T.Y. v. Jefferson County Department of Human Resources

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 03/08/2013 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 2110869 T.Y. v. J e f f e r s o n County Department o f Human Resources Appeal from J e f f e r s o n J u v e n i l e Court (JU-11-50278.01) THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e . T.Y. ("the m o t h e r " ) a p p e a l s parental rights to herchild, The child's record indicates birth i n February a judgment t e r m i n a t i n g h e r D.J.Y.H. I I I ("the c h i l d " ) . that, immediately following the 2011, t h e J e f f e r s o n County 2110869 Department alleging of that Human the c h i l d mental i l l n e s s . and dependency entered DHR was d e p e n d e n t additional pending 1, 2 0 1 1 , DHR the mother's parental unknown f a t h e r o f t h e c h i l d . tenus rights. hearing on seeking putative father. that The j u v e n i l e c o u r t c o n d u c t e d an to terminate rights o f t h e mother The m o t h e r filed The m o t h e r t i m e l y a parental a judgment and o f t h e postjudgment of law pursuant t o Rule appealed. m o t h e r 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 reaching to the parental r i g h t s of the the p e t i t i o n the parental A l a . R. C i v . P. erred some o f t h e f a c t u a l f i n d i n g s upon w h i c h i t b a s e d termination other o f DHR's r i g h t s to the c h i l d ; 59.1, its order, continuing a petition by o p e r a t i o n in orders on t h e m e r i t s m o t i o n t h a t was d e n i e d The petition a pickup On May 4, 2012, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t e n t e r e d terminating child's entered filed p e t i t i o n a l s o sought t o terminate ore a due t o t h e m o t h e r ' s review a hearing filed petition. On December terminate ("DHR") The j u v e n i l e c o u r t i t later custody with Resources things, judgment. that The j u v e n i l e c o u r t t h e mother had seven other found, among c h i l d r e n and t h a t a l l o f t h o s e c h i l d r e n were i n t h e c u s t o d y o f r e l a t i v e s . 2 2110869 As t h e mother p o i n t s child at record the issue o u t , she has i s the mother's s i x other seventh c h i l d r e n ; the child. i n d i c a t e s t h a t the mother's other Also, the s i x c h i l d r e n are i n c u s t o d y o f o t h e r s ; h o w e v e r , t h e r e c o r d does n o t i n d i c a t e the r e l a t i o n s h i p of a l l of the c u s t o d i a n s children. Accordingly, t o t h e mother o r h e r t h e mother i s t e c h n i c a l l y c o r r e c t t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e does n o t s u p p o r t 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 i n the custody of r e l a t i v e s . We a r e i n c l i n e d , h o w e v e r , t o c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e e r r o r s i n those f a c t u a l f i n d i n g s are harmless. details of those factual findings are s u b s t a n c e i s s u p p o r t e d by t h e r e c o r d . that t h e mother has unable to maintain all i n the custody child at issue In its specifically custody numerous of other termination found that child inaccurate, their The e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e s children, people that she has o r , i n the case i n the custody of judgment, "[t]he f o r three numerous f o s t e r homes." the specific been c u s t o d y o f any o f them, a n d t h a t t h e y a r e i n t h i s appeal, o f [DHR] Although the child years the herein and has DHR. juvenile court has been i n t h e been As t h e m o t h e r p o i n t s a t i s s u e was o n l y of the placed in o u t , however, 15 months o l d a t t h e t i m e o f t h e 3 2110869 May 4, 2012, termination judgment. Further, the record c o n t a i n s no m e n t i o n o f t h e c h i l d ' s h i s t o r y i n f o s t e r homes and w h e t h e r t h e c h i l d h a s h a d more t h a n one f o s t e r home. Thus, t h a t f a c t u a l f i n d i n g i s n o t s u p p o r t e d b y any e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l a n d does n o t a p p e a r t o r e l a t e t o t h e c h i l d a t issue i n this factual Accordingly, finding i s clearly The erred action. we conclude that that erroneous. 