n a l . ) 18 upon of her 2110590 a n d 2110591 Although foster t h e mother's father believed mother d i d n o t c i t e rule attorney a conflict questioned whether t h e of interest existed, the to the c i r c u i t on w h i c h she r e l i e s court and f a i l e d the administrative t o argue t h a t , because such a c o n f l i c t e x i s t e d , t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t should not c o n s i d e r testimony DHR. o f f e r e d b y anyone employed by o r a f f i l i a t e d with As a r e s u l t , t h e m o t h e r ' s argument on t h i s p o i n t i s n o t properly preserved f o r appellate review. See Andrews v. M e r r i t t O i l Co., 612 So. 2d 409, 410 ( A l a . 1992) ("This C o u r t cannot c o n s i d e r arguments r a i s e d f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e on a p p e a l ; r a t h e r , our r e v i e w i s r e s t r i c t e d t o t h e e v i d e n c e and arguments considered by t h e t r i a l c o u r t . " ) ; and E t h e r t o n v. C i t y o f Homewood, 700 So. 2d 1374, 1377-78 ( A l a . 1997) ( q u o t i n g v. Owen, 364 So. 2d 1 2 0 1 , 1203 ( A l a . 1979)) fundamental r u l e of a p p e l l a t e procedure [the] merits courts will of [the] a p p e l l a n t ' s not review questions court.'"). 19 Bevill ("'It i s a that, regardless of contentions, not decided appellate by t h e t r i a l 2110590 and 2110591 2110591 The Father's Grounds f o r The father judgment The initially asserts established for successfully p r o g r a m , he by completed the circuit court's terminate his parental rights. to that him Termination challenges f i n d i n g grounds father he the an completed Colbert intensive completed a parenting contact the with c h i l d by f a t h e r a s s e r t s , the terminating The was released for Since being criminal County objectives DHR, i.e., robbery released, activity, driving while but establishes maintained Thus, that i n 2005 a f t e r s e r v i n g and the he the revocation father had intoxicated; that reckless d r i v i n g . he he the grounds rights. record from p r i s o n bank c l a s s , and e v i d e n c e f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h any i n the he outpatient-treatment r e g u l a r l y v i s i t i n g him. his parental evidence years a l l the v o l u n t a r i l y reduced h i s n a r c o t i c medication, successfully for Appeal had been not c h a r g e was close of his been arrested the father to parole. involved in later 30 2008 reduced in for to 8 The f a t h e r f i r s t t e s t i f i e d t h a t h i s a r r e s t f o r d r i v i n g w h i l e i n t o x i c a t e d had o c c u r r e d i n 2002. The f a t h e r , h o w e v e r , was i n p r i s o n u n t i l 2005. He t h e n t e s t i f i e d t h a t he was 8 20 2110590 and The he and was 2110591 f a t h e r was not employed at the time of the t r i a l , receiving disability a b a c k and prison. income as knee i n j u r y he According to the had a r e s u l t of sustained arthritis while he was father's physical evaluation was w o r s e n e d by attempted overhead "sitting, activity." The had been prescribed conditions, but, milder medication pain the Xanax father to and testified properly hearing that he still treat his pain, that he was cannot run. testified, concerns about h i s m e d i c a t i o n testified Oxycontin appease the intake. he to Colbert County The father, and a d m i t t e d at the to his stronger pain and or that, father treat asked the addicted The had needed he his straining, lifting, father b e c a u s e o f h i s p h y s i c a l p r o b l e m s , he in that had b e e n c o m p l e t e d f o r t h e S o c i a l S e c u r i t y A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , back p a i n but his for a DHR's however, medication to termination anti-anxiety medications. a r r e s t e d i n December 2007 and t h a t he remembered t h e d a t e b e c a u s e t h e C o l b e r t C o u n t y DHR was placing a significant amount o f p r e s s u r e on him i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h i s c a s e . The c h i l d , h o w e v e r , was n o t b o r n u n t i l M a r c h 2008, so t h e C o l b e r t C o u n t y DHR w o u l d n o t have b e e n i n v o l v e d w i t h t h e f a t h e r as a r e s u l t o f t h i s c a s e i n December 2007. S u b s e q u e n t t e s t i m o n y a t the h e a r i n g e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t the f a t h e r ' s a r r e s t f o r d r i v i n g w h i l e i n t o x i c a t e d o c c u r r e d i n December 2008. 