T.L.S. v. Lauderdale County Department of Human Resources (Appeal from Lauderdale Juvenile Court: JU-09-357.03)

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 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 2111073 & 2111074 T.L.S. v. Lauderdale County Department o f Human Resources Appeals from Lauderdale J u v e n i l e Court (JU-09-357.03 and JU-09-358.03) MOORE, J u d g e . T.L.S. the ("the m o t h e r " ) a p p e a l s Lauderdale terminated Juvenile Court from separate judgments o f ("the j u v e n i l e c o u r t " ) that h e r p a r e n t a l r i g h t s t o M.S. a n d K.S. ( 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 as " t h e c h i l d r e n " ) . 2111073; 2111074 Procedural Background I n May 2 0 0 9 , a f t e r a t e a c h e r r e p o r t e d to the Lauderdale 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 ("DHR") t h a t K.S. had v i s i b l e marks a b o u t h i s h e a d and n e c k , DHR b e g a n i n v e s t i g a t i n g the mother f o r p h y s i c a l abuse. at that time pursuant physical custody parenting services reunification completed had Ke.S., had the children to the and mother the c h i l d r e n . a b u s i n g K.S. 1 On DHR began leading On assumed providing toward A u g u s t 28, her 2009, DHR " i n d i c a t e d " t h e mother f o r September 14, 2009, D.S. i n t h e c u s t o d y o f t h e f a t h e r , M.S. been sexually molested the c h i l d r e n ' s older by sister, b e e n s e x u a l l y a b u s e d b y P.W. ("the P.W., revealed her also disclosed that K.S. adult male relative, had that stepfather. she i n d i c a t e d t h a t he h a d w i t n e s s e d t h e s e x u a l abuse o f h i s o l d e s t s i s t e r and t h a t another plan r e c e i v e d custody of the c h i l d r e n . While she with instituted a safety t o w h i c h the mother's mother i t s i n v e s t i g a t i o n and physically father") of DHR s e x u a l l y abused him. D.M., DHR "Indicated" means "[w]hen credible evidence and professional judgment substantiates that an alleged p e r p e t r a t o r i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r c h i l d abuse o r n e g l e c t . " § 261 4 - 8 ( a ) ( 1 ) , A l a . Code 1975. 1 2 2111073; 2111074 i n v e s t i g a t e d t h o s e a l l e g a t i o n s and f i l e d against P.W. a n d D.M. i n 2010. 2 On June 24, 2010, t h e m o t h e r was § 26-15-3, A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 . sentence, which probation. was Two months c o u l d no l o n g e r p r o v i d e emotional his She suspended, convicted received and she of v i o l a t i n g a 36-month was placed l a t e r , t h e f a t h e r i n f o r m e d DHR on t h a t he care f o r the c h i l d r e n because of t h e i r two children. i n separate At that therapeutic point, DHR foster-care placed homes. c o n t i n u e d p r o v i d i n g s e r v i c e s t o t h e m o t h e r , b u t DHR determined child prison and b e h a v i o r a l p r o b l e m s , w h i c h , he s a i d , e n d a n g e r e d other children 3 "indicated" reports that, because the mother had been a b u s e and h a d n o t d e m o n s t r a t e d an a b i l i t y the DHR eventually convicted of t o meet t h e A l t h o u g h t h e s e x u a l abuse o c c u r r e d w h i l e t h e c h i l d r e n were i n t h e c u s t o d y o f t h e m o t h e r , and a l t h o u g h some o f t h e a c t s o f abuse o c c u r r e d i n h e r home, DHR d i d n o t c i t e t h e m o t h e r f o r abuse o r n e g l e c t as a r e s u l t o f t h e a c t i o n s o f P.W. and D.M., and she was n e v e r c h a r g e d w i t h a c r i m e i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e s e x u a l abuse o f t h e c h i l d r e n . 