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 relying, i n i t s judgment terminating her parental r i g h t s , on e v i d e n c e p e r t a i n i n g t o h e r m e n t a l - h e a l t h condition. In i t s t e r m i n a t i o n judgment, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t found t h a t t h e mother "has Disorder, Mood Retardation." the The DHR diagnosed Disorder, with Intermittent Psychosis NOS, and Mental hearsay. r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t DHR q u e s t i o n e d diagnoses. Mild r e l i e d i n m a k i n g t h a t f a c t u a l f i n d i n g was i n t h e form of i n a d m i s s i b l e social Explosive The m o t h e r a r g u e s t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e upon w h i c h j u v e n i l e court presented a been worker, The concerning juvenile court Sabrina t h e mother's initially Boswell, mental-health sustained the mother's o b j e c t i o n t h a t t h a t evidence c o n s t i t u t e d i n a d m i s s i b l e hearsay, concluding that i t would not consider 4 that evidence 2110869 in determining whether the child was dependent. However, a f t e r f i n d i n g t h a t the evidence supported a d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t t h e c h i l d was testify dependent, the j u v e n i l e c o u r t a l l o w e d B o s w e l l t o r e g a r d i n g the diagnoses professionals r e a c h e d by two f r o m whom t h e m o t h e r had mental-health sought treatment. In a l l o w i n g B o s w e l l to t e s t i f y r e g a r d i n g t h a t i s s u e , the j u v e n i l e court determined t h a t the evidence was a d m i s s i b l e as p a r t o f what i t c h a r a c t e r i z e d as the " d i s p o s i t i o n a l " p o r t i o n of termination a l s o note hearing. specifically We questioned Boswell t h a t the about the juvenile sources the court of the diagnoses. The j u v e n i l e c o u r t i s c o r r e c t t h a t o t h e r w i s e i n a d m i s s i b l e evidence, the such disposition Code 1975. court, an as h e a r s a y , of may be a dependent considered i n determining child. § 12-15-311(b), A l a . However, as t h e m o t h e r a r g u e d b e f o r e t h e action seeking to terminate parental a d j u d i c a t o r y , not d i s p o s i t i o n a l , i n n a t u r e . C n t y . Dep't o f Human Res., 890 So. 2d 103, 2 0 0 3 ) ( p l u r a l i t y o p i n i o n ) ("We Y.M. 112 juvenile rights is v. J e f f e r s o n (Ala. Civ. App. h o l d t h a t when a j u v e n i l e c o u r t h e a r s e v i d e n c e on a p e t i t i o n t o t e r m i n a t e p a r e n t a l r i g h t s , i t is c o n d u c t i n g an a d j u d i c a t i o n , n o t m a k i n g a d i s p o s i t i o n , 5 and 2110869 hearsay is 'not competent in [termination-of-parental-rights] a hearing petition.'"). on I n Ex p a r t e S t a t e D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s , 890 So. 2d 114, 2004), our supreme parental-rights dispositional action and t h a t , r e l y upon h e a r s a y The et Alabama agreed that a is i n such a hearing, 117 ( A l a . termination-of- adjudicatory evidence. rather a court whether 1975, p r o v i d e s a child than may n o t 1 J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e A c t ("AJJA"), § s e q . , A l a . Code determines court the that i s dependent a 12-15-101 juvenile court a t an a d j u d i c a t o r y h e a r i n g , s e e § 1 2 - 1 5 - 3 1 0 ( a ) , a n d t h a t t h e c o u r t must d e t e r m i n e that the c h i l d evidence, termination if from "clear and convincing