M.M. v. Colbert County Department of Human Resources

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 01/18/2013 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 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 2111027 M.M. v. C o l b e r t County Department o f Human Resources Appeal from C o l b e r t J u v e n i l e Court (JU-10-249.01, JU-10-250.01, JU-11-37.01, and JU-11-38.01) MOORE, J u d g e . M.M., who i s t h e m a t e r n a l grandmother o f S.P., J.P., H.H., a n d E.H. ( h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o c o l l e c t i v e l y a s " t h e children"), appeals from a judgment entered by the Colbert J u v e n i l e C o u r t ("the j u v e n i l e c o u r t " ) on J u l y 9, 2 0 1 2 , d e n y i n g 2111027 her petitions f o r custody d e c l a r e d dependent. We of the children, October and had been affirm. F a c t s and P r o c e d u r a l In who November D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s Background 2010, the Colbert County ("DHR") p i c k e d up t h e c h i l d r e n a f t e r d i s c o v e r i n g t h a t t h e y were l i v i n g i n u n i n h a b i t a b l e and inhumane c o n d i t i o n s i n t h e home o f t h e c h i l d r e n ' s m o t h e r , J.H. ("the m o t h e r " ) , a n d J a . P . , t h e f a t h e r o f S.P. a n d J.P. a n d t h e stepfather Ja.P. o f H.H. d i d not l i s t a n d E.H. At that the maternal r e l a t i v e placement. time, t h e mother and grandmother as a p o t e n t i a l As p a r t o f a s a f e t y p l a n , S.P. a n d J.P were p l a c e d i n f o s t e r c a r e a n d H.H. a n d E.H. were p l a c e d w i t h t h e i r paternal grandparents. The j u v e n i l e c o u r t s u b s e q u e n t l y a d j u d i c a t e d t h e c h i l d r e n d e p e n d e n t on December 3, 2010. On F e b r u a r y motion 16, 2 0 1 1 , t h e m a t e r n a l grandmother filed t o i n t e r v e n e i n t h e dependency p r o c e e d i n g s r e g a r d i n g J.P. a n d S.P. a n d p e t i t i o n e d f o r c u s t o d y o f J.P. a n d S.P. February motion 24, 2 0 1 1 , t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r f i l e d t o i n t e r v e n e and p e t i t i o n and H.H. motions a On a similar f o r c u s t o d y r e g a r d i n g E.H. On F e b r u a r y 25, 2 0 1 1 , t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t g r a n t e d t h e to intervene. 2 2111027 At the some p o i n t , DHR s e n t a representative t o t h e home o f m a t e r n a l grandmother t o i n v e s t i g a t e h e r s u i t a b i l i t y f o r assuming the custody of the children. During the i n v e s t i g a t i o n , t h e DHR r e p r e s e n t a t i v e i n q u i r e d o f t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r w h e t h e r s h e h a d e v e r b e e n i n v o l v e d w i t h DHR. m a t e r n a l grandmother denied that she had. DHR The subsequently p e r f o r m e d a b a c k g r o u n d c h e c k a n d d i s c o v e r e d t h a t , i n 1994, t h e F r a n k l i 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 C o u n t y DHR") h a d f i l e d grandmother injuring was a report "indicated" showing for physically t h e m o t h e r , who was a t t h a t b e a t i n g t h e mother w i t h a b e l t a c r o s s also learned conditions before that that time ("the F r a n k l i n the maternal abusing 15 y e a r s and o l d , by t h e mother's l e g s . 1 DHR t h e m a t e r n a l grandmother had observed t h e i n t h e m o t h e r a n d J a . P . ' s home on a w e e k l y basis t h e c h i l d r e n were removed f r o m t h e home, t h a t s h e h a d s u s p e c t e d t h a t t h e r e m i g h t be d o m e s t i c v i o l e n c e i n t h e home, but t h a t she h a d n o t r e p o r t e d a n y p r o b l e m s t o DHR a n d h a d n o t t a k e n any o t h e r legal action to assist the children. A DHR C h i l d abuse o r n e g l e c t i s " i n d i c a t e d " " [ w ] h e n c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e a n d p r o f e s s i o n a l j u d g m e n t s u b s t a n t i a t e s t h a t an alleged perpetrator i s responsible for child abuse o r neglect." § 2 6 - 1 4 - 8 ( a ) ( 1 ) , A l a . Code 1975. 