2 3 Section 26-15-3, A l a . Code 1975, provides: "A r e s p o n s i b l e p e r s o n , as d e f i n e d i n S e c t i o n 26¬ 15-2, [ A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , ] who s h a l l t o r t u r e , w i l l f u l l y abuse, c r u e l l y b e a t , or o t h e r w i s e w i l l f u l l y m a l t r e a t any c h i l d u n d e r t h e age o f 18 y e a r s s h a l l , on c o n v i c t i o n , be g u i l t y o f a C l a s s C f e l o n y . " 3 2111073; special 2111074 needs of the c h i l d r e n , i t would d i s c o n t i n u e r e u n i f i c a t i o n e f f o r t s and pursue t e r m i n a t i o n parental family- o f t h e mother's rights. DHR f i l e d p e t i t i o n s t o terminate t h e mother's parental r i g h t s t o t h e c h i l d r e n on December 9, 2 0 1 1 . F o l l o w i n g a t r i a l on J u n e 8, 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 t h e mother's respectively, parental separate judgments r i g h t s t o M.S. a n d K.S., on J u n e 19, 2 0 1 2 . The m o t h e r a p p e a l e d t o t h i s c o u r t on J u n e 29, 2 0 1 2 . 4 Analysis The m o t h e r f i r s t a r g u e s t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t f a i l e d t o use r e a s o n a b l e e f f o r t s t o r e h a b i l i t a t e h e r and t o r e u n i t e h e r with the children. DHR convicted abuse, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t use of c h i l d reasonable counters efforts t h a t , b e c a u s e t h e m o t h e r was to rehabilitate h a d no d u t y t o t h e mother and t o reunite the family. When a c h i l d p a r e n t and p l a c e d specific findings i s removed i n f o s t e r care, within The judgments a l s o r i g h t s with h i s consent. judgments. 4 f r o m t h e home o f t h e c u s t o d i a l 60 d a y s a j u v e n i l e c o u r t must make of the removal regarding terminated the father's parental The f a t h e r h a s n o t a p p e a l e d t h e 4 2111073; 2111074 "whether r e a s o n a b l e of t h e c h i l d to o r whether reasonable be made. " added). e f f o r t s have b e e n made t o p r e v e n t § 12-15-312(a)(2), Within 12 months e f f o r t s were n o t r e q u i r e d Ala. Code of foster-care 1975 (emphasis placement, the j u v e n i l e c o u r t must document w h e t h e r r e a s o n a b l e efforts b e e n made t o f i n a l i z e t h e e x i s t i n g p e r m a n e n c y p l a n . 312(a)(3), A l a . Code 1975. among o t h e r child things, "Reasonable e f f o r t s " "efforts have § 12-15refers to, ... t o make i t p o s s i b l e t o r e t u r n s a f e l y t o t h e home o f t h e c h i l d . " 312(b), removal fora § 12-15- A l a . Code 1975. R e a s o n a b l e e f f o r t s a r e n o t r e q u i r e d i f a p a r e n t has s u b j e c t e d a c h i l d o r a s i b l i n g o f t h e c h i l d t o "aggravating circumstance[s]," s u c h as t o r t u r e , a n d t h e r i s k o f f u r t h e r abuse o r n e g l e c t i s t o o h i g h t o p e r m i t t h e c h i l d t o be r e t u r n e d home. In t h i s case, § 12-15-312(c)(1), A l a . Code 1975. t h e c h i l d r e n were removed f r o m t h e home o f t h e m o t h e r i n May, 2009 b u t t h e y were n o t p l a c e d c a r e u n t i l A u g u s t 2010. juvenile reasonable the court into foster B a s e d on t h e s t a t u t o r y d e a d l i n e s , t h e had u n t i l October efforts to rehabilitate f a m i l y were r e q u i r e d . 2010 t o d e t e r m i n e whether t h e mother and t o r e u n i t e I f t h e permanency p l a n c a l l e d f o r f a m i l y r e u n i f i c a t i o n , t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t h a d u n t i l A u g u s t 2011 5 2111073; 2111074 t o s p e c i f y w h e t h e r r e a s o n a b l e e f f o r t s h a d been made t o a c h i e v e that goal. Thus, any i s s u e s as t o w h e t h e r r e a s o n a b l e efforts were r e q u i r e d and, i f r e q u i r e d , w h e t h e r r e a s o n a b l e e f f o r t s t o reunite the family decided before h a d been made, s h o u l d DHR filed mother's p a r e n t a l r i g h t s . i t spetitions have already been t o terminate the I f t h a t had occurred, the doctrines of c o l l a t e r a l e s t o p p e l o r r e s j u d i c a t a w o u l d have b a r r e d t h e relitigation issues. of those Dep't o f Human R e s . , See F.V.O. v. C o f f e e [Ms. 2110398, Dec. 7, 2012] Cnty. So. 3d ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 2 ) . The record juvenile court petitions averred does not contain entered t o terminate that before any o f t h e o r d e r s December t h e mother's i t had used