competent, m a t e r i a l , and r e l e v a n t i n n a t u r e . " 15-311(a). provides i s dependent Similarly, with of a parent's regard parental to a rights, t h a t a j u v e n i l e c o u r t may t e r m i n a t e i t " f i n d s from c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g hearing § on t h e 12-15-319(a) parental evidence, § 12- rights competent, Y.M. v. J e f f e r 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 , s u p r a , a n d Ex p a r t e S t a t e D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s , s u p r a , r e l i e d on e a r l i e r v e r s i o n s o f j u v e n i l e s t a t u t e s . The c u r r e n t Alabama J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e A c t has n o t a l t e r e d t h e p e r t i n e n t language o r r e q u i r e m e n t s o f t h e law under which t h o s e two c a s e s were d e c i d e d . 1 6 2110869 material, and relevant i n nature," t h a t grounds exist for termination. Our supreme c o u r t has e x p l a i n e d t h a t i n an a d j u d i c a t o r y termination-of-parental-rights proceeding, hearsay is i n a d m i s s i b l e i f i t does n o t f a l l w i t h i n one o f t h e r e c o g n i z e d e x c e p t i o n s to the hearsay rule: "Because of the f i n a l i t y of a t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n to terminate a parent's r i g h t s , the proceeding i n the trial court is clearly an adjudicatory proceeding. T h e r e f o r e , we a g r e e w i t h the Court of C i v i l Appeals t h a t a proceeding to t e r m i n a t e a p a r e n t ' s r i g h t s p u r s u a n t t o § 26-18-7, A l a . Code 1975 [now § 12-15-319, A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 ] , i s an a d j u d i c a t i o n . "We f u r t h e r r e c o g n i z e , as d i d t h e C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s , t h a t o n l y c o m p e t e n t , m a t e r i a l , and r e l e v a n t e v i d e n c e may be a d m i t t e d d u r i n g an a d j u d i c a t o r y proceeding to terminate a parent's r i g h t s . See § 1 2 - 1 5 - 6 5 ( f ) and § 2 6 - 1 8 - 7 ( a ) , A l a . Code 1975 [now § 12-15-310, § 12-15-311, and § 12-15-319]. A d d i t i o n a l l y , we a c k n o w l e d g e , as d i d t h e C o u r t o f Civil Appeals, that hearsay evidence is not c o n s i d e r e d c o m p e t e n t e v i d e n c e i n an a d j u d i c a t o r y proceeding, unless i t f a l l s within one of the exceptions provided by the Alabama Rules of E v i d e n c e , o t h e r r u l e s a d o p t e d by t h i s C o u r t , o r b y statute. R u l e 802, A l a . R. E v i d . Hearsay evidence i s a d m i s s i b l e a t an a d j u d i c a t o r y h e a r i n g i f i t f a l l s w i t h i n one o f t h e e x c e p t i o n s p r o v i d e d i n R u l e s 803 and 804, A l a . R. E v i d . For example, R u l e 803(6), Ala. R. E v i d . , p r o v i d e s t h a t r e c o r d s o f r e g u l a r l y c o n d u c t e d a c t i v i t y a r e n o t e x c l u d e d by t h e h e a r s a y rule. See L.A.C. v. S t a t e Dep't o f Human Res., 890 So. 2d 1026 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2003) ( a n a l y z i n g a report prepared by employee of a hospital 7 2110869 intervention program t o determine i f i t was a d m i s s i b l e as a b u s i n e s s r e c o r d p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 8 0 3 ( 6 ) , A l a . R. E v i d . ) . Thus, h e a r s a y e v i d e n c e i s admissible at a termination-of-parental-rights p r o c e e d i n g o n l y i f i t f a l l s w i t h i n one o f t h e e x c e p t i o n s r e c o g n i z e d i n R u l e 802, 803, o r 804, A l a . R. E v i d . " Ex parte State Dep't o f Human R e s . , 890 So. 2d a t 117-18 (footnote omitted). B o s w e l l ' s t e s t i m o n y s e t t i n g f o r t h d i a g n o s e s made b y o t h e r p e o p l e c o n s t i t u t e d i n a d m i s s i b l e h e a r s a y b e c a