P.S. v. M.S. (Appeal from Houston Juvenile Court: JU-11-204.01)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Rel: 7/27/2012 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e Reporter o f Decisions, A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS SPECIAL TERM, 2012 2110611, 2110612, and 2110613 P.S. v. M.S. Appeal from Houston J u v e n i l e Court (JU-11-204.01, JU-11-205.01, and JU-11-206.01) THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e . P.S. custody ("the m o t h e r " ) of her three appeals children dependency orders awarding t o M.S. ("the m a t e r n a l grandfather"). On April 22, 2011, t h e maternal grandfather filed d e p e n d e n c y p e t i t i o n s a l l e g i n g t h a t t h e m o t h e r was i n c a r c e r a t e d 2110611, 2110612, and and seeking maternal matter custody of grandfather that he 2110613 filed the mother's testified those prevent the children during petitions D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s to three children. the at hearing the The in urging this of a ("DHR") s o c i a l w o r k e r i n o r d e r from being d u r i n g the mother's i n c a r c e r a t i o n . placed in foster A l s o on A p r i l care 22, 2011, the j u v e n i l e c o u r t e n t e r e d orders p l a c i n g the c h i l d r e n i n the custody of the maternal grandfather. Each of those orders s p e c i f i e d t h a t the mother r e c e i v e s u p e r v i s e d v i s i t a t i o n , t h a t she submit cooperate The to a psychological evaluation, w i t h s e r v i c e s o f f e r e d by juvenile hearing. court that she DHR. conducted On M a r c h 16, 2012, and an ore tenus dependency the j u v e n i l e c o u r t e n t e r e d orders f i n d i n g e a c h o f t h e c h i l d r e n d e p e n d e n t and a w a r d i n g them t o t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d f a t h e r . custody of The m o t h e r t i m e l y a p p e a l e d . I n i t i a l l y , we n o t e t h a t t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d f a t h e r a p p e a r e d pro se before the juvenile court. During the dependency h e a r i n g , t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d f a t h e r i n d i c a t e d r e p e a t e d l y t h a t he d i d n o t know how to proceed i n t h e d e p e n d e n c y a c t i o n and he was h a v i n g d i f f i c u l t y q u e s t i o n i n g t h e m o t h e r b e c a u s e he unfamiliar with the process. 2 The record contains that was no 2110611, 2110612, and indication that appointment of 2110613 the an maternal attorney grandfather to represent r e f l e c t that the j u v e n i l e court informed appointed requested him, the n o r does i t him of h i s r i g h t t o c o u n s e l i f he c o u l d n o t a f f o r d an a t t o r n e y . 12-15-305, A l a . Code 1975 (an a t t o r n e y may be See § appointed r e p r e s e n t an i n d i g e n t p e t i t i o n e r i n a d e p e n d e n c y a c t i o n , to and a c h i l d ' s l e g a l custodian i s e n t i t l e d to appointed counsel i f he o r she court i s unable attempted to afford to assist e x t e n t , and t h e e v i d e n c e the an a t t o r n e y ) . the maternal The juvenile grandfather t o some from t h e dependency h e a r i n g i n d i c a t e s following. When the children grandfather's custody, were placed in the maternal t h e m o t h e r , who was a t t h e t i m e living w i t h t h e c h i l d r e n i n D o t h a n , h a d b e e n a r r e s t e d on c h a r g e s child endangerment undisputed and eluding t h a t , a t the time had been "taken enforcement. It is of the dependency h e a r i n g , the m o t h e r was no l o n g e r i n c a r c e r a t e d . the charges law of The m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d that c a r e o f " and t h a t she h a d p a i d a f i n e and was on p r o b a t i o n . After the grandfather's children custody, DHR were placed in o f f e r e d the mother 3 the maternal reunification 2110611, 2110612, a n d 2110613 services, including a psychological and s e r v i c e s t h r o u g h FOCUS. evaluation, testified t h a t she saw a D r . L o p e z a t a DHR-recommended m e n t a l - h e a l t h facility for a p p r o x i m a