reasonable 9, 2011. parental efforts of the In rights, i t s DHR to reunite the f a m i l y ; DHR d i d n o t a l l e g e t h a t i t h a d been e x c u s e d f r o m t h o s e efforts. During the t r i a l , evidence tending t o question when t h e mother the reasonableness of the e f f o r t s t o r e u n i t e t h e f a m i l y , DHR d i d n o t o b j e c t already court been d e t e r m i n e d . introduced t h a t the i s s u e had DHR a l s o d i d n o t move t h e j u v e n i l e t o t a k e j u d i c i a l n o t i c e o f any o f i t s p r e v i o u s In i t s f i n a l judgments, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t 6 orders. f o u n d t h a t DHR h a d 2111073; 2111074 u s e d " f a i r and r e a s o n a b l e e f f o r t s t o w a r d r e u n i f i c a t i o n o f t h e minor child[ren] with [their] parents e f f o r t s h a d n o t been s u c c e s s f u l . " the parties and surrounding reasonable previously litigated the judicially those issues juvenile efforts court as i f they appeal. App. the had Because the j u v e n i l e that such indicates treated t h o s e i s s u e s , we f i n d t h a t t h o s e i s s u e s this and The r e c o r d determined. and ... court issues not the that been parties adjudicated c a n be c o n s i d e r e d 2009). As trial See G a t l i n v. J o i n e r , 31 So. 3d 126 in noted, that DHR i t d i d not reunite the family. in i t s brief consider reverse d i d not a s s e r t to DHR this have a t any p o i n t t o use court. An appellate a judgment, b u t i t can c o n s i d e r cannot t i m e on a p p e a l t o a new argument f o r (quoting Progressive a f f i r m a j u d g m e n t on a b a s i s and we court time See V e r c h o t v. G e n e r a l M o t o r s C o r p . , I n s . Co. v. Hammonds, 551 So. 2d 333, 337 court, the e f f o r t s to r a i s e s that point f o r the f i r s t 812 So. 2d 296, 305 ( A l a . 2001) can during reasonable an argument r a i s e d f o r t h e f i r s t a f f i r m i n g the judgment. (Ala. Civ. ( A l a . 1989)) not a s s e r t e d to the can a f f i r m a j u d g m e n t i f we d i s a g r e e 7 Specialty with ("'We trial the 2111073; 2111074 reasoning as o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n e n t e r i n g t h e judgment, as l o n g t h e judgment i t s e l f i s proper.'"). That i s so because a j u d g m e n t c a n be a f f i r m e d on a n y v a l i d l e g a l g r o u n d , e v e n one not considered by t h e t r i a l 782 So. 2d 188, 191 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) . whether t h e circumstances court. See Ex p a r t e CTB, Hence, we must Inc., consider d i c t a t e t h a t no r e a s o n a b l e efforts were r e q u i r e d t o be made b y DHR p u r s u a n t t o § 1 2 - 1 5 - 3 1 2 ( c ) . At trial, DHR introduced evidence i n d i c a t i n g that the mother had been c o n v i c t e d by t h e L a u d e r d a l e C i r c u i t C o u r t o f violating § 26-15-3. That c o n v i c t i o n s e r v e d as p r i m a f a c i e e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e mother had " t o r t u r e [ d ] , w i l l f u l l y abuse[d], cruelly a beat, or otherwise willfully maltreat[ed]" § 2 6 - 1 5 - 3 ; s e e g e n e r a l l y Durham v. F a r a b e e , 886 (Ala. 1985) ("Generally, c r i m i n a l case i s a d m i s s i b l e a person's child. 481 So. 2d 885, conviction against him i n a c i v i l action to show t h a t he d i d t h e a c t f o r w h i c h he was c o n v i c t e d . " ) . parties d i d not delve i n t o the circumstances the mother's a r r e s t and c o n v i c t i o n . record indicates that the The giving rise to The s c a n t e v i d e n c e i n t h e mother became irate d i s c i p l i n i n g K.S. a n d , a s t h e m o t h e r s t a t e d , t h i n g s of c o n t r o l . " in a while "got out Some e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e m o t h e r w h i p p e d 8 2111073; 2111074 K.S. about the head and excessively, causing suggests defined pain that as, to the v i s i b l e welts mother among o t h e r the body D i c t i o n a r y 1627 neck w i t h also things, or mind leather scars. and strap Other evidence