D.M.T.J.W.D. v. Lee County Department of Human Resources

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 10/26/12 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 Reporter o f Decisions, 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 2110795 D.M.T.J.W.D. v. Lee County Department o f Human Resources Appeal from Lee J u v e n i l e Court (JU-08-96.03 and JU-09-174.02) BRYAN, J u d g e . D.M.T.J.W.D. ("the m o t h e r " ) the Lee J u v e n i l e Court her parental mother appeals from a judgment o f ("the j u v e n i l e c o u r t " ) that r i g h t s t o two o f h e r c h i l d r e n . argues that t h e judgment terminating terminated On a p p e a l , t h e her parental 2110795 rights i s void jurisdiction because the j u v e n i l e court over her. lacked She a l s o a r g u e s t h a t t h e j u d g m e n t i s e r r o n e o u s b e c a u s e i t i s b a s e d on i n a d m i s s i b l e The facts record on a p p e a l and p r o c e d u r a l reveals history. the f o l l o w i n g February 2000. being 2 pertinent ("DHR") f i l e d a p e t i t i o n t h e mother's p a r e n t a l r i g h t s t o t h r e e c h i l d r e n : G.B.D.J. ("G.J."), b o r n i n M a r c h 1 9 9 7 ; K.M.K.J. in hearsay. On O c t o b e r 25, 2010, t h e L e e 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 to terminate personal 1998; a n d M.P.R.J. I n the p e t i t i o n , i n Phenix C i t y , s e r v e d by p e r s o n a l ("M.J."), 1 ("K.J."), born born i n December t h e m o t h e r ' s a d d r e s s was l i s t e d as a n d DHR r e q u e s t e d that t h e m o t h e r be s e r v i c e p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 4.1, A l a . R. C i v . P. On November appointed 10, 2010, t h e m o t h e r , on h e r b e h a l f , through an attorney f i l e d an a n s w e r t o DHR's p e t i t i o n t o The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e mother had 5 c h i l d r e n b u t t h a t DHR d i d n o t s e e k t o t e r m i n a t e t h e m o t h e r ' s p a r e n t a l r i g h t s t o 2 o f h e r 5 c h i l d r e n b e c a u s e 1 c h i l d was 18 y e a r s o l d and a r e l a t i v e r e s o u r c e h a d b e e n p r o v i d e d f o r a n o t h e r c h i l d . 1 DHR's p e t i t i o n a l s o s o u g h t 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 n a t u r a l f a t h e r o f G.J. and K . J . and t h e a l l e g e d n a t u r a l f a t h e r o f M.J. N e i t h e r man p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h e t e r m i n a t i o n p r o c e e d i n g s , a n d n e i t h e r man h a s a p p e a l e d a n y p a r t of t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s judgment. 2 2 2110795 terminate her parental discovery rights and h e r f i r s t f r o m DHR. On J a n u a r y 18, 2 0 1 1 , DHR terminate t h e mother's petition, DHR a l l e g e d t h a t G.J. no l o n g e r needed filed parental the October 2010 t h e mother's t o be t e r m i n a t e d petition for an amended p e t i t i o n t o rights. p l a c e d i n a home w i t h a r e l a t i v e . request I n t h e amended parental rights to b e c a u s e he h a d been Thus, t h e o n l y amendment t o was to request a judgment t e r m i n a t i n g t h e m o t h e r ' s p a r e n t a l r i g h t s t o o n l y K . J . a n d M.J. On A p r i l 19, 2 0 1 1 , DHR f i l e d a s e c o n d amended p e t i t i o n t o terminate second t h e mother's p a r e n t a l amended parental rights been p l a c e d petition, DHR rights. requested attorney because K . J . had filed a motion requesting an amended answer t o DHR's amended p e t i t i o n t o her parental rights. I n t h e motion, t h e mother's a l l e g e d t h a t he h a d n o t h a d c o n t a c t since before t h e mother's i n a home w i t h a r e l a t i v e . to f i l e terminate that t o o n l y M.J. be t e r m i n a t e d On A p r i l 20, 2 0 1 1 , t h e m o t h e r leave I n t h e A p r i l 2011 DHR f i l e d a petition w i t h t h e mother t o terminate t h e mother's p a r e n t a l r i g h t s , t h a t t h e m o t h e r ' s w h e r e a b o u t s were unknown t o h i m , a n d t h a t he h a d become aware o f c e r t a i n d e f e n s e s t h a t t h e 3 2110795 mother c o u l d r a i s e . motion The j u v e n i l e c o u r t g r a n t e d t h e m o t h e r ' s f o r leave to f i l e an amended a n s w e r . I n h e r amended answer, t h e mother r a i s e d , f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e , t h e defenses o f lack of personal j u r i s d i c t i o n , of p r o c e s s , insufficiency improper of service venue, insufficiency of process, failure to s t a t e a c l a i m upon w h i c h r e l i e f c a n be g r a n t e d , a n d / o r f a i l u r e t o j o i n a n e c e s s a r y p a r t y . See R u l e On A p r i l termination 22, 2 0 1 1 , DHR hearing that filed had been 1 2 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. a motion scheduled to continue the for April 26, 2011, b e c a u s e t h e m o t h e r h a d n o t b e e n s e r v e d w i t h t h e p e t i t i o n to terminate her p a r e n t a l r i g h t s . DHR's m o t i o n The j u v e n i l e c o u r t g r a n t e d and r e s c h e d u l e d t h e f i n a l h e a r i n g f o r J u l y 21, 2011. On A p r i l 28, 2 0 1 1 , DHR filed a motion f o r service of p r o c e s s b y p u b l i c a t i o n on t h e m o t h e r a n d t h e a l l e g e d f a t h e r o f M.J. A t t a c h e d t o DHR's m o t i o n was an a f f i d a v i t a l l e g i n g t h a t t h e m o t h e r ' s l a s t known a d d r e s s was i n P h e n i x C i t y , that the m o t h e r ' s p r e s e n t l o c a t i o n was unknown, t h a t a p r o c e s s had b e e n u n a b l e t o p e r s o n a l l y serve t h e mother, t h a t server service o f p r o c e s s h a d n o t b e e n c o m p l e t e d w i t h i n 90 d a y s o f t h e f i l i n g of the p e t i t i o n to terminate the mother's p a r e n t a l 4 rights, 2110795 that the c h i l d subject to the proceeding Alabama, and t h a t t h e mother's a s c e r t a i n e d b y due d i l i g e n c e . court granted h a d been abandoned i n whereabouts could n o t be On May 3, 2 0 