21 2110590 and The 2110591 father testified "Individualized Service Colbert C o u n t y DHR him take to completed, w h i c h he to a l s o had Plan" submit done. to As Colbert C o u n t y DHR had had p a r t i c i p a t e d i n and participated meetings with C o u n t y DHR which he had in had the asked successfully substance-abuse evaluation, a r e s u l t of t h a t e v a l u a t i o n , f a t h e r d i d not the a had Colbert classes, been r e f e r r e d t o A l t h o u g h the he ("ISP") t h a t the parenting and f a t h e r had and that intensive outpatient attend the completed treatment. s p e c i f i c program recommended, he an the testified outpatient that that he substance- abuse p r o g r a m t h a t he d e s c r i b e d as more r i g o r o u s t h a n t h e one that by the Colbert DHR; the that he had submitted random drug drug screens admitted into had father been also recommended testified County to screens. According evidence, opiates, the the to f a t h e r had benzodiazepines, father had benzodiazepines, narcotics. for the cocaine The and were produced p o s i t i v e drug screens cocaine, prescriptions he that admitted that and marijuana. for he was the Although opiates addicted for to and those f a t h e r a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t the p o s i t i v e r e s u l t marijuana had 22 been in error. Despite that 2110590 and 2110591 testimony, the a f t e r being inhaled. released He denied Butler child she father admitted ever having that, o f t e n removed h i m s e l f "very the and "very used during he smoked denied marijuana t h a t he had father's v i s i t s , the cocaine. the from the p l a y s i t u a t i o n father's aggressive" having from p r i s o n , but testified believed, to interaction l o u d and with the because, was Butler abrasive." child also t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e f a t h e r had o f t e n made i n a p p r o p r i a t e r e m a r k s to the child s u c h a way DHR and had p h y s i c a l l y i n t e r a c t e d w i t h the child t h a t the v i s i t a t i o n monitor or the C o l b e r t caseworker had felt i t necessary to intervene in County in the visit. Based on the foregoing evidence, reasonably c o u l d have b e e n c l e a r l y continued to suffer medication of such properly parent acknowledge that from duration the an other convinced addiction that child. the to circuit court t h a t the father narcotic i t r e n d e r e d him See evidence § unable 12-15-319(a)(2). conflicted with f i n d i n g , b u t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t , as t h e t r i e r o f f a c t , t h a t d i s p u t e a g a i n s t the f a t h e r . 23 pain We must d e f e r t o t h e such to We a resolved circuit 2110590 a n d 2110591 court's i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the evidence. Dep't o f Human Res., See J.C. v . State 986 So. 2d 1172 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 7 ) . Viable Alternatives The that father also challenges no v i a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s t o t e r m i n a t i o n rights existed. and the c i r c u i t court's finding of h i s parental He a s s e r t s t h a t R.R. a n d h e r h u s b a n d , T.R., L.D. a n d h e r h u s b a n d , B.D., were two v i a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s to termination of h i sparental rights; he a l s o a s s e r t s that m a i n t a i n i n g t h e s t a t u s quo, w i t h t h e c h i l d i n f o s t e r c a r e , was a viable recognized, alternative. As this court previously has however: "Although a juvenile court i s required to c o n s i d e r a l t e r n a t i v e s t o t e r m i n a t i o n u n d e r Ex p a r t e B e a s l e y , 564 So. 2d [950] a t 954 [ ( A l a . 1 9 9 0 ) ] , t h e juvenile court i s not r e q u i r e d t o accept any s u g g e s t e d a l t e r n a t i v e as ' v i a b l e ' s i m p l y b e c a u s e i t exists. 