t e l y 10 t o 15 m i n u t e s a n d t h a t he d i d n o t p e r f o r m any t e s t i n g on h e r . The m o t h e r counseling, 1 The m o t h e r s t a t e d t h a t s h e b e l i e v e d that v i s i t w i t h D r . L o p e z s a t i s f i e d t h e r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t she o b t a i n a psychological evaluation. did n o t recommend t h a t The m o t h e r s t a t e d t h a t D r . L o p e z she t a k e any m e d i c a t i o n instead r e f e r r e d her to a counselor. and t h a t he A c c o r d i n g t o t h e mother, she met w i t h t h e c o u n s e l o r f o u r t i m e s b e f o r e she moved t o O l d Town, F l o r i d a , The list mother i n m i d t o l a t e J a n u a r y 2012. testified that she h a d been on t h e w a i t i n g f o r FOCUS a n d h a d b e e n t o l d i n J a n u a r y 2012 t h a t she was t h e n e x t on t h e l i s t t o r e c e i v e s e r v i c e s . However, t h e m o t h e r a d m i t t e d t h a t she c h o s e t o move t o F l o r i d a r a t h e r t h a n w a i t t o participate i n those r e u n i f i c a t i o n services. The m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t a DHR s o c i a l w o r k e r a d v i s e d h e r t o move c l o s e r t o f a m i l y members. she moved to Florida to live with The m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d h e r mother that so t h a t t h e T h e r e c o r d does n o t e x p l a i n t h e e x a c t s e r v i c e s p r o v i d e d b y FOCUS, b u t i t i s c l e a r t h a t t h a t a g e n c y p r o v i d e s some s o r t o f in-home r e u n i f i c a t i o n s e r v i c e s . 1 4 2110611, 2110612, a n d 2110613 maternal grandmother c o u l d a s s i s t her w i t h the c h i l d r e n . mother presented evidence regarding the adequacy m a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r ' s home f o r t h e c h i l d r e n . dependency hearing, t h e mother testified The of the However, a t t h e that she d i d n o t i n t e n d t o l i v e w i t h t h e m a t e r n a l grandmother f o r l o n g and t h a t she was s e e k i n g The h e r own residence. maternal grandfather mental-health maternal issues grandfather and t e s t i f i e d that that was she unable was to t h e mother had unemployed. elaborate on The his a l l e g a t i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h e m o t h e r ' s m e n t a l i l l n e s s , a l t h o u g h he did state bipolar children that t h e mother disorder. were had informed him t h a t The m a t e r n a l g r a n d f a t h e r a "handful" and t h a t she had stated that the he b e l i e v e d t h e mother needed a s s i s t a n c e w i t h t a k i n g care o f a l l t h r e e c h i l d r e n . maternal grandfather of a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t , when he t o o k c u s t o d y the c h i l d r e n , the oldest care The child was a c c u s t o m e d t o t a k i n g o f t h e youngest c h i l d and t h a t t h e o l d e s t c h i l d t o l d him she h a d t o "do e v e r y t h i n g " t o t a k e c a r e o f t h e y o u n g e s t c h i l d . The maternal grandfather presented evidence i n d i c a t i n g t h a t he h a d d i v o r c e d t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r when t h e m o t h e r was v e r y y o u n g a n d t h a t he h a d r e c e i v e d c u s t o d y o f t h e m o t h e r 5 2110611, at The 2110612, and 2110613 t h a t time because of conduct maternal grandmother grandfather The m a t e r n a l not v i s i t e d custody. also testified had m e n t a l - h e a l t h committed t o a treatment had of the maternal He whereabouts that i s s u e s and facility grandmother. the maternal t h a t she h a d been a t some p o i n t i n t h e p a s t . g r a n d f a t h e r a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e mother the c h i l d r e n stated i n the that two often while he had months not before they were known the the March in his mother's 15, 2012, d e p e n d e n c y h e a r i n g and t h a t she w o u l d n o t p r o v i d e t h e m a t e r n a l grandfather her telephone stated that Christmas. the the The Christmas children children maternal visitation, three grandfather mother to four