1 1 , t h e j u v e n i l e DHR's m o t i o n t o s e r v e t h e m o t h e r b y p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e A u b u r n V i l l a g e r a n d i n t h e C i t i z e n o f E a s t A l a b a m a , two l o c a l newspapers i n Auburn and P h e n i x C i t y , r e s p e c t i v e l y . On answer July 12, 2 0 1 1 , t h e m o t h e r i n response to DHR's filed second terminate 12(b) d e f e n s e s second amended t h e mother's p a r e n t a l r i g h t s same R u l e a amended petition to t o M.J., r a i s i n g t h e t h a t had been raised i n her f i r s t amended a n s w e r . On J u l y 2 1 , 2 0 1 1 , 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 h e a r i n g on DHR's p e t i t i o n t o t e r m i n a t e t h e m o t h e r ' s p a r e n t a l r i g h t s t o M.J., and t h e mother and h e r a t t o r n e y hearing. At the hearing, the attorney were p r e s e n t at that f o r DHR s t a t e d on t h e r e c o r d t h a t t h e mother had been s e r v e d by p u b l i c a t i o n and t h a t she had been p e r s o n a l l y s e r v e d deputy with on t h e d a y o f t h e h e a r i n g . process by a sheriff's The m o t h e r ' s attorney s t a t e d t h a t t h e m o t h e r was n o t w a i v i n g h e r s e r v i c e - o f - p r o c e s s a r g u m e n t s b y h e r p r e s e n c e a t t h e h e a r i n g b e c a u s e , he a l l e g e d , she h a d b e e n i n v o l u n t a r i l y b r o u g h t t o t h e h e a r i n g f r o m t h e L e e 5 2110795 County J a i l . of 3 The m o t h e r ' s a t t o r n e y a l s o argued that service p r o c e s s b y p u b l i c a t i o n was i m p r o p e r b e c a u s e DHR h a d n o t shown "the diligence publication." dismissed, the state d i d i n order The m o t h e r ' s a t t o r n e y to serve by a s k e d t h a t t h e a c t i o n be b u t , i n l i g h t o f t h e f a c t t h a t t h e mother had been personally served on t h e m o r n i n g of the hearing, requested a continuance of the hearing. The m o t h e r ' s he also attorney a l l e g e d t h a t t h e m o t h e r h a d b e e n a r r e s t e d two o r t h r e e weeks e a r l i e r on a f a i l u r e - t o - p a y - c h i l d - s u p p o r t c h a r g e , t h a t he h a d made c o n t a c t with her at the j a i l two weeks e a r l i e r , t h e m o t h e r h a d n o t b e e n aware o f t h e t e r m i n a t i o n that and t h a t petition at time. DHR a n d M.J.'s g u a r d i a n a d l i t e m o b j e c t e d motion t o continue. t o t h e mother's The j u v e n i l e c o u r t h e a r d a r g u m e n t s from M.J.'s g u a r d i a n a d l i t e m a n d t e s t i m o n y f r o m B e t h S m i t h , a c a s e worker i n the f o s t e r - c a r e u n i t w i t h DHR, a b o u t t h e m o t h e r ' s S e e R u l e 1 3 ( A ) ( 4 ) , A l a . R. J u v . P. ("An a d u l t who i s a p a r t y may w a i v e s e r v i c e o f t h e summons ... b y v o l u n t a r y a p p e a r a n c e a t t h e h e a r i n g . " ) . However, w h e t h e r t h e m o t h e r was brought i n v o l u n t a r i l y t o t h e h e a r i n g i s n o t c l e a r from t h e r e c o r d . The j u v e n i l e - c o u r t j u d g e s t a t e d on t h e r e c o r d t h a t he had n o t e n t e r e d a t r a n s p o r t o r d e r r e q u i r i n g t h e s h e r i f f t o b r i n g t h e m o t h e r f r o m t h e j a i l t o t h e h e a r i n g , a n d 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 DHR h a d s u b p o e n a e d t h e m o t h e r t o appear a t t h e h e a r i n g . 3 6 2110795 f a i l u r e t o m a i n t a i n c o n t a c t w i t h DHR and S m i t h ' s i n a b i l i t y t o l o c a t e t h e m o t h e r u s i n g t h e l a s t known a d d r e s s and t e l e p h o n e numbers that the mother had given DHR. Based e v i d e n c e , the j u v e n i l e c o u r t d e n i e d the mother's a continuance. that request f o r A f t e r the j u v e n i l e c o u r t denied the motion to c o n t i n u e , the mother, right on u n d e r o a t h , s t a t e d t h a t she w a i v e d h e r t o be p r e s e n t d u r i n g t h e r e m a i n d e r of the proceedings and t h a t she u n d e r s t o o d t h a t she w o u l d n o t a b l e t o a s s i s t h e r a t t o r n e y i n her defense. DHR began p r e s e n t i n g S m i t h , who i t s case through the t e s t i m o n y of had been a s s i g n e d t h e mother's November 2010. S m i t h t e s t i f i e d t h a t M.J. f o s t e r c a r e on A p r i l 7, 2009. to case i n October had been p l a c e d i n The m o t h e r ' s attorney objected S m i t h ' s t e s t i f y i n g r e g a r d i n g any e v e n t t h a t o c c u r r e d b e f o r e she was personal a s s i g n e d the case because knowledge. business record she c o u l d n o t t e s t i f y M.J.'s g u a r d i a n ad s u b m i t DHR's a l l e g e d l y litem 600-page c a s e f i l e because t h e DHR case DHR. file, The juvenile court d i d not but i t asked the p a r t i e s 7 to f i l e from attempted to i n t o e v i d e n c e as a workers a s s i g n e d t h e c a s e i n 2009 and most o f 2010 for or admit no who had longer the e n t i r e briefs been worked case regarding i t s 2110795 a d m i s s i b i l i t y and c o n t i n u e d t h e h e a r i n g t o a l a t e r On S e p t e m b e r 2, 2 0 1 1 , t h e m o t h e r f i l e d scheduled later in c o u r t date o f S e p t e m b e r 22, 2011, a n d r e q u e s t e d a c o u r t d a t e b e c a u s e she was, a t t h a t t i m e , i n c a r c e r a t e d circumstances. The c o u r t a p p a r e n t l y g r a n t e d t h a t On S e p t e m b e r 9, 2 0 1 1 , DHR f i l e d a an o b j e c t i o n t o a t h e Lee County J a i l and wanted a d d i t i o n a l time t o improve her to date. a t h i r d amended p e t i t i o n t e r m i n a t e the mother's p a r e n t a l r i g h t s . relative resource motion. f o r K . J . was no l o n g e r DHR a l l e g e d t h a t available, that K . J . was i n f o s t e r c a r e , a n d t h a t t h e m o t h e r ' s p a r e n t a l r i g h t s to K . J . s h o u l d be On December terminated. 