1 3 2111027 s o c i a l w o r k e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r h a d made excuses f o r t h e mother and f o r t h e c o n d i t i o n s i n t h e home. B a s e d m a i n l y on t h o s e two p i e c e s o f e v i d e n c e , DHR determined t h a t t h e m a t e r n a l grandmother l a c k e d t h e n e c e s s a r y p r o t e c t i v e capacity t o p r o p e r l y care f o rthe c h i l d r e n . The m o t h e r the maternal H.H., who initially grandmother were born i n f o r m e d DHR t h a t s h e d i d n o t want involved i n the cases. E.H. a n d i n 1998 a n d 2 0 0 1 , r e s p e c t i v e l y , also e x p r e s s e d a d i s l i k e f o r t h e m a t e r n a l grandmother and i n f o r m e d DHR that underwent they d i d n o t want to live with her. The mother counseling, i n part to deal with her r e l a t i o n s h i p and h i s t o r y w i t h t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r , a n d t h e c o u n s e l o r had recommended that t h e mother refrain c o n t a c t w i t h t h e maternal grandmother. DHR that she h a d e x p e r i e n c e d m i g r a i n e attacks, which, t h e mother presence of the maternal said, from having The m o t h e r headaches informed and p a n i c became more s e v e r e grandmother. any The m o t h e r i nthe further c o n s i s t e n t l y i n f o r m e d DHR's r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s t h a t s h e d i d n o t want the maternal children. When grandmother the juvenile to obtain court custody allowed of the the maternal g r a n d m o t h e r t o a t t e n d an I n d i v i d u a l i z e d S e r v i c e P l a n m e e t i n g 4 2111027 i n A p r i l 2012, t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r became e m b r o i l e d argument with t h e mother and f a l s e l y accused i n an the paternal g r a n d p a r e n t s o f r e c e i v i n g money t o c a r e f o r E.H. a n d H.H. A DHR r e p r e s e n t a t i v e a n d t h e f o s t e r f a t h e r f o r J . P . a n d S.P. h a d to ask the maternal grandmother t h a t she w o u l d n o t c o n t i n u e DHR also grandmother had t o s i t down a n d be q u i e t s o t o d i s r u p t the meeting. received accusations had s t a l k e d t h e c h i l d r e n . that the maternal D u r i n g one v i s i t , i t was a l l e g e d , t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r h a d t o l d E.H. t h a t t h e m a t e r n a l grandmother s h o u l d she had had grandmother. t h e chance, have k i d n a p p e d t h e c h i l d r e n when which had alarmed DHR a l s o h a d n o t e d a r e p o r t the paternal that the maternal g r a n d m o t h e r h a d o b t a i n e d t e l e p h o n e s e r v i c e i n t h e name o f E.H. and h a d a l l o w e d On May permanency the recall 23, 2012, f o r men on t h e I n t e r n e t . the juvenile court conducted a h e a r i n g , w h i c h i n c l u d e d a d i s p o s i t i o n a l h e a r i n g on maternal hearing, E.H. t o s e a r c h grandmother's p e t i t i o n s f o r custody. At that t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t she d i d n o t t h e 1994 abuse incident and t h a t she was totally unaware t h a t an " i n d i c a t e d " r e p o r t h a d b e e n f i l e d a g a i n s t h e r , w h i c h , she s a i d , h a d r e s u l t e d i n h e r n o t h a v i n g 5 an o p p o r t u n i t y 2111027 to appeal those f i n d i n g s . The m a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r implied t h a t t h e mother had e m b e l l i s h e d the circumstances the abuse a l l e g a t i o n s a n d t h a t they had only s t r u g g l e d the belt. report The m a t e r n a l had been during a grandmother also implied i n s t i g a t e d by h e r d i s g r u n t l e d postdivorce custody surrounding dispute. over that the ex-husband The maternal grandmother n o t e d t h a t s h e had n o t l o s t c u s t o d y o f t h e mother at that time. The m a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d she had o f t e n been f o r c i b l y removed that by t h e p o l i c e from t h e home o f t h e m o t h e r b e c a u s e J a . P . h a d n o t w a n t e d h e r t h e r e , asserting that Ja.P. had p r e v e n t e d her from p r o b l e m s i n t h e home on t h o s e o c c a s i o n s protect however, regarding Upon the children. The m a t e r n a l o f the c h i l d r e n . cross-examination by a policy of automatically p r e v i o u s l y been same social counsel f o r the excluding indicated for child worker admitted, DHR a b o u t h e r c o n c e r n s g r a n d m o t h e r , t h e DHR s o c i a l w o r k e r a d m i t t e d have the and t a k i n g a c t i o