number. had last the mother months maternal visited grandfather also stated that any g i f t s The the grandfather children t e s t i f i e d that, had last earlier. t h e mother during the Christmas before visited The at the maternal d i d not b r i n g the visit. The mother t e s t i f i e d t h a t she h a d n o t v i s i t e d t h e c h i l d r e n more r e g u l a r l y b e c a u s e she was l i v i n g i n F l o r i d a and she was the r e l i a b i l i t y of her v e h i c l e . According to the maternal grandfather, concerned the mother about had c a l l e d t h e c h i l d r e n r e g u l a r l y when t h e y were f i r s t p l a c e d i n 6 2110611, 2110612, and 2110613 his home, b u t , he greatly s t a t e d , the frequency diminished eventually called after only of those a period and that once every two to calls had the mother three weeks. However, t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d , t h e f r e q u e n c y o f the mother's telephone calls to the children increased s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n t h e weeks b e f o r e t h e d e p e n d e n c y h e a r i n g . mother's testimony supports the maternal The grandfather's t e s t i m o n y t h a t t h e f r e q u e n c y and r e g u l a r i t y o f t h o s e telephone c a l l s h a d g r e a t l y d i m i n i s h e d ; she s t a t e d t h a t she u s e d t o c a l l t h e c h i l d r e n e v e r y day b u t t h a t , l a t e r , she c a l l e d o n l y once a week. The m o t h e r was n o t e m p l o y e d a t t h e t i m e o f t h e d e p e n d e n c y h e a r i n g , b u t she s t a t e d t h a t she was looking for a job. mother r e c e i v e s S o c i a l S e c u r i t y d i s a b i l i t y b e n e f i t s , The although she i n s i s t e d a t t h e d e p e n d e n c y h e a r i n g t h a t she d i d n o t know the reason she b e g a n receiving those benefits. The d e n i e d t e l l i n g t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d f a t h e r t h a t she was mother receiving t h o s e d i s a b i l i t y b e n e f i t s b e c a u s e she h a d b i p o l a r d i s o r d e r . The m a t e r n a l g r a n d f a t h e r a l s o e x p r e s s e d c o n c e r n t h a t t h e mother would a g a i n take t h e c h i l d r e n t o M e x i c o t o l i v e . The r e c o r d c o n t a i n s l i t t l e e v i d e n c e r e g a r d i n g an i n c i d e n t i n w h i c h 7 2110611, 2110612, a n d 2110613 the mother took United States testified the children without them. The and r e t u r n e d t o t h e maternal grandfather t h a t he " f o u g h t h a r d " t o o b t a i n t h e r e t u r n o f t h e c h i l d r e n from Mexico The t o Mexico mother f i r s t a f t e r t h e y had been t h e r e f o r a p e r i o d . argues on a p p e a l t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e d i d not support a f i n d i n g t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n a r e dependent. "'Our s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w o f d e p e n d e n c y determinations i s well settled. "'"A f i n d i n g o f dependency must be s u p p o r t e d b y c l e a r a n d convincing evidence. § 1 2 - 1 5 - 6 5 ( f ) [ , 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. 1999). However, m a t t e r s o f d e p e n d e n c y are w i t h i n t h e sound d i s c r e t i o n of t h e t r i a l c o u r t , a n d 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 action i n which evidence 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 absent a showing that the ruling was plainly and p a l p a b l y wrong. 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 (Ala. C i v . App. 1 9 9 7 ) ; a n d J.M. v. S t a t e Dep't o f Human Res., 68 6 So. 2d 1253 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1996)." [ 3 ] "'J.S.M. v. P . J . , 902 So. 2d 89, 95 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2004).' 