u s e i t was o f f e r e d to establish the truth 8 0 1 ( c ) , A l a . R. E v i d . one of the matters asserted. ("'Hearsay' i s a s t a t e m e n t , made b y t h e d e c l a r a n t w h i l e t e s t i f y i n g See R u l e other than at the t r i a l or h e a r i n g , o f f e r e d i n evidence t o prove the t r u t h of the matter asserted."). was DHR does n o t a r g u e on a p p e a l t h a t t h a t evidence a d m i s s i b l e under any e x c e p t i o n t o t h e h e a r s a y r u l e . See L.A.C. v. S t a t e Dep't o f Human R e s . , 890 So. 2d 1027, 1032 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2003) ("The ... s t a t e m e n t was an e x t r a j u d i c i a l a s s e r t i o n o f f e r e d t o prove the t r u t h of the matter a s s e r t e d ; i t was, t h e r e f o r e , h e a r s a y b y d e f i n i t i o n . " ) . DHR argues, admissibility regarding however, of curative allowed i t t o introduce the hearsay evidence t h e mother's that the doctrine mental-health 8 condition. See B l u e 2110869 Cross 960 a & B l u e S h i e l d o f A l a b a m a v. ( A l a . 2004) basis not introduces (An a p p e l l a t e c o u r t asserted admissibility is a illegal in the doctrine evidence, rebut such evidence w i t h W. Hodurski, "can trial which the other 899 affirm So. illegal on "Curative that o p p o n e n t has 949, a judgment court."). holds 2d if a the evidence." party right 1 to Charles Gamble and R o b e r t J . Goodwin, M c E l r o y ' s A l a b a m a E v i d e n c e § 14.01(1) (6th admissibility ed. to as the of curative in kind" So. 2 862 However, i f no p r e j u d i c e o c c u r s by the 2005) . referred doctrine "reply ( A l a . C i v . App. also The B r u n o ' s S u p e r m a r k e t s , I n c . v. M a s s e y , 914 doctrine. is 2009). a d m i s s i o n of the o r i g i n a l i n a d m i s s i b l e e v i d e n c e , the doctrine of c u r a t i v e a d m i s s i b i l i t y s h o u l d Latimer, 274 A l a . 283, DHR 287, argues 147 that, So. 2d in her not a p p l y . 831, 834 direct Cook v. (1962). testimony, the mother i n t r o d u c e d h e a r s a y e v i d e n c e when she t e s t i f i e d c o n c e r n i n g what DHR a l l e g e s are her m e n t a l - h e a l t h appeal, DHR quotes a portion of diagnoses. the 2 In i t s b r i e f mother's testimony on in DHR c o n c e d e s t h a t i t d i d n o t o b j e c t t o t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f t h a t p u r p o r t e d h e a r s a y , and i t p o i n t s o u t t h a t u n d e r t h e d o c t r i n e o f c u r a t i v e a d m i s s i b i l i t y , i t was n o t r e q u i r e d t o do so. See K r o g e r Co. v. P u c k e t t , 351 So. 2d 582, 588 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1977) . 2 9 2110869 which she testified psychiatric goals regarding evaluation her e f f o r t and t r e a t m e n t to obtain required the t o meet DHR's f o r r e u n i f i c a t i o n o f t h e mother w i t h t h e c h i l d . t e s t i m o n y on t h a t i s s u e , t h e m o t h e r e x p l a i n e d In her that the f i r s t f a c i l i t i e s f r o m w h i c h s h e s o u g h t t r e a t m e n t were " b o o k e d , " t h a t is, t h e y h a d no a v a i l a b i l i t y . another facility, Care Program" The m o t h e r a l s o t e s t i f i e d that r e f e r r e d t o as "UAB P s y c h i a t r i c Community ( h e r e i n a f t e r "UAB"), r e f u s e d t o t r e a t her. In t h a t p o r t i o n o f t h e m o t h e r ' s t e s t i m o n y on t h i s i s s u e t o w h i c h DHR r e f e r s i n i t s b r i e f stated that informing The explained her that mother times, UAB submitted t o t h i s i t s refusal " i t was o n l y stated that, court, to t h e mother treat f o r severe mental although s h e went h e r by illness." t o UAB several s h e was i n f o r m e d e a c h t i m e t h a t s h e d i d n o t meet mental-health Even program's c r i t e r