n t o grandmother t h a t she had never contacted the welfare observing also testified t h a t DHR d i d n o t r e l a t i v e s who h a d abuse o r n e g l e c t . that m a t e r n a l grandmother had been c o n s i d e r e d 6 maternal t h e home That of the a good home a n d t h a t 2111027 DHR had n o t c o n d u c t e d any f u r t h e r b a c k g r o u n d maternal check on t h e grandmother. The m a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r p r o v i d e d t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t with p h o t o g r a p h s o f h e r home a n d t e s t i f i e d t h a t i t was s u i t a b l e f o r all four c h i l d r e n , who s h e f e l t m a t e r n a l grandmother financial needs testified that theorized that should also t e s t i f i e d o f the c h i l d r e n . she got along t h e mother stay together. The t h a t s h e c o u l d meet t h e The m a t e r n a l well was o n l y with trying grandmother t h e mother to please and DHR b y s t a t i n g t h a t s h e d i d n o t want t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r t o have custody o f the c h i l d r e n . The m a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r ' s s o n , t h e b r o t h e r o f t h e mother, t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e m a t e r n a l grandmother h a d b e e n a good p a r e n t a n d w o u l d make a good c u s t o d i a n f o r t h e children. The mother stating that she wanted custody of the children grandmother t e s t i f i e d violent with corroborated that the maternal grandmother i f she c o u l d not. The also to obtain paternal t h a t t h e m a t e r n a l grandmother had been t h e mother around t h e c h i l d r e n , t h a t E.H. and H.H. h a d c o n s i s t e n t l y e x p r e s s e d n e g a t i v e maternal grandmother, testimony, and t h a t f e e l i n g s about t h e t h e m a t e r n a l grandmother had t e l e p h o n e d h e r o c c a s i o n a l l y t o i n q u i r e about t h e c h i l d r e n and 7 2111027 h a d s e n t them p r e s e n t s , b u t h a d n e v e r a s k e d t o s p e a k t o them. The e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e d t h a t E.H. doing w e l l the and H.H. were a d j u s t e d t o and i n the custody of the p a t e r n a l mother testified that she had no grandparents, problem remaining i n the p a t e r n a l grandparents' custody. grandmother testified intermittently On July that she h a d seen J.P. with children act. the and S.P. 9, 2012, the j u v e n i l e child-abuse living investigation court entered a had judgment about the observed to C o n s i d e r i n g that evidence, along w i t h the evidence of troubled past the maternal mother's grandmother shared w i t h the t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r h a d made f o r poor p a r e n t i n g , the j u v e n i l e the p a t e r n a l and o r d e r e d DHR a permanency but had the failed c o u r t awarded court denied f o r custody. grandparents The the juvenile c u s t o d y o f E.H. and t o m a i n t a i n c u s t o d y o f J.P. and S.P. w i t h p l a n f o r a d o p t i o n by an u n i d e n t i f i e d The m a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r 23, and i n deplorable conditions maternal grandmother's p e t i t i o n s H.H. only s i n c e t h e y h a d been t a k e n i n t o f o s t e r c a r e . m o t h e r and t h e e x c u s e s the their The m a t e r n a l f i n d i n g t h a t t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r h a d m i s l e d DHR previous and filed 2012. 8 her n o t i c e resource. o f a p p e a l on July 2111027 Issues On appeal, juvenile without care the court the maternal erred grandmother i n denying argues that the her p e t i t i o n s f o r custody r e q u i r i n g DHR t o i n v e s t i g a t e h e r c u r r e n t fitness to f o r t h e c h i l d r e n a n d i n f i n d i n g t h a t i t w o u l d n o t be i n best placed i n t e r e s t s o f t h e c h i l d r e n f o r t h e c h i l d r e n t o be i n her custody. Discussion I. The D u t y t o I n v e s t i g a t e I n Ex p a r t e J.R., 896 So. 2d 416 ( A l a . 