8 2110611, 2110612, and 2110613 " T h e r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t 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 by c l e a r a n d c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e b e f o r e the d i s p o s i t i o n a l phase o f a dependency p r o c e e d i n g i s now c o d i f i e d a t § 1 2 - 1 5 - 3 1 1 ( a ) , A l a . Code 1975." [3] J.L. v. (quoting App. W.E., 64 So. 3d 631, 634 L.A.C. v. T.S.C., 8 So. ( A l a . C i v . App. 3d 322, 326-27 2010) (Ala. Civ. 2008)). The initial mother i s correct dependency that petition the for reason cited declaring the i n the children d e p e n d e n t was h e r i n c a r c e r a t i o n and t h a t , a t t h e t i m e o f t h e dependency h e a r i n g , at that charges conclude time, on determination The the mother which that she was no l o n g e r she other had was on been evidence incarcerated. probation related incarcerated. Rather, to the However, supported the j u v e n i l e court's t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n were d e p e n d e n t . mother acknowledged some manner of mental-health h i s t o r y , b u t she d e n i e d t e l l i n g t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d f a t h e r she had b i p o l a r d i s o r d e r . receives claimed we The m o t h e r d e n i e d k n o w i n g why Social Security disability t o be unaware that benefits. i n seeing not complying w i t h submit t o a p s y c h o l o g i c a l she Dr. L o p e z f o r what the 9 as a "medication the requirement t h a t evaluation. she Further, c h i l d r e n ' s g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m c h a r a c t e r i z e d c h e c k , " she was that she 2110611, 2110612, and 2110613 A l s o , a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y t h e same t i m e she c o u l d have b e e n offered reunification services through FOCUS, the i n s t e a d e l e c t e d t o move t o a n o t h e r s t a t e where DHR provide reunification services services. or assess her could not progress those m o t h e r was f a r t h e r away f r o m t h e c h i l d r e n , and i t made t h e The record them more indicates that difficult. meant instrumental States. i n securing t h e m o t h e r a t one p o i n t their return the 2 a l l t h r e e c h i l d r e n i n M e x i c o and t h a t t h e m a t e r n a l was that in completing p o s s i b i l i t y of v i s i t i n g T h a t move a l s o mother to left grandfather the United A l t h o u g h t h a t i n c i d e n t d i d n o t s e r v e as t h e b a s i s f o r t h e c u r r e n t d e p e n d e n c y a c t i o n , we n o t e t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n were placed the i n the maternal grandfather's mother's being arrested on c u s t o d y as a r e s u l t o f child-endangerment charges, among o t h e r s ; the d e t a i l s of those charges are not s e t f o r t h in on a p p e a l . the record the m a t e r n a l g r a n d f a t h e r Further, t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d by i n d i c a t e s t h a t the mother v i s i t e d the The mother had lived in Dothan. The maternal grandfather, w i t h whom t h e c h i l d r e n now reside, lives i n M a r i e t t a , G e o r g i a . We t a k e j u d i c i a l n o t i c e t h a t D o t h a n i s 220 miles from M a r i e t t a , Georgia. O l d Town, F l o r i d a , w h e r e t h e m o t h e r now r e s i d e s , i s 220 m i l e s f r o m D o t h a n , b u t i t i s 3 4 5 miles from M a r i e t t a , Georgia. 2 10 2110611, 2110612, and 2110613 c h i l d r e n o r c a l l e d them o n l y i n f r e q u e n t l y d u r i n g t h e 11-month period they r e s i d e d with were f i l e d . him a f t e r the dependency p e t i t i o n s The m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t she c o u l d n o t v i s i t t h e c h i l d r e n more f r e q u e n t l y f r o m F l o r i d a b e c a u s e she d i d n o t have the f i n a n c i a l a b i l i t y t o do s o . However, t h e m o t h e r moved t o F l o r i d a i n J a n u a r y 2012, o n l y two months b e f o r e hearing. 