9, 2 0 1 1 , DHR filed an amended motion f o r s e r v i c e o f p r o c e s s b y p u b l i c a t i o n a n d an a f f i d a v i t i n s u p p o r t of i t s motion that s t a t e d i n i t s e n t i r e t y : "1. That t h e T h i r d Amended Complaint f o r 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 was f i l e d i n t h i s c a s e on S e p t e m b e r 9, 2 0 1 1 , a n d s e r v i c e o f p r o c e s s was n o t c o m p l e t e d w i t h i n 90 d a y s o f s a i d f i l i n g ; "2. T h a t t h e c h i l d r e n i n t h e above named c a s e s [ , M.J. a n d K . J . , ] have h a d no c o n t a c t w i t h t h e p a r e n t s , o r a l l e g e d p a r e n t s , named h e r e i n f o r a t l e a s t one y e a r , a n d t h a t t h e a f o r e m e n t i o n e d c h i l d r e n have b e e n a b a n d o n e d p u r s u a n t t o Code o f A l a b a m a § 12-15-301; a n d "3. T h a t t h e w h e r e a b o u t s o f t h e a f o r e m e n t i o n e d p a r e n t s , o r a l l e g e d p a r e n t s , a r e unknown." 8 2110795 The juvenile court conducted December 15, 2 0 1 1 , r e g a r d i n g mother's p a r e n t a l failed r i g h t s t o M.J. a n d K . J . mother. what hearing on At that hearing, t o DHR's m o t i o n f o r s e r v i c e o f by p u b l i c a t i o n because to state pretrial DHR's p e t i t i o n t o t e r m i n a t e t h e the mother's a t t o r n e y o b j e c t e d process a attempts the a f f i d a v i t filed b y DHR h a d b e e n made t o l o c a t e t h e i n September when t h e t h i r d amended p e t i t i o n was f i l e d , 2011 He a l l e g e d t h a t t h e m o t h e r was i n j a i l t h a t DHR h a d an open c h i l d - s u p p o r t c a s e i n v o l v i n g t h e m o t h e r , a n d t h a t DHR should a t l e a s t h a v e t o show a t what a d d r e s s s e r v i c e on t h e mother had been a t t e m p t e d serve t h e mother c o u l d be u t i l i z e d . before a n d what e f f o r t s service o f process DHR h a d made t o by p u b l i c a t i o n I n r e s p o n s e , t h e a t t o r n e y f o r DHR t h a t DHR h a d n o t h a d t h e p a p e r w o r k r e a d y t o s e r v e w h i l e s h e was i n j a i l , was stated t h e mother t h a t DHR d i d n o t know where t h e m o t h e r p r e s e n t l y l o c a t e d , and t h a t t h e mother had n o t c o n t a c t e d DHR t o c h e c k i n o r l e a v e The any i n f o r m a t i o n . j u v e n i l e c o u r t a g r e e d t h a t DHR's a f f i d a v i t made o n l y conclusory statements about the mother's whereabouts being unknown t o DHR a n d d i d n o t i n c l u d e a n y e v i d e n c e e s t a b l i s h i n g , or even a conclusory statement 9 indicating, that the 2110795 whereabouts reasonable 1975. o f t h e mother could d i l i g e n c e as required Accordingly, provide evidence mother. Smith n o t be ascertained with b y § 1 2 - 1 5 - 3 1 8 , A l a . Code DHR p r e s e n t e d t h e t e s t i m o n y o f S m i t h t o of the e f f o r t s testified that s h e h a d made t o l o c a t e t h e she had checked the Medicaid system and t h e " f o o d - s t a m p " system i n Alabama t o see i f t h e r e was an a d d r e s s f o r t h e m o t h e r s i n c e h e r r e l e a s e t h a t she had been u n s u c c e s s f u l mother. oldest i n l o c a t i n g an a d d r e s s f o r t h e Smith t e s t i f i e d t h a t she had h e a r d t h a t t h e mother's child a n d h e r b a b y were Smith had checked the Medicaid the mother's g r a n d c h i l d ' s she from j a i l b u t living with t h e mother, so and "food-stamp" systems using name t o t r y t o g e t an a d d r e s s , b u t had n o t been s u c c e s s f u l . Smith s t a t e d t h a t she had a l s o a t t e m p t e d t o l o c a t e t h e m o t h e r ' s o l d e s t c h i l d i n an a t t e m p t t o l o c a t e t h e mother, b u t she had n o t been s u c c e s s f u l . Smith f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d that s h e h a d h a d an a d d r e s s f o r t h e m o t h e r i n G e o r g i a a t some p o i n t , b u t s h e a d m i t t e d t h a t s h e had not c a l l e d Services Division ("DFCS"), t h e e q u i v a l e n t information was the Georgia about t h e mother. of Family and C h i l d r e n o f DHR i n A l a b a m a , t o f i n d Smith a l s o a d m i t t e d t h a t she aware t h a t t h e m o t h e r h a d a c h i l d - s u p p o r t 10 case pending a t 2110795 the time of the h e a r i n g t h a t was being prosecuted t h a t she had n o t r e c e n t l y a c c e s s e d support-enforcement d i v i s i o n the mother. records, o f DHR had responded she "just Smith a l s o admitted mother w h i l e she was in Smith s t a t e d t h a t there jail. not checked ha[d DHR's not] done i t . " was not the mother. conclusion of the s t a t e d : " I want you what you can stonewalled, If you you get got." find, She a r e a s o n t h a t she could t o check the stated that the i t was juvenile-court child t r y t o make a c a l l support i t i n an discussing a date affidavit f o r the an "not At judge records, t o DFCS. p u t i t i n an a f f i d a v i t t h a t you g o t After not r e c o r d s t o t r y and f i n d also hearing, a response, put the j u v e n i l e - c o u r t judge, easy" to contact another s t a t e to t r y to get i n f o r m a t i o n . the own 4 check the c h i l d - s u p p o r t - e n f o r c e m e n t f o r the child- t h a t she had n o t a t t e m p t e d t o c o n t a c t I n r e s p o n s e t o q u e s t i o n i n g by address but to f i n d i n f o r m a t i o n about she that DHR any r e c o r d s f r o m t h e When a s k e d why she by see I f you get stonewalled. what response final hearing, As s e t f o r t h a b o v e , DHR was aware t h a t t h e m o t h e r was i n t h e Lee C o u n t y J a i l a t l e a s t b y J u l y 21, 2011, and a p l e a d i n g i n t h e r e c o r d f i l e d by t h e m o t h e r ' s a t t o r n e y s t a t e d t h a t t h e m o t h e r was s t i l l i n j a i l as o f S e p t e m b e r 2, 2011. 