2 0 0 4 ) , t h e supreme court held parental that rights, dependent before the state can terminate and determine s t a t e has t h e burden potential relative "'prov[ing] considered the parent's t h e s t a t e must p r o v e t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n a r e whether there e x i s t s a remedy d r a s t i c than 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 . the a of i n i t i a t i n g custodians of one respect, investigations into and a l s o b e a r s unsuitability as t h e c u s t o d i a n In that less who the burden of seeks o f a dependent c h i l d . ' " to be 896 So. 2d a t 428 ( q u o t i n g D.S.S. v. C l a y C n t y . Dep't o f Human R e s . , 755 So. 2d 584, 591 ( A l a . C i v . App. 9 1999)). 2111027 In t h e p r e s e n t case, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t d i d n o t t e r m i n a t e the p a r e n t a l r i g h t s o f t h e mother o r Ja.P., b u t i t adopted a permanency p l a n calling which DHR requires mother's Ala. f o r t h e a d o p t i o n o f J . P . a n d S.P., to file a and Ja.P.'s p a r e n t a l r i g h t s . Code 1975. The j u v e n i l e placing viable the children alternative parental should petition rights b e , made hearing. See § 1 2 - 1 5 - 3 1 5 ( a ) ( 2 ) , court thus i m p l i e d l y found t h a t w i t h t h e m a t e r n a l grandmother that would forestall o f t h e mother. i n a judgment See A.D.B.H. v . H o u s t o n 1 So. 3d 53 to terminate the Such was n o t a termination a finding entered after of the may b e , a n d a permanency C n t y . Dep't o f Human R e s . , ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 8 ) ; D.P. v . L i m e s t o n e Cnty. Dep't o f Human Res., 28 So. 3d 759, 763 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 9 ) ; and F.V.O. v. C o f f e e C n t y . Dep't o f Human R e s . , Dec. [Ms. 2110398, 7, 2 0 1 2 ] ___ So. 3d ___ ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 2 ) . m a t e r n a l grandmother Thus, t h e h a s p r o p e r l y r a i s e d t h e i s s u e w h e t h e r DHR i n i t i a t e d a proper i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o her custody p e t i t i o n s i n t h i s appeal. The m a t e r n a l grandmother investigated because, study, conducted never a r g u e s t h a t she was n o t f a i r l y s h e s a y s , DHR n e v e r an i n v e s t i g a t i o n 10 conducted into a home her f i n a n c i a l 2111027 s t a t u s , and never r e s e a r c h e d h e r c r i m i n a l background. 12-15-314(a)(3)c., Ala. Code f o u n d t o be i n t h e b e s t 1975, p r o v i d e s that, i n t e r e s t s of the c h i l d , c o u r t can p l a c e a dependent c h i l d i n t h e custody "who, Section i fi t is a juvenile of a relative a f t e r s t u d y b y [DHR], i s f o u n d b y t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t t o be q u a l i f i e d t o r e c e i v e a n d c a r e f o r t h e c h i l d . " Although our c a s e l a w h a s e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t DHR must i n v e s t i g a t e a p o t e n t i a l relative the placement, s e e D.S.S., 755 So. 2d a t 5 9 1 , a n d t h a t i n v e s t i g a t i o n must r e l a t e t o t h e c u r r e n t relative, 915, s e e V.M. v. S t a t e fitness of that Dep't o f Human Res., 710 So. 2d 921 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 8 ) , o u r c a s e l a w h a s n o t d e l i n e a t e d the standards r e g a r d i n g t h e a d e q u a c y o f s u c h an i n v e s t i g a t i o n nor promulgated h a s DHR standards any r e g u l a t i o n s f o r an a p p r o p r i a t e setting investigation. C l e b u r n e C n t y . Dep't o f Human Res., out the See J.B. v. 991 So. 2d 273, 283 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 8 ) . Nevertheless, t h i s c o u r t has r e c o g n i z e d t h a t p a r e n t s have the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o p r o p e r l y p r o v i d e t h e i r c h i l d r e n adequate food, clothing, shelter, health and p r o t e c t i o n . 