'We have r e c e n t l y e x p l a i n e d ... t h a t a " f i t and w i l l i n g " r e l a t i v e i s one who c a n c a r e f o r t h e c h i l d ' s p h y s i c a l , e m o t i o n a l , m e n t a l , a n d o t h e r needs during the c h i l d ' s minority. J.B. v. C l e b u r n e C o u n t y Dep't o f Human R e s . , 991 So. 2d 273, 283 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 8 ) . ' B.H. v . M a r i o n C o u n t y Dep't o f Human Res., 998 So. 2d 475, 481 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008). The d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f whether a v i a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e t o t e r m i n a t i o n e x i s t s i n a g i v e n case i s a question of fact. T.V. v. B.S., 7 So. 3d 346, 352 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1998) ( c i t i n g J . B . , 991 So. 2d a t 282). Our r e v i e w o f a j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n on the viability of a p a r t i c u l a r alternative i s governed by t h e o r e tenus r u l e . T.V., 7 So. 3d a t 353." 24 2110590 a n d 2110591 J.A., 12 So. 3d a t 1254. A l t h o u g h i t appears from t h e evidence i n the r e c o r d R.R. and T.R. the circuit reasonably clearly court desired heard have b e e n that t o have c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d , testimony clearly from convinced which that i t their could ages a n d t h e i r alleged i n a b i l i t y to understand the father's limitations and appropriate d r u g i s s u e s p r e v e n t e d them f r o m s e r v i n g as an placement resource According interest t o t h e f o s t e r m o t h e r , R.R. i n obtaining when, she e x p l a i n e d , drug f o r the c h i l d . addiction permanency custody of the c h i l d in April 2009, t h e mother had s u f f e r e d a r e l a p s e o f h e r and t h e C o l b e r t plan a n d T.R. h a d shown f o r the c h i l d County DHR had changed t h e to relative placement. The f o s t e r m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e , R.R., a n d T.R. h a d d i s a g r e e d a t t i m e s as t o t h e p r o p e r c a r e t o be p r o v i d e d t o t h e c h i l d and t h a t she q u e s t i o n e d w h e t h e r R.R. c o u l d d i s c e r n when t h e c h i l d was i l l a n d w h e t h e r she c o u l d p r o p e r l y c a r e f o r t h e c h i l d when t h e c h i l d was i l l . She a l s o s t a t e d t h a t she b e l i e v e d R.R. h a d allowed and o t h e r the father family members t o smoke while holding the c h i l d or while i n the c h i l d ' s immediate presence, w h i c h was c o n t r a i n d i c a t e d f o r the c h i l d ' s 25 asthma. She also 2110590 a n d 2110591 testified that, breathing" called according t o R.R., on one o c c a s i o n f o r medical the c h i l d "had s t o p p e d a t R.R.'s h o u s e , b u t no one h a d assistance or taken the c h i l d to the doctor. The f o s t e r m o t h e r e x p r e s s e d o t h e r child's visiting testified with on a n d T.R. visits, home. the father She been i n t o x i c a t e d and, e v e n t h o u g h he h a d been v i s i b l y s h a k i n g , R.R. defended him. several at their had had that, R.R. concerns regarding the The f o s t e r m o t h e r a l s o e x p r e s s e d concern a b o u t so many f a m i l y members a n d r e l a t i v e s c o m i n g i n a n d o u t o f R.R.'s h o u s e . she Finally, t h e f o s t e r mother t e s t i f i e d that b e l i e v e d R.R., who was i n h e r m i d 6 0 s , a n d T.R., who was estimated child. circuit t o be 85, were Thus, court's clear t o o o l d t o r a i s e o r care and c o n v i n c i n g evidence f o r the supports the f i n d i n g as t o R.R. a n d T.R. As t o L.D. a n d B.D., t h e e v i d e n c e e s t a b l i s h e s t h a t a r e y o u n g e r , i n good h e a l t h , e m p l o y e d i n t h e e d u c a t i o n they field, have no h e a l t h o r d r u g i s s u e s , have no c r i m i n a l h i s t o r i e s , a n d have a s o n o n l y a y e a r o r two o l d e r t h a n t h e c h i l d . However, the c i r c u i t c o u r t r e c e i v 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 mother had written a letter to the Colbert 26 C o u n t y DHR i n w h i c h t h e 2110590 and 2110591 m o t h e r a l l e g e d t h a t L.D. selling t h a t the and hiding Colbert indicating that and B.D. d r u g s and C o u n t y DHR the guns. had father had had Also, 9 received that the she d i d not allegations know who could not father in Butler an engaged L.D.'s f r o n t y a r d w h i l e t h e c h i l d was admitted that a s s i s t e d the in explained anonymous a drug deal v i s i t i n g there. had be made t h a t confirmed. report in Butler report Butler and also t e s t i f i e d t h a t , a f t e r l e a r n i n g o f t h o s e a l l e g a t i o n s , L.D. B.D. had withdrawn as a p o t e n t i a l resource for the and