4 11 2110795 c o u n s e l f o r DHR s t a t e d t o t h e j u v e n i l e - c o u r t j u d g e : "You want us to contact correct?" And just child support a n d DFCS i n Georgia; i s that I n response the j u v e n i l e - c o u r t judge s t a t e d : "Yes. i n your affidavit r e p o r t -- i n y o u r affidavit just r e p o r t b a c k what t h e r e s u l t o f t h a t was." On December 16, 2011, 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 f t e r the p r e t r i a l hearing. for t r i a l was on A p r i l The j u v e n i l e c o u r t s e t t h e m a t t e r 19, 2012, " t h e same d a t e t h a t t h e [ m ] o t h e r last served with a Regarding DHR's motion [c]ourt date for service on by these matters." publication, j u v e n i l e c o u r t o r d e r e d DHR t o " s u b m i t e v i d e n c e w i t h i n d a y s as t o i t s q u e r i e s w i t h DHR c h i l d s u p p o r t On t h e same d a t e , DHR filed affidavit an amended m o t i o n affidavit trial a t t a c h e d t o the motion filed b y DHR on December h e a r i n g -- t h e same a f f i d a v i t was [seven] [and DFCS] f o r s e r v i c e of p r o c e s s by p u b l i c a t i o n w i t h a s u p p o r t i n g a f f i d a v i t . the the However, identical to the 9, 2011, b e f o r e t h e p r e that the j u v e n i l e court h a d d e t e r m i n e d d i d n o t meet t h e s t a n d a r d s e t f o r t h i n § 12-15¬ 318 d u r i n g t h e December 15 p r e t r i a l h e a r i n g . the mother f i l e d third a third amended p e t i t i o n , On December 22, amended a n s w e r i n r e s p o n s e raising 12 t o DHR's t h e same R u l e 12(b) d e f e n s e s 2110795 t h a t she h a d r a i s e d i n h e r f i r s t On J a n u a r y request City, 17, 2012, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t t o serve Villager a n d s e c o n d amended a n s w e r s . t h e mother i n Auburn, DHR's by p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e Auburn the C i t i z e n and t h e T i p t o n granted of East Conservative Alabama i n Tipton, i n Phenix Iowa. On February 27, 2012, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t e n t e r e d an amended o r d e r granting DHR's m o t i o n t o s e r v e the Auburn V i l l a g e r , Conservative, Georgia. t h e mother by p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e C i t i z e n o f E a s t Alabama, t h e T i p t o n a n d t h e Columbus L e d g e r - E n q u i r e r i n Columbus, A l l f o u r newspapers f i l e d a f f i d a v i t s o f p u b l i c a t i o n by A p r i l 13, 2012. The j u v e n i l e c o u r t c o n d u c t e d a f i n a l h e a r i n g on A p r i l 19, 2012. Smith testified t h a t , on December 27, 2 0 1 1 , she h a d c h e c k e d w i t h t h e c h i l d - s u p p o r t d i v i s i o n o f DHR a n d t h a t t h a t d i v i s i o n h a d two p o s s i b l e a d d r e s s e s Phenix C i t y a n d one i n Columbus, f o r t h e m o t h e r -- one i n Georgia. t h e m o t h e r h a d c h a n g e d h e r name f r o m D.W., she was known proceeding, certified by during t o R.D. letters t h e pendency Smith using both the mother t o c o n t a c t h e r . stated She l e a r n e d that w h i c h was t h e name of the termination that she had mailed names t o b o t h addresses asking The same d a y , s h e c o n t a c t e d DFCS 13 2110795 in Muscogee C o u n t y , would go to the address Smith to Columbus i f the mother see J a n u a r y 2012, mail G e o r g i a , and back asked had found about lived there. Smith got the r e t u r n r e c e i p t from the from the the mother address i n Columbus i n February the address of K.J.'s wanted t o f i l e harassment the f i n a l representative f o r the mother i n actually s i g n a t u r e "R.D." on t h e r e t u r n r e c e i p t . from i f a h e a r i n g was 2012, charges. and the mother mother's inquired because 19, b u t she d i d n o t S m i t h a d m i t t e d t h a t she h a d n o t s u b m i t t e d t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n by a f f i d a v i t a f t e r t h e December 15, and she s t a t e d t h a t she h a d n o t done so b e c a u s e she h a d i n c l u d e d t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n i n a c o u r t that she 2012, had and she demonstrate DHR filed with thought she Smith t o l d the mother t h a t scheduled f o r A p r i l hearing, the certified Smith r e c e i v e d a c a l l father's g i r l f r i e n d a s k t h e m o t h e r any q u e s t i o n s . 2011, p r e t r i a l with In the j u v e n i l e court that she was on only December 27, required to to the court her e f f o r t s t o l o c a t e the presented evidence i n d i c a t i n g that report i t had mother. attempted s e r v i c e on t h e m o t h e r by a p r i v a t e p r o c e s s s e r v e r on F e b r u a r y 22, 2012, a t t h e a d d r e s s i n Columbus a t w h i c h t h e m o t h e r had a c c e p t e d t h e c e r t i f i e d l e t t e r and t h a t i t h a d a g a i n a t t e m p t e d 14 2110795 service on t h e m o t h e r t h r o u g h department on F e b r u a r y that the court f i l e t h e Muscogee C o u n t y 24, 2012. court r e f l e c t e d t h a t s e r v i c e had been on t h o s e d a t e s a n d h a d f a i l e d . to The j u v e n i l e sheriff's noted attempted S e r v i c e by c e r t i f i e d m a i l sent t h e a d d r e s s i n Columbus on M a r c h 19, 2012, was r e t u r n e d t o DHR. Also at the A p r i l 19, 2012, h e a r i n g , t h e g u a r d i a n a d l i t e m f o r M.J. w i t h d r e w h e r m o t i o n t o s u b m i t DHR's e n t i r e file case as e v i d e n c e i n l i g h t o f DHR's s t i p u l a t i o n t h a t i t w o u l d present evidence t o support the p e t i t i o n mother's parental rights evidence of events that occurred after to terminate the t o M.J. a n d K . J . b a s e d July only 21, 2011, on i.e., the date o f the l a s t h e a r i n g . On May 2, 2012, t h e j u v e n i l e court entered an order t e r m i n a t i n g t h e m o t h e r ' s p a r e n t a l r i g h t s t o K . J . a n d M.J. I n its judgment, the juvenile c o u r t found been p r o p e r l y s e r v e d and t h a t over t h e mother petition. hearing a l l t h e mother had i t had p e r s o n a l and s u b j e c t - m a t t e r The j u v e n i