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 m o t h e r ' s v i s i t s infrequent before that move. The m o t h e r a d m i t t e d elected t o move t o F l o r i d a r a t h e r receive reunification services foregoing, mother the j u v e n i l e court was unwilling responsibilities or § 12-15-102(8), "dependent from could unable mental-health and a b l e DHR. that she i n Alabama and Thus, from the have c o n c l u d e d t h a t the to properly discharge her the c h i l d r e n were to provide A l a . Code 1975 for their (defining the care. term t h e e v i d e n c e a l s o i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e m o t h e r has issues. consultation She d e n i e d u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h a t a 10-15 with a doctor p s y c h o l o g i c a l e x a m i n a t i o n t h a t DHR juvenile stay were child"). Further, minute than to the c h i l d r e n or that without a parent w i l l i n g See the dependency court d i d not the r e q u e s t e d and t o w h i c h t h e had o r d e r e d her t o submit. 11 constitute In a d d i t i o n , the 2110611, 2110612, and 2110613 m o t h e r d e n i e d t h a t she knew why disability benefits. she r e c e i v e d S o c i a l S e c u r i t y Those a s p e c t s o f t h e m o t h e r ' s testimony c o u l d have c a u s e d t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t t o q u e s t i o n t h e m o t h e r ' s credibility. T h i s c o u r t does n o t have t h e same a d v a n t a g e as t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t , w h i c h was i n t h e b e s t p o s i t i o n t o the witnesses and a s s e s s they t e s t i f i e d . App. 2 0 0 4 ) . observing opportunity demeanor and c r e d i b i l i t y the t r i a l witnesses' to assess c o u r t has t h e a d v a n t a g e o f demeanor their and has credibility, this a c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t u n l e s s i t i s so by t h e e v i d e n c e as t o be clearly p a r t e F a n n , 810 So. 2d 631, 636 D W W , 717 So. 2d 793, 795 . . . her brief on maternal grandfather's mother." However, superior Court a l t e r the t r i a l In as J.S.M. v. P . J . , 902 So. 2d 89, 96 ( A l a . C i v . "'[B]ecause the their observe cannot unsupported and p a l p a b l y w r o n g . ' " ( A l a . 2001) Ex ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e ( A l a . 1998)). appeal, the mother characterization focuses of her a f t e r making t h a t statement, as the on a the "good maternal g r a n d f a t h e r a l s o s t a t e d t h a t t h e mother needed h e l p p a r e n t i n g the children. loved the However, The mother he p l e a d e d maternal and grandfather wanted with her to testified have the that he children. the court not t o r e t u r n a l l three 12 2110611, 2110612, a n d 2110613 c h i l d r e n t o t h e m o t h e r a t one t i m e b e c a u s e he d i d n o t b e l i e v e she could, even with grandmother, p r o p e r l y and the care tone o f h i s testimony assistance of for the c h i l d r e n . the The s u b s t a n c e 3 c a n be s u m m a r i z e d b y h i s t h a t " [ s ] h e ' s my d a u g h t e r . maternal testimony She j u s t - - s h e j u s t d o n ' t have t h e mother i n s t i n c t . She n e e d s h e l p t o become a m o t h e r w i t h many c h i l d r e n . " As m e n t i o n e d e a r l i e r , F l o r i d a before she c o u l d take s e r v i c e s o f f e r e d b y DHR. i n t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l , the juvenile court's this t h e m o t h e r moved t o advantage o f t h e r e u n i f i c a t i o n Given the t o t a l i t y of the evidence we c a n n o t a g r e e w i t h t h e m o t h e r t h a t determination that the children were d e p e n d e n t was n o t s u p p o r t e d b y t h e e v i d e n c e . The erred m o t h e r a l s o a r g u e s on a p p e a l t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t i n failing mother c i t e s t o award h e r v i s i t a t i o n . We authority for the proposition that agree. The i t i s error for a j u v e n i l e court t o leave v i s i t a t i o n t o the d i s c r e t i o n of the party t o whom c u s t o d y o f a dependent P.D. v . S.S. , 67 So. 3 d 128, 135-36 A.M.B. v . R.B.B., 4 So. 3 d 468, child i s awarded. ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 1 ) ; 471-72 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 7 ) . The m a t e r n a l g r a n d f a t h e r proposed r e t u r n i n g t h e c h i l d r e n t o t h e m o t h e r ' s c u s t o d y one a t a t i m e . 