i a assuming prejudicial that that that for treatment. evidence was sufficiently t o DHR's c a s e t o w a r r a n t t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e d o c t r i n e o f c u r a t i v e a d m i s s i b i l i t y , we c a n n o t a g r e e w i t h DHR's characterization diagnosis testimony, of that testimony as o f t h e mother's m e n t a l - h e a l t h t h e mother d i d n o t deny 10 that pertaining condition. to a In her she had a m e n t a l - 2110869 h e a l t h c o n d i t i o n o r t h a t h e r c o n d i t i o n had been d i a g n o s e d . To t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h e m o t h e r m i g h t have i m p l i e d t h a t UAB d i d n o t c o n c l u d e t h a t she h a d a " s e v e r e m e n t a l i l l n e s s , " DHR d i d not, i n i t s submission which t h e mother presenting evidence mental-health juvenile objected, court, of the hearsay rebut any On direct Boswell t e s t i f i e d evidence to by o f t h e mother's q u e s t i o n i n g from that that implication such concerning the s e v e r i t y diagnoses. we n o t e the one o f t h e m o t h e r ' s m e n t a l - h e a l t h c o n d i t i o n s , I n t e r m i t t e n t E x p l o s i v e D i s o r d e r , was diagnosed b y someone a f f i l i a t e d w i t h t h e UAB mental-health p r o g r a m a n d t h a t t h e o t h e r two c o n d i t i o n s were d i a g n o s e d b y a doctor a f f i l i a t e d w i t h another f a c i l i t y . DHR d i d n o t p r e s e n t any e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t UAB c o n s i d e r e d i t s d i a g n o s i s o f t h e m o t h e r t o be a " s e v e r e m e n t a l i l l n e s s " did, o r t h a t t h e mother i n f a c t , meet UAB's c r i t e r i a f o r t r e a t m e n t . A c c o r d i n g l y , we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e h e a r s a y e v i d e n c e DHR p r e s e n t e d c o n c e r n i n g the mother's mental-health diagnoses d i d not rebut the m o t h e r ' s t e s t i m o n y c o n c e r n i n g t h e r e a s o n UAB r e f u s e d t o t r e a t her. DHR also argues that any e r r o r i n admitting Boswell's t e s t i m o n y c o n c e r n i n g t h e m o t h e r ' s m e n t a l - h e a l t h d i a g n o s e s was 11 2110869 harmless e r r o r . See R u l e 45, A l a . R. App. P. may be r e v e r s e d ... u n l e s s which the appeal i s taken i n the opinion ... i t s h o u l d complained o f has p r o b a b l y ("No j u d g m e n t of the court t o appear t h a t t h e e r r o r injuriously affected substantial r i g h t s o f t h e p a r t i e s . " ) . S p e c i f i c a l l y , DHR c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e hearsay evidence professionals' i t presented diagnoses of the c o n d i t i o n was c u m u l a t i v e o f o t h e r concerning mother's mental-health testimony. See L.A.C. v. S t a t e Dep't o f Human R e s . , 890 So. 2d a t 1034-35 the admission error when of inadmissible t h e mother evidence had f a i l e d certain (holding that was n o t r e v e r s i b l e to timely object to the a d m i s s i o n o f o t h e r e v i d e n c e c o n t a i n i n g t h e same i n f o r m a t i o n ) ; A.W.G. v. J e f f e r s o n C n t y . Dep't o f Human R e s . , 861 So. 2d 400, 407 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2003) ( " [ I ] t has l o n g been t h e r u l e that any c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f i n a d m i s s i b l e w r i t t e n e v i d e n c e c o n s t i t u t e s harmless error substantially inadmissible whenever duplicates writings."). properly the admitted evidence DHR p o i n t s contained out that a d m i t t e d t h a t s h e h a s an e x t e n s i v e m e n t a l - h e a l t h she h a s been prescribed medications testimony f o r her i n the t h e mother h i s t o r y , that mental-health c o n d i t i o n i n t h e p a s t , and t h a t she has n o t m a i