l e that court further jurisdiction jurisdiction stated that, over the "[a]fter ... t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d on A p r i l 19, 2012, t h e [c]ourt hereby determines that i t i s i n the best i n t e r e s t of 15 2110795 ... be [ K . J . a n d M.J.] t h a t 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 ... terminated." Without mother t i m e l y f i l e d We w i l l juvenile M.J. first court's served a postjudgment motion, the a notice of appeal t o t h i s consider t h e mother's court. argument that the judgment 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 t o and K . J . i s v o i d personal filing because the juvenile court lacked j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r h e r b e c a u s e she was n e v e r p r o p e r l y notice o f DHR's p e t i t i o n to terminate her parental rights. "Our supreme c o u r t h a s r e c o g n i z e d that "'[o]ne of the r e q u i s i t e s of personal j u r i s d i c t i o n over a defendant i s " p e r f e c t e d service" of process g i v i n g notice t o the d e f e n d a n t o f t h e s u i t b e i n g b r o u g h t . " "When t h e s e r v i c e o f p r o c e s s on t h e d e f e n d a n t i s c o n t e s t e d as b e i n g improper o r i n v a l i d , t h e b u r d e n o f p r o o f i s on t h e p l a i n t i f f t o p r o v e t h a t s e r v i c e o f p r o c e s s was p e r f o r m e d c o r r e c t l y and l e g a l l y . " A judgment r e n d e r e d a g a i n s t a defendant i n t h e absence o f p e r s o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h a t defendant is void.' " H o r i z o n s 2000, I n c . v . S m i t h , 620 So. 2d 606, 607 (Ala. 1993) ( c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) . " R.M. v. E l m o r e C n t y . Dep't o f Human Res., (Ala. 75 So. 3d 1195, 1199 C i v . App. 2 0 1 1 ) . Initially, we note that t h e mother 16 d i d not waive t h e 2110795 defense of l a c k of personal j u r i s d i c t i o n by f a i l i n g to raise i t i n h e r f i r s t r e s p o n s i v e p l e a d i n g , i . e . , h e r a n s w e r t o DHR's O c t o b e r 25, 2010, p e t i t i o n to terminate t h a t was f i l e d on November 10, 2010. the mother defense sought leave her parental rights The r e c o r d r e v e a l s t h a t t o amend h e r a n s w e r t o i n c l u d e t h e of lack of personal jurisdiction, that DHR d i d not o b j e c t t o t h a t m o t i o n , and t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t a l l o w e d t h e m o t h e r t o amend h e r a n s w e r . Our supreme c o u r t h a s h e l d : " R u l e 1 2 [ , A l a . R. C i v . P.,] a n d R u l e 1 5 [ , A l a . R. C i v . P . ] , when r e a d t o g e t h e r , a l l o w a d e f e n d a n t t o amend an answer t o i n c l u d e a R u l e 1 2 ( b ) d e f e n s e , which i s normally asserted, a t the option of the pleader i n the i n i t i a l responsive pleading or i n a motion f i l e d before the i n i t i a l responsive pleading, p r o v i d e d t h a t t h e m o t i o n t o amend i s f i l e d more t h a n 42 d a y s b e f o r e t r i a l . " ' " T h e r e f o r e , any d e f e n s e i n law o r i n f a c t a v a i l a b l e t o a p a r t y a t t h e t i m e he s e r v e s h i s r e s p o n s i v e p l e a d i n g s h o u l d be a s s e r t e d . But t h e p o l i c y o f c o m p e l l i n g t h e a s s e r t i o n of defenses by r e s p o n s i v e p l e a d i n g i s not a b s o l u t e . The l i b e r a l amendment p o l i c i e s u n d e r R u l e 15 a l l o w a p a r t y t o a d d d e f e n s e s t o h i s r e s p o n s i v e p l e a d i n g t h a t have b e e n overlooked by mistake or n e g l e c t or t h a t have become a v a i l a b l e t o h i m a f t e r he h a s served h i s pleading, provided that the amendment does n o t p r e j u d i c e t h e o p p o s i n g party."' "C. W r i g h t & A. M i l l e r , Federal P r o c e d u r e § 1348, a t 538 ( 1 9 6 9 ) . " 17 Practice and 2110795 Ex p a r t e F i d e l i t y Bank, 893 So. 2d 1116, also 1999) D.L.C. v . C.A.H., 764 So. 2d 562, 564 ( A l a . C i v . App. ( h o l d i n g t h a t a f a t h e r a c t i n g p r o se d i d n o t w a i v e t h e defense not 1120 ( A l a . 2004) . See of lack raise of personal j u r i s d i c t i o n in i tin his first even though he d i d r e s p o n s i v e p l e a d i n g because a s u b s e q u e n t l y f i l e d m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s c o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d as an amendment t o t h e answer f i l e d b y t h e f a t h e r ) . conclude that t h e mother d i d not waive her A c c o r d i n g l y , we jurisdictional argument. R u l e 1 ( A ) , A l a . R. J u v . P., p r o v i d e s , i n p e r t i n e n t part: "These R u l e s ... s h a l l g o v e r n t h e p r o c e d u r e f o r a l l m a t t e r s i n the j u v e n i l e in these Procedure court. Rules shall I f no p r o c e d u r e or by s t a t u t e , be applicable considered c i v i l i nnature." i s s p e c i f i c a l l y provided t h e Alabama t o those Rules matters of that Civil are Regarding the issuance of notice and s e r v i c e o f summons, R u l e 1 3 ( A ) , A l a . R. J u v . P., p r o v i d e s , in pertinent part: "(A) Summons. S e r v i c e o f summons s h a l l be p u r s u a n t t o t h e Alabama R u l e s o f C i v i l Procedure, e x c e p t as h e r e i n a f t e r p r o v i d e d : "(1) A f t e r a p e t i t i o n a l l e g i n g t h a t a child is delinquent, in need of s u p e r v i s i o n , o r dependent has been f i l e d , the c l e r k of the c i r c u i t c o u r t s h a l l ensure 18 2110795 t h a t summonses a r e i s s u e d ... t o t h e p a r e n t o r p a r e n t s ... r e q u i r i n g them t o a p p e a r personally before the juvenile court at the t i m e f i x e d t o answer o r t e s t i f y as t o t h e a l l e g a t i o n s o f t h e p e t i t i o n . A copy o f t h e p e t i t i o n s h a l l be a t t a c h e d t o e a c h summons. "(2) T h e r e s h a l l be no s e r v i c e b y publication o f any p r o c e e d i n g i n the j u v e n i l e court except i n proceedings