89 care, education, nurturing, B.B.T. v . H o u s t o n C n t y . Dep't o f Human R e s . , So. 3d 169, 171 (Ala. Civ. 11 App. 2 0 1 1 ) . In considering 2111027 whether a r e l a t i v e can assume a s u r r o g a t e p a r e n t a l r o l e dependent c h i l d , t h i s c o u r t has further c l a r i f i e d for a that "a relative is ' f i t ' and 'qualified' if that relative can safely and properly discharge the p a r e n t a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of meeting the child's needs d u r i n g t h e c h i l d ' s m i n o r i t y . C o n v e r s e l y , a relative i s not ' f i t ' or 'qualified' if that relative cannot safely and properly discharge p a r e n t a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s t o and f o r t h e c h i l d o r cannot p r o p e r l y c a r e f o r the c h i l d because of the r e l a t i v e ' s improper conduct, a d v e r s e c o n d i t i o n , or inappropriate circumstances." J.B., a 991 So. relative 2d to surrogate at 283. Thus, when c o n d u c t i n g a " s t u d y " determine parent, DHR his is or her tasked fitness with the the a b i l i t y and b a s i c needs o f In this the case, her home and w i l l i n g n e s s of the as and and circumstances r e l a t i v e t o meet that DHR began to conduct o f t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r by investigating her background to gather parenting s k i l l s . However, the early investigation, discovered the m a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r had against her d e n i e d , and own that child t h a t she had in DHR been i n d i c a t e d 1994, which she for had r e p e a t e d l y w i t n e s s e d the 12 a visiting i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g her stages of a child. i t appears thorough i n v e s t i g a t i o n act investigating a s s e s s i n g those q u a l i t i e s , c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , affecting to of child during that abuse implicitly neglect of 2111027 the children at issue t h e i r p l i g h t t o DHR. Res., i n this case b u t had f a i l e d C f K.N.F.G. v. L e e C n t y . Dep't o f Human 983 So. 2d 1108 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2007) ( h o l d i n g t h a t Lee C o u n t y DHR h a d no d u t y t o i n v e s t i g a t e r e l a t i v e disqualifying h i m due solely to discovery further after of f e l o n y c o n v i c t i o n s , one o f w h i c h i n v o l v e d d r u g If, to report 14-year-old trafficking). i n t h e c o u r s e o f an i n v e s t i g a t i o n , DHR d i s c o v e r s facts, w h i c h , when a s s e s s e d o b j e c t i v e l y , w o u l d i n d i c a t e t o DHR a relative has presently no d u t y u n d e r investigate suitable that lacks basic protective any s t a t u t e relative home e n v i r o n m e n t , c a p a c i t i e s , DHR or regulation t o determine a sound that t o continue to i f he o r s h e h a s a financial status, or a c l e a n c r i m i n a l b a c k g r o u n d , a t t r i b u t e s t h a t may be p o s i t i v e b u t c e r t a i n l y w o u l d n o t be r e d e e m i n g . the maternal adequately grandmother's contention i n v e s t i g a t e her before u n f i t t o assume t h e c a r e Thus, we f i n d no m e r i t i n that DHR determining failed that s h e was of the c h i l d r e n . M o r e o v e r , we n o t e t h a t , i n t h i s c a s e , t h e j u v e n i l e g r a n t e d t h e maternal grandmother a h e a r i n g for custody of the c h i l d r e n . court correctly placed to on h e r p e t i t i o n s At that hearing, t h e burden 13 on court DHR the juvenile t o prove the 2111027 u n f i t n e s s of the maternal g r a n d m o t h e r , a n d DHR i n t r o d u c e d t h e evidence to satisfy o u t l i n e d above point, the j u v e n i l e court granted opportunity t o rebut DHR's that burden. the maternal showing At that g r a n d m o t h e r an by p r e s e n t i n g positive e v i d e n c e r e g a r d i n g h e r r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e c h i l d r e n and h e r parenting had an ability. adequate condition. maternal Thus, The m a t e r n a l home structure No e v i d e n c e grandmother and was p r e s e n t e d had ever the j u v e n i l e court maternal grandmother p r o v e d t h a t she been a sound indicating convicted financial that the of a crime. received a l l the evidence that the g r a n d m o t h e r c o m p l a i n s w o u l d have b e e n r e v e a l e d i f DHR h a d c o n d u c t e d a more t h o r o u g h i n v e s t i g a t i o n . See J . B . , 991 So. 2d a t 284 ("In a s s e s s i n g t h e f i t n e s s a n d q u a l i f i c a t i o n o f a relative juvenile t o assume court custody i s required o f dependent to consider children, the a l l the evidence r e l a t i n g t o the r e l a t i v e ' s a b i l i t y t o serve the best i n t e r e s t s of t h e c h i l d . " ) . The m a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r h a s f a i l e d t o show how she was i n j u r e d b y a n y a l l e g e d f a i l u r e thoroughly