choked K.S. punish of is intense Black's Law record shows, w i t h o u t c o n t r a d i c t i o n , t h a t t h e m o t h e r d i d n o t merely ordinary did, corporal We belt "Torture" "[t]he i n f l i c t i o n 2009). or conclude t h a t the use ( 9 t h ed. to a punishment in fact, w i l l f u l l y torture against K.S. but that K.S. Under § 1 2 - 1 5 - 3 1 2 ( c ) , r e a s o n a b l e e f f o r t s a r e n o t when a p a r e n t has she required t o r t u r e d the c h i l d at i s s u e or a s i b l i n g t h e c h i l d a t i s s u e and t h e c o u r t a l s o d e t e r m i n e s t h a t t h e of f u r t h e r abuse o r n e g l e c t returned Family 233 home s a f e l y . Servs. (App. Div. circumstances' See i s too a l s o New v. A.R.G., 361 N.J. 2003) ("We embodies abuse o r n e g l e c t high f o r the Jersey S u p e r . 46, the concept must have b e e n so that child, and would p l a c e o f an u n r e a s o n a b l e r i s k t o be the reabused."). 9 to and child be Youth 824 A.2d term the of risk & 213, 'aggravated nature of the severe or r e p e t i t i v e to attempt r e u n i f i c a t i o n would j e o p a r d i z e s a f e t y of the Div. 77, conclude t h a t the child of that compromise the in a position Much o f t h e trial 2111073; 2111074 centered tending on t h a t p a r t i c u l a r t o prove t h a t point. DHR i n t r o d u c e d t h e mother l a c k e d evidence sufficient insight, judgment, and c o n t r o l t o p r o p e r l y care f o r t h e c h i l d r e n . mother i n t r o d u c e d she c o n f l i c t i n g evidence tending h a d overcome h e r anger-management p r o b l e m t h a t she c o u l d s a f e l y p a r e n t t h e c h i l d r e n . t o prove The that to the point The j u v e n i l e c o u r t d i d n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y r e s o l v e t h a t c o n f l i c t , b u t t h e tenor and e f f e c t o f i t s j u d g m e n t s s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t was c l e a r l y convinced children t h a t t h e mother c o u l d n o t s a f e l y p a r e n t t h e and t h a t a return t o h e r home would c h i l d r e n a t an undue r i s k o f abuse o r n e g l e c t . Limestone Cnty. Dep't place the See A.E.T. v. o f Human R e s . , 49 So. 3d 1212, 1216 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2010) ("[W]hen t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t h a s n o t made s p e c i f i c f a c t u a l f i n d i n g s i n s u p p o r t o f i t s j u d g m e n t , we must presume t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t made t h o s e f i n d i n g s n e c e s s a r y to support supported i t s judgment, by determination, the provided evidence."). and the u n d i s p u t e d that Based the j u v e n i l e court reasonable on findings are that factual evidence i n d i c a t i n g that the m o t h e r h a d t o r t u r e d K.S., we c o n c l u d e , that those as a m a t t e r of law, a n d DHR d i d n o t h a v e a d u t y t o u s e efforts to rehabilitate 10 t h e mother and t o r e u n i t e 2111073; 2111074 the f a m i l y . that Hence, we f i n d no m e r i t i n t h e m o t h e r ' s argument the j u v e n i l e court a n d DHR failed t o use reasonable e f f o r t s to reunite her with the c h i l d r e n or that the j u v e n i l e c o u r t a n d DHR h a d p r e m a t u r e l y ended those efforts. The m o t h e r n e x t a r g u e s t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t e r r e d i n changing t h e permanency plan from family reunification to 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 i n June o r J u l y 2011 a f t e r t h e c h i l d r e n h a d been i n f o s t e r c a r e decision f o r l e s s than a year. t o m o d i f y a permanency p l a n The forchildren i n foster c a r e s h o u l d be made a t a p e r m a n e n c y h e a r i n g , p u r s u a n t t o § 12¬ 15-315, A l a . Code 1975. A parent change plan adoption t h e permanency from family b y an u n i d e n t i f i e d r e s o u r c e p a r e n t a l r i g h t s can appeal F.V.O., a g g r i e v e d by t h e d e c i s i o n t o supra. The with reunification a termination of t