child. A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h e f o s t e r m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t she had many o f the same c o n c e r n s w i t h Although the them as home o f had and L.D. she w i t h R.R. B.D. appeared to s u i t a b l e placement resource f o r the c h i l d , she potential had withdrawn termination The as petition a was first C o u n t y DHR L.D. resource heard i n the r e c o r d c o n t a i n s no i n d i c a t i o n t h a t L.D. Colbert and and t h e r e was offer a admitted before juvenile that the court. ever contacted t o i n d i c a t e a renewed i n t e r e s t i n as a p l a c e m e n t r e s o u r c e , T.R. the serving no i n d i c a t i o n t h a t L.D. T h e m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t she had w r i t t e n t h a t l e t t e r b a s e d on t h e f o s t e r m o t h e r ' s a d v i c e and w i t h t h e f o s t e r m o t h e r ' s h e l p , b u t she s t a t e d t h a t t h e a l l e g a t i o n s were f a l s e and t h a t she a c t u a l l y a p p r o v e d o f L.D. and B.D. as r e l a t i v e placements. The f o s t e r m o t h e r d e n i e d t h e m o t h e r ' s a c c o u n t . 9 27 2110590 a n d 2110591 had continued t o v i s i t with the c h i l d or t o otherwise a bond o r r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h him. fact, the c i r c u i t interest court i n obtaining as t h e t r i e r o f c o u l d have r e j e c t e d L.D.'s e x p r e s s e d custody of the c h i l d alternative to termination. Dep't o f Human Res., Therefore, maintain as a last-minute See, e . g . , C.T. v. C a l h o u n C n t y . 8 So. 3d 984, 989 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008) (affirming the t r i a l court's f i n d i n g that a r e l a t i v e as a p l a c e m e n t r e s o u r c e suggested f o r the f i r s t time a t the t e r m i n a t i o n h e a r i n g was n o t a v i a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e t o t e r m i n a t i o n ) ; a n d B.S. v. C u l l m a n C n t y . Dep't o f Human Res., 865 So. 2d 1188, 1196-97 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2003) ( a c c o r d ) . Because t h e e v i d e n c e supports the our d e f e r e n t i a l standard circuit review court's mandates that finding, we accept i t even i f we might of have reached a d i f f e r e n t conclusion. F i n a l l y , we r e j e c t t h e f a t h e r ' s argument t h a t maintaining t h e s t a t u s quo was a v i a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e t o t e r m i n a t i o n o f h i s parental rights. in foster evidence, care The c h i l d , who i s now 4 y e a r s o l d , h a s b e e n since i t appears he was that narcotics. 18 d a y s both t h e mother continue t o take addicted t o h i s n a r c o t i c medications; w i t h L.R., who i s , a c c o r d i n g old. Based and t h e f a t h e r The f a t h e r a d m i t t e d t h e mother to the record, 28 on t h e t h a t he i s i s living a convicted drug 2110590 and offender, 2110591 she has p r o g r a m , and, refused to attend i n the year p r e c e d i n g an inpatient-treatment the t e r m i n a t i o n h e a r i n g i n c i r c u i t c o u r t , she c o n t i n u e d t o f a i l d r u g s c r e e n s to submit to recognized: r e q u i r e d drug "At some screens. point, ... As we the or to r e f u s e have p r e v i o u s l y child's need p e r m a n e n c y and s t a b i l i t y must overcome t h e p a r e n t ' s for good-faith b u t u n s u c c e s s f u l a t t e m p t s t o become a s u i t a b l e p a r e n t . " M.W. v. 484, 487 3d 812, Houston Cnty. ( A l a . C i v . App. 820 Dep't of Human Res., 773 So. 2 0 0 0 ) ; see a l s o K.A.P. v. D.P., ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008) an a third party i n the best We, t h e r e f o r e , r e j e c t the the s t a t u s quo 11 So. ("[T]he a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s hold that maintaining i s not 2d indefinite custody interests generally arrangement w i t h of the f a t h e r ' s argument t h a t child."). maintaining i s a v i a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e to t e r m i n a t i o n of father's parental the rights. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, we affirm the circuit court's judgment. 2110590 -- AFFIRMED. 2110591 -- AFFIRMED. Thompson, P.J., and Pittman, concur. 29 Bryan, and Thomas, J J . ,

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.