n t a i n e d c u s t o d y 12 2110869 of h e r other health s i x children, apparently condition. However, we because of h e r mental- cannot agree evidence p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e mother's h i s t o r y o f treatment i s cumulative that general mental-health of the hearsay testimony concerning s p e c i f i c d i a g n o s e s o f t h e m o t h e r ' s c o n d i t i o n made b y m e n t a l health professionals. argument that Accordingly, any e r r o r we c a n n o t a g r e e w i t h DHR's i n the admission of the hearsay evidence p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e mother's m e n t a l - h e a l t h diagnoses or i n t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s r e l i a n c e on t h a t e v i d e n c e was h a r m l e s s error. I n i t s b r i e f s u b m i t t e d t o t h i s c o u r t , DHR a r g u e s i n f a v o r of a f f i r m i n g t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s basis that, i t says, termination the remainder of the evidence s u f f i c i e n t t o demonstrate grounds w a r r a n t i n g of t h e mother's discussed, parental rights. judgment on t h e the termination However, as already t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t r e l i e d upon i n a d m i s s i b l e h e a r s a y e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d b y DHR i n s u p p o r t o f i t s c l a i m the mother's mental i l l n e s s . regarding The j u v e n i l e c o u r t a l s o made t h e erroneous f a c t u a l f i n d i n g that care was the c h i l d had been i n f o s t e r f o r more t h a n t w i c e as l o n g as he h a d b e e n ; i n f a c t , 13 that 2110869 f i n d i n g i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e c h i l d h a d been i n f o s t e r c a r e f o r approximately We two t i m e s conclude that the length of the child's the juvenile court's inadmissible hearsay evidence, together mother and w a r r a n t s a reversal. r e l i a n c e on t h e w i t h i t s r e l i a n c e on a c l e a r l y erroneous f a c t u a l determination, the life. was p r e j u d i c i a l t o Although t h e mother c h a l l e n g e s o t h e r f a c t u a l f i n d i n g s made b y t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t , we n o t e that presented the there was a t l e a s t w i t h regard t o those i s s u e s . trier conflicts of fact, evidence The j u v e n i l e c o u r t , as i s i n the best i n the remaining on a p p e a l . position to resolve admissible evidence i n the record See D.C.S. v. L.B., 84 So. 3d 954, 962 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2011) ("The t r i e r duty of r e s o l v i n g c o n f l i c t posture some c o n f l i c t i n g of t h i s erroneously of fact, and n o t t h i s c o u r t , has t h e i n the evidence."). Given the case and t h e h o l d i n g t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t relied on hearsay evidence i n reaching i t s t e r m i n a t i o n j u d g m e n t , we c o n c l u d e t h a t i t i s n o t a p p r o p r i a t e for this whether court t o make t h e f a c t u a l the remainder juvenile court parental rights. of supports We determination the evidence the termination reverse presented to the o f t h e mother's the termination 14 regarding judgment a n d 2110869 remand t h e c a u s e f o r t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r the admissible evidence met i t s b u r d e n i n s u p p o r t i n the record demonstrates that of i t s p e t i t i o n seeking to terminate the mother's p a r e n t a l r i g h t s . remaining We p r e t e r m i t d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e i s s u e s r a i s e d i n the mother's b r i e f on appeal. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Pittman, DHR Thomas, Moore, a n d D o n a l d s o n , J J . , c o n c u r . 15

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.