3 13 2110611, 2110612, a n d 2110613 However, i n t h i s case, the juvenile c o u r t d i d n o t award t h e m o t h e r any v i s i t a t i o n . Even after children's children parent retains including, among child. 12-15-1(24), § have others, been declared certain the r i g h t A l a . Code repeatedly stated that the t r i a l dependent, the "residual rights," to v i s i t a t i o n 1975. "This with the court has court's only parameter [ f o r awarding v i s i t a t i o n t o t h e p a r e n t o f a dependent c h i l d ] i s t h e best interests Dep't and w e l f a r e of the c h i l d . " o f Human R e s . , 550 So. 2d 980, 981 F l o y d v. Alabama ( A l a . C i v . App. 1988). "In awarding v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s r e l a t i n g t o the d i s p o s i t i o n o f a 'dependent c h i l d ' p u r s u a n t t o § 1 2 - 1 5 - 7 1 ( a ) [now § 12-15-314, A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 ] , t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s g u i d e d by t h e 'best i n t e r e s t s o f t h e c h i l d ' standard. See § 1 2 - 1 5 - 7 1 ( a ) ( 4 ) ( ' I f a c h i l d i s f o u n d t o be d e p e n d e n t , t h e c o u r t may make any o f the f o l l o w i n g orders o f d i s p o s i t i o n t o p r o t e c t the w e l f a r e o f t h e c h i l d : ... (4) Make any ... o r d e r as t h e c o u r t i n i t s d i s c r e t i o n s h a l l deem t o be f o r t h e w e l f a r e and b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f t h e c h i l d . ' ) . "'"'The determination of proper visitation ... i s within 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 t h a t court's determination should not be r e v e r s e d a b s e n t a s h o w i n g o f an a b u s e o f discretion.' Ex p a r t e B l a n d , 796 So. 2d 340 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) . ' [ C ] a s e s i n A l a b a m a have consistently held that the primary consideration i n setting v i s i t a t i o n rights 14 2110611, 2110612, and 2110613 i s t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s and w e l f a r e o f t h e child. Furthermore, each c h i l d v i s i t a t i o n c a s e must be d e c i d e d on i t s own f a c t s and circumstances.' F a n n i n g v. F a n n i n g , 504 So. 2d 737, 739 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1987) (citations omitted). 'When t h e i s s u e o f visitation is determined after oral proceedings, the trial court's d e t e r m i n a t i o n of the i s s u e w i l l not be d i s t u r b e d a b s e n t an abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n o r a showing t h a t i t i s p l a i n l y i n e r r o r . Andrews v. A n d r e w s , 520 So. 2d 512 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 7 ) . ' D o m i n i c k v. D o m i n i c k , 622 So. 2d 402, 403 (Ala. Civ. App. 1993)."'" K.B. v. 387-88 So. Cleburne ( A l a . C i v . App. 2d 124, v. M.C., 809 In this appeal would 132 serve So. 2d 837, case, the 2004) that ( A l a . C i v . App. i s no not So. 2d 379, L.C.R., 854 2 0 0 3 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n K.L.U. 840-41 there 897 ( q u o t i n g K.L.R. v. ( A l a . C i v . App. indicating maternal one C n t y . Dep't o f Human Res., evidence awarding c h i l d r e n ' s best the in 2001)). the mother interests. In record on visitation fact, the g r a n d f a t h e r a d v o c a t e d a summer v i s i t a t i o n p e r i o d f o r o r more o f t h e c h i l d r e n t o e n a b l e the mother t o a c c l i m a t e t o c a r i n g f o r t h e c h i l d r e n when t h e y a r e r e t u r n e d t o h e r Accordingly, we conclude that the j u v e n i l e court care. erred in f a i l i n g t o award the mother v i s i t a t i o n w i t h the c h i l d r e n . We r e v e r s e 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 i n s o f a r as i t f a i l e d to 15 2110611, 2110612, a n d 2110613 award t h e mother v i s i t a t i o n , entry a n d we remand t h e c a u s e f o r t h e o f a judgment c o n s i s t e n t w i t h this opinion. AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED. P i t t m a n , B r y a n , Thomas, a n d Moore, J J . , c o n c u r . 16

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.