t o terminate parental r i g h t s . "(3) The s e r v i c e o f t h e summons s h a l l give the j u v e n i l e court j u r i s d i c t i o n over the persons s e r v e d , b u t t h e i n a b i l i t y t o s e r v e any p a r t y s h a l l n o t d e p r i v e t h e c o u r t of j u r i s d i c t i o n t o p r o c e e d . "(4) An a d u l t who i s a p a r t y may w a i v e service of the summons by written s t i p u l a t i o n or by v o l u n t a r y appearance a t the h e a r i n g . " On a p p e a l , t h e m o t h e r does n o t c o n t e n d t h a t the service o f p r o c e s s she r e c e i v e d on J u l y 2 1 , 2 0 1 1 , b e f o r e t h e s t a r t o f the on hearing conducted otherwise improper. (providing for service See court v. K e i t h , i s confined Rule date, was 4(c)(1), i n s u f f i c i e n t or A l a . R. C i v . P. on an i n d i v i d u a l d e f e n d a n t ) ; a n d v. C r o u c h , 923 So. 2d 1130, Boshell that 1136 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2005) 418 So. 2d 89, 92-93 ( A l a . 1982)) i n i t s review t o addressing Gary (citing ("[T]his t h e arguments r a i s e d b y 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 a r e waived."). 19 Although i t i snot clear 2110795 in t h e r e c o r d , we c a n assume t h a t t h e m o t h e r was s e r v e d t h e p e t i t i o n t h a t was t h e n p e n d i n g b e f o r e i.e., start The j u v e n i l e of that hearing matter o f [M.J.]" terminate [DHR]." the juvenile court, t h e mother's p a r e n t a l the p e t i t i o n t o terminate t o M.J. o n l y . rights court clearly indicated t h a t t h e p a r t i e s were p r e s e n t a n d t h a t t h e y were t h e r e parental rights Accordingly, i n regards we c o n c l u d e that to [M.J.] However, t h e mother we w i l l n o t i c e , a t that time, her parental petition April rights t o terminate 2 0 1 1 , amend parental her parental personal to K.J. rights to include The r e c o r d clearly i t removed K . J . ' s name f r o m t h e mother's the p e t i t i o n t h a t DHR i n t e n d e d t o parental to terminate K.J. u n t i l rights i n t h e mother's September Thus, we a g r e e w i t h t h e i m p l i c i t d e t e r m i n a t i o n court, received n o t go so f a r as t o c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e r e f l e c t s t h a t DHR d i d n o t , a f t e r the by t h e s t a r t o f t h e J u l y 21, 2011, h e a r i n g . m o t h e r was g i v e n terminate " i n the filed t o M.J. on J u l y 2 1 , 2 0 1 1 , when s h e r e c e i v e d service before at the on a " p e t i t i o n t o s e r v i c e o f p r o c e s s o f DHR's p e t i t i o n t o t e r m i n a t e rights with 9, 2 0 1 1 . of the juvenile DHR, a n d t h e m o t h e r , t h a t t h e m o t h e r was e n t i t l e d t o s e r v i c e o f p r o c e s s o f t h e t h i r d amended p e t i t i o n p u r s u a n t t o 20 2110795 Rule 13(A)(1) and Rule 4, A l a . additional request R. C i v . P., i n s o f a r a s i t included an that the j u v e n i l e court terminate the mother's p a r e n t a l r i g h t s t o K.J. i n a d d i t i o n t o M.J. It i s undisputed f r o m t h e r e c o r d t h a t t h e o n l y way t h a t t h e m o t h e r w o u l d have been s e r v e d n o t i c e o f DHR's p e t i t i o n t o terminate her p a r e n t a l r i g h t s t o K.J. i s i f s e r v i c e of process by publication was proper. In determining whether t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t p r o p e r l y a l l o w e d t h e m o t h e r t o be s e r v e d n o t i c e o f DHR's p e t i t i o n t o t e r m i n a t e h e r p a r e n t a l r i g h t s t o K.J. by p u b l i c a t i o n , we a r e g u i d e d b y t h i s c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n i n L.K. v. Lee 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 , 64 So. 3d 1112 ( A l a . Civ. App. 2010) . I n L.K., t h i s c o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t § 12-15¬ 318, A l a . Code 1975, n o t R u l e 4.3, A l a . R. C i v . P., " r e g u l a t e s the procedure f o r s e r v i c e by p u b l i c a t i o n i n t e r m i n a t i o n - o f - parental-rights cases." Id. at 1114. Section 12-15-318 provides: "(a) E x c e p t a s o t h e r w i s e p r o v i d e d b y t h e A l a b a m a Rules of Juvenile Procedure and t h i s section, service of process of termination of p a r e n t a l r i g h t s a c t i o n s s h a l l be made i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e A l a b a m a Rules of C i v i l Procedure. "(b) completed I f service of w i t h i n 90 d a y s 21 process has n o t been of the f i l i n g of the 2110795 termination of petitioner shall parental rights r e q u e s t s e r v i c e by petition, the publication. " ( c ) S e r v i c e o f p r o c e s s b y p u b l i c a t i o n may be ordered by the juvenile court unless f o l l o w i n g c o n d i t i o n s a r e met: not the "(1) The c h i l d who i s t h e s u b j e c t o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g s was a b a n d o n e d i n t h e s t a t e . "(2) The s t a t e o r p r i v a t e d e p a r t m e n t o r a g e n c y h a v i n g c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d has e s t a b l i s h e d , by e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d t o t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t , t h a t the absent parent or p a r e n t s are a v o i d i n g s e r v i c e of process or t h e i r w h e r e a b o u t s a r e unknown and c a n n o t be ascertained with reasonable d i l i g e n c e . "(d) S e r v i c e s h a l l be made by p u b l i c a t i o n i n a newspaper o f g e n e r a l c i r c u l a t i o n i n the county of t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t h a v i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n and i n t h e c o u n t y o f t h e l a s t known a d d r e s s o f t h e p a r e n t o r p a r e n t s o f t h e a b a n d o n e d c h i l d , a t l e a s t once a week f o r f o u r c o n s e c u t i v e weeks." In L.K., we c o n s t r u e d § 12-15-318 f o r t h e f i r s t time held: " S e c t i o n 12-15-318(c) c l e