Ala. investigate her custodial fitness. R. App. P. unless (stating " i t should appear t h a t a judgment that 14 the error o f DHR t o more See R u l e 45, c a n n o t be complained reversed o f has 2111027 probably injuriously affected substantial rights of the parties"). II. Once a c h i l d dispose of determination The S u f f i c i e n c y o f t h e E v i d e n c e i s found the custody of the best dependent, a j u v e n i l e c o u r t of the c h i l d according i n t e r e s t s of the c h i l d . toi t s See § 12¬ 15-314, A l a . Code 1975. " I n Ex p a r t e A l a b a m a D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s , 682 So. 2d 459 ( A l a . 1 9 9 6 ) , t h e A l a b a m a Supreme Court s t a t e d the a p p l i c a b l e p r i n c i p l e s of a p p e l l a t e review i n the context of a challenge t o a j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s c u s t o d i a l d i s p o s i t i o n o f a dependent c h i l d : "'Appellate review i s l i m i t e d i n cases where t h e e v i d e n c e i s presented to the t r i a l court ore tenus. In a c h i l d custody c a s e , an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t p r e s u m e s t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s t o be c o r r e c t a n d w i l l n o t r e v e r s e w i t h o u t p r o o f o f a c l e a r abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n o r p l a i n e r r o r . R e u t e r v. N e e s e , 586 So. 2d 232 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 1 ) ; J . S . v. D.S., 586 So. 2d 944 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1991). This presumption i s especially applicable where the evidence is c o n f l i c t i n g . Ex P a r t e P.G.B., 600 So. 2d 259, 261 ( A l a . 1992) . An a p p e l l a t e c o u r t w i l l n o t r e v e r s e t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment b a s e d on t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s o f f a c t u n l e s s t h e f i n d i n g s a r e so p o o r l y s u p p o r t e d by t h e e v i d e n c e as t o be p l a i n l y a n d p a l p a b l y w r o n g . See Ex p a r t e W a l t e r s , 580 So. 2d 1352 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) . ' "682 So. 2d a t 460." J.J. v. J.H.W., 27 So. 3d 519, 522 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 8 ) . 15 may 2111027 In this case, the juvenile court determined that the c h i l d r e n s h o u l d n o t be p l a c e d i n t h e c u s t o d y o f t h e m a t e r n a l grandmother because the maternal grandmother misrepresented her p r i o r involvement with the F r a n k l i n DHR, had f a i l e d deplorable to act to protect living justify, and conditions, had engaged which in a r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e mother. the children had County from their she h a d a t t e m p t e d volatile and to tempestuous I n summary, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t f o u n d t h a t t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r was n o t f i t a n d q u a l i f i e d to receive and c a r e f o r the children so t h a t she s h o u l d be given p r e f e r e n c e over a n o n r e l a t i v e c a r e g i v e r . 314(a)(3)c. ("Unless the j u v e n i l e court finds best i n t e r e s t s of the c h i l d , a w i l l i n g , shall have relative."). fully priority f o r placement See § 12-15- fit, i t not i n the and a b l e r e l a t i v e or custody over a non- I n l i g h t o f t h a t f i n d i n g , w h i c h we c o n c l u d e was s u p p o r t e d by t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d , a l t h o u g h e v i d e n c e was i n some r e s p e c t s c o n f l i c t i n g , juvenile court children we h o l d t h a t t h e d i d not e r r i n determining i n t e r e s t s of t h e c h i l d r e n would i n the custody that that the best n o t be s e r v e d b y p l a c i n g t h e of the maternal grandmother. See M.H.J. v. S t a t e Dep't o f Human R e s . , 785 So. 2d 372 ( A l a . C i v . 16 2111027 App. 2000) ( h o l d i n g t h a t g r a n d m o t h e r who, among o t h e r t h i n g s , had f a i l e d to detect health her of obvious signs grandchildren was of neglect not a affecting suitable relative resource). AFFIRMED. Thompson, P . J . , and P i t t m a n , J . , concur. Thomas, 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 17 the 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.