a r l y provides that two c o n d i t i o n s must be s a t i s f i e d i n o r d e r f o r a j u v e n i l e court to grant a motion to serve a parent by publication in a termination-of-parental-rights c a s e . F i r s t , t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t must f i n d t h a t t h e c h i l d has b e e n a b a n d o n e d i n t h i s s t a t e . S e c o n d , t h e juvenile court must find, based on evidence p r e s e n t e d t o i t by DHR o r by any o t h e r p e r s o n h a v i n g l e g a l c u s t o d y of the abandoned c h i l d , 'that the absent parent or p a r e n t s are a v o i d i n g s e r v i c e of p r o c e s s o r t h e i r w h e r e a b o u t s a r e unknown and c a n n o t be ascertained with reasonable diligence. ' § 1 2 - 1 5 - 3 1 8 ( c ) ( 2 ) . I f t h o s e c o n d i t i o n s a r e met, the 22 and 2110795 j u v e n i l e c o u r t can t h e n o r d e r s e r v i c e by p u b l i c a t i o n as s e t o u t i n § 1 2 - 1 5 - 3 1 8 ( d ) . " Id. a t 1114-15 On (emphasis added). appeal, as she did during m o t h e r a r g u e s t h a t DHR the p r o c e e d i n g s below, f a i l e d to present the evidence pursuant to § 12-15-318(c)(2) to e s t a b l i s h t h a t the mother's whereabouts c o u l d n o t be The after DHR a s c e r t a i n e d with reasonable record DHR had filed filed an alleging reveals demonstrated unknown and motion the "that on December i t s September 9 t h i r d amended that that, diligence. for affidavit the 9, amended service by attached whereabouts of 2011, days petition, publication to the 91 the parents c a n n o t be a s c e r t a i n e d w i t h r e a s o n a b l e motion ... are diligence." However, t h e a f f i d a v i t a t t a c h e d t o t h e m o t i o n s t a t e d o n l y t h a t service M.J. and of p r o c e s s K.J. had alleged parents" had not had no juvenile attorney on contact s t a t e , and "aforementioned parents conference completed with court December objected "the days, K.J. had t h a t the whereabouts of the t h a t M.J. subsequently 2011, parents that the or a l l e g e d p a r e n t s " 15, i n 90 or f o r at l e a s t 1 year, been abandoned i n the The been at and were unknown. conducted which a pretrial the mother's t o DHR's m o t i o n f o r s e r v i c e o f p r o c e s s 23 by 2110795 publication essentially 12-15-318(c)(2). only unknown testimony statements in i t s under mother. oath instructed to locate Smith about t h e mother's affidavit. concerning The j u v e n i l e DHR's e f f o r t s § The j u v e n i l e c o u r t a g r e e d t h a t DHR h a d made conclusory being b e c a u s e DHR h a d n o t c o m p l i e d w i t h court whereabouts Accordingly, her e f f o r t s was a p p a r e n t l y to locate gave the unsatisfied t h e mother because t o make a d d i t i o n a l Smith by i t specifically efforts to locate the m o t h e r a n d t o f i l e an a f f i d a v i t , i . e . , e v i d e n c e , s e t t i n g f o r t h the additional successful efforts she h a d made i n l o c a t i n g t h e mother. and whether she was We a g r e e t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d b y DHR on December 15, 2 0 1 1 , d i d n o t e s t a b l i s h that, a t t h e t i m e o f t h a t h e a r i n g , DHR h a d made r e a s o n a b l y d i l i g e n t efforts to locate It i s undisputed that court with mother. and this, service The r e c o r d a notice DHR d i d n o t p r e s e n t an a f f i d a v i t o f i t s f u r t h e r Despite permitting 2012. t h e mother. the juvenile e f f o r t s to locate the court issued o f process by p u b l i c a t i o n indicates of f a i l u r e that of service F e b r u a r y 24, 2012, b e f o r e the juvenile the juvenile an order on J a n u a r y 17, court received on t h e m o t h e r on F e b r u a r y 22 i tissued 24 an amended o r d e r on 2110795 February 24, 2012, a l l o w i n g process by p u b l i c a t i o n , i n Columbus. the juvenile that had before DHR had notice served that, i t no at that additional the additional necessary with t h r o u g h a newspaper reveals taken h a d deemed t o be time, evidence steps the to t r y to locate the W i t h o u t a d d i t i o n a l e v i d e n c e , t h e r e was no way f o r t h e juvenile service court court mother. including However, t h e r e c o r d juvenile indicating t h e mother court t o know t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e of the f a i l u r e a t a s p e c i f i c address a t the time i t issued i t s order allowing DHR t o s e r v e t h e m o t h e r n o t i c e b y p u b l i c a t i o n . evidence was n o t p r o v i d e d testimony at the A p r i l after the juvenile publication. until Smith presented 19, 2012, h e a r i n g , court had a l l o w e d Accordingly, we That additional a l m o s t two months service conclude of that of process by DHR failed to e s t a b l i s h by evidence p r e s e n t e d t o t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t t h a t t h e whereabouts o f t h e mother could reasonable d i l i g e n c e before service was ordered by the j u v e n i l e This court comply w i t h juvenile i s gravely n o t be ascertained with o f process by p u b l i c a t i o n court. concerned b y DHR's failure to t h e p l a i n l a n g u a g e o f § 12-15-318 e v e n a f t e r t h e court made i tperfectly 25 clear that DHR needed t o 2110795 e s t a b l i s h by e v i d e n c e , i . e . , an whereabouts could diligence. As we not be stated in affidavit, ascertained t h a t the with mother's reasonable L.K.: " J u s t as s t r i c t c o m p l i a n c e i s r e q u i r e d r e g a r d i n g t h e c i v i l r u l e s o f s e r v i c e o f p r o c e s s , see J o h n s o n v. H a l l , 10 So. 3d 1031, 1037 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 8 ) , so must we a l s o r e q u i r e s t r i c t c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e s t a t u t e r e g a r d i n g s e r v i c e of p r o c e s s a p p l i c a b l e t o termination-of-parental-rights proceedings. Those p r o c e e d i n g s s t r i k e a t the v e r y h e a r t of the f a m i l y u n i t . See Ex p a r t e B e a s l e y , 564 So. 2d 950, 952 (Ala. 1990). In a termination-of-parental-rights case, the state is seeking to irreversibly extinguish a fundamental liberty i n t e r e s t more precious t h a n any p r o p e r t y r i g h t , the r i g h t to a s s o c i a t e w i t h one's c h i l d . S a n t o s k y v. K r a m e r , 455 U.S. 745, 758-59, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982). U n l i k e a judgment d i v e s t i n g a p a r e n t of c u s t o d y , a judgment 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 i m m e d i a t e , p e r m a n e n t , and i r r e v o c a b l e . See C.B. v. S t a t e Dep't o f Human Res., 782 So. 2d 781, 785 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1998) ('termination of p a r e n t a l r i g h t s i s an e x t r e m e a c t i o n t h a t c a n n o t be undone; i t i s p e r m a n e n t ' ) . Out o f r e s p e c t f o r t h o s e f u n d a m e n t a l r i g h t s , due p r o c e s s must be o b s e r v e d . S a n t o s k y , supra." 64 So. 3d a t In l i g h t comply w i t h perfect terminate the 1115. of our determination § 1 2 - 1 5 - 3 1 8 ( c ) ( 2 ) , we service on the mother the mother's p a r e n t a l j u v e n i l e court d i d not t h a t DHR conclude that i n s o f a r as DHR r i g h t s to K.J. obtain personal 26 d i d not DHR strictly did not petitioned to Accordingly, jurisdiction over 2110795 t h e m o t h e r r e g a r d i n g DHR's p e t i t i o n t o t e r m i n a t e r i g h t s t o K.J., it terminated her parental a n d 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 t h e mother's p a r e n t a l r i g h t s t o K.J., i s void. B e c a u s e an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t i s r e q u i r e d t o d i s m i s s an a t t e m p t e d appeal from a void judgment, we dismiss i n s t r u c t i o n s t o the j u v e n i l e court t o vacate this appeal with i t s May 2, 2012, j u d g m e n t i n s o f a r as i t t e r m i n a t e d t h e m o t h e r ' s p a r e n t a l r i g h t s to K.J. See L.K., 64 So. 3d a t 1116. B e c a u s e we have personal jurisdiction concluded over that the j u v e n i l e court had t h e mother i n regard t o DHR's p e t i t i o n t o t e r m i n a t e t h e m o t h e r ' s p a r e n t a l r i g h t s t o M.J., will discuss t h e second i s s u e r a i s e d i n t h e mother's we appeal i n s o f a r as i t p e r t a i n s t o t h e m e r i t s o f 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 t e r m i n a t i n g t h e m o t h e r ' s p a r e n t a l r i g h t s t o M.J. The m o t h e r a r g u e s t h a t " t h e e n t i r e c o u r t r e p o r t / r e c o r d o f DHR was [in]admissible under the business hearsay r u l e of evidence." record request the reflects exception to the See R u l e 8 0 3 ( 6 ) , A l a . R. E v i d . t h a t M.J.'s g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m The withdrew her t o s u b m i t DHR's e n t i r e r e c o r d o f t h e c a s e i n v o l v i n g mother never record and h e r f i v e submitted into c h i l d r e n and t h a t evidence. 27 that Accordingly, record was the question 2110795 whether such a record was a d m i s s i b l e under Rule 803(6) i s moot. To t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h e m o t h e r a r g u e s t h a t some o f S m i t h ' s testimony d u r i n g t h e J u l y 2 1 , 2 0 1 1 , h e a r i n g was i n a d m i s s i b l e because t h e testimony that contained was b a s e d on i n f o r m a t i o n i n a DHR's e n t i r e r e c o r d on t h e m o t h e r a n d t h a t was made i n a n t i c i p a t i o n o f l i t i g a t i o n , error, P. into evidence, As n o t e d attention a above, DHR's c a s e See R u l e 45, A l a . R. file was n o t submitted and t h e mother has n o t d i r e c t e d t h i s to a place information answer we c o n c l u d e t h a t s u c h an i f t h e r e was o n e , was h a r m l e s s . App. "packet" i n the record i n the "packet" question. referred See R u l e where Smith court's relied on t o i n h e r argument t o 28(a) ( 1 0 ) , A l a . R. App. P. ( r e q u i r i n g an a p p e l l a n t t o p r e s e n t " [ a ] n argument c o n t a i n i n g the ... w i t h contentions issues presented, the cases, of the appellant respect to the and t h e reasons t h e r e f o r , w i t h c i t a t i o n s t o statutes, record r e l i e d on"). other authorities, and p a r t s of the M o r e o v e r , a t t h e A p r i l 19, 2012, h e a r i n g , DHR s t a t e d on t h e r e c o r d t h a t i t i n t e n d e d t o p r o v e i t s c a s e b y p r e s e n t i n g evidence o f f a c t s t h a t had o c c u r r e d o n l y a f t e r the July 21, 2011, h e a r i n g . Furthermore, 28 in its final judgment 2110795 t e r m i n a t i n g t h e m o t h e r ' s p a r e n t a l r i g h t s t o M.J., t h e j u v e n i l e court indicated parental rights that i t s d e c i s i o n t o terminate was b a s e d A p r i l 19, 2012, h e a r i n g . t h e mother's on t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d at the A c c o r d i n g l y , we c a n n o t c o n c l u d e t h a t the mother has demonstrated t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e reversible error terminating the merits t h e mother's appeal of committed t h e m o t h e r ' s p a r e n t a l r i g h t s t o M.J. Accordingly, regarding court from i t s judgment the judgment terminating her parental rights to K.J. i s dismissed, albeit w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n s t o t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t t o v a c a t e i t s judgment i n s o f a r as i t t e r m i n a t e d t h e mother's p a r e n t a l r i g h t s t o K . J . The r e m a i n d e r o f t h e j u v e n i l e terminated as i t t h e m o t h e r ' s p a r e n t a l r i g h t s t o M.J., i s a f f i r m e d . APPEAL AFFIRMED c o u r t ' s judgment, i n s o f a r DISMISSED IN PART WITH INSTRUCTIONS; JUDGMENT I N PART. Pittman, Thomas, a n d Moore, J J . , c o n c u r . Thompson, P . J . , c o n c u r s i n t h e r e s u l t , w i t h o u t 29 writing.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.