h a t judgment t o t h i s record does to not reveal court. See whether t h e j u v e n i l e court f o l l o w e d the c o r r e c t procedure i n changing the p e r m a n e n c y p l a n , s o we do n o t know w h e t h e r t h e m o t h e r h a d an opportunity t o c o n t e s t t h e change a n d t o a p p e a l making t h e change. on the p e t i t i o n s t h e judgment However, we do know t h a t , d u r i n g t h e t r i a l t o terminate the parental rights of the m o t h e r , t h e p a r t i e s o n l y t a n g e n t i a l l y r e f e r e n c e d t h e change i n 11 2111073; 2111074 the permanency p l a n i n r e g a r d reunification efforts independently with litigate t o DHR's d e c i s i o n t o t e r m i n a t e the mother; t h e p a r t i e s d i d n o t the p r o p r i e t y of that M c C o l l u m v. R e e v e s , 521 So. 2d 13, 17 change. ( A l a . 1987) See (holding t h a t when e v i d e n c e r e l a t e s t o an i s s u e e x p r e s s l y c o n t e s t e d b y t h e p a r t i e s , t h e same e v i d e n c e does n o t s u p p o r t separate issue not r a i s e d i n the pleadings consent). Because the correctness termination-of-parental-rights address that issue i n t h i s that had been t r i e d by o f t h e change p e r m a n e n c y p l a n was n o t an i s s u e b e f o r e the a theory i n the the j u v e n i l e court i n trial, we decline to appeal. The m o t h e r n e x t a r g u e s t h a t t h e r e c o r d does n o t c o n t a i n clear parent and c o n v i n c i n g evidence of her current the c h i l d r e n , p a r t i c u l a r l y disagree. i n regard The e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d unfitness to t o K.S. We shows t h a t t h e m o t h e r t o r t u r e d K.S. a n d t h a t t h e m o t h e r d o w n p l a y e d t h e s e v e r i t y o f her p h y s i c a l abuse. beaten her with normal t o do education She n o t e d t h a t h e r p a r e n t s any n e a r b y likewise on a p p r o p r i a t e objects, a n d she c o n s i d e r e d i t to the c h i l d r e n . discipline, had r o u t i n e l y After receiving t h e mother c o n t i n u e d t o d e f e n d h e r p u n i s h m e n t o f K.S. a n d a t t r i b u t e d t h e marks on h i s 12 2111073; 2111074 head and neck solely Angel who Geiske, to the fact that performed he was f a i r - s k i n n e d . a parenting m o t h e r i n May 2 0 1 1 , t e s t i f i e d that assessment of the t h e m o t h e r h a s "a great d e a l o f s o c i e t a l i d e a t i o n s , " meaning t h a t t h e mother p e r c e i v e s abusive behavior t o be a c c e p t a b l e and t h a t t h e mother n o t overcome t h o s e b e l i e f s d e s p i t e h e r b e s t a t t e m p t s . could Geiske a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t when a p a r e n t w i l l f u l l y a b u s e s a c h i l d i t is u n l i k e l y that the parent will ever properly parent the child. Because of their abuse, emotional and b e h a v i o r a l cognitive limitations, testing, Geiske v i a b l e resource specialized Children's both children problems. which testified were that Due suffer from t o the mother's proven t h e mother by intelligence would n o t be a f o r o r d i n a r y c h i l d r e n , much l e s s c h i l d r e n w i t h needs. Kimanthi A i d Society, also Stewart, testified an e m p l o y e e of the that, working after w i t h t h e m o t h e r f o r t h r e e o r f o u r months i n 2009, she d i d n o t foresee part, family reunification as an a c h i e v a b l e t o t h e mother's m e n t a l - h e a l t h h e a l t h i s s u e s remained unresolved 13 issues. goal due, i n Those mental- a t the time of t r i a l . 2111073; 2111074 B a s e d on t h e above e v i d e n c e alone, without considering any r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t h e m o t h e r may have h a d f o r a l l o w i n g P.W. t o r e t u r n t o t h e f a m i l y home a f t e r r e c e i v i n g r e p o r t s t h a t he was sexually reasonably lacked abusing her daughters, c o u l d have b e e n c l e a r l y the appropriate parent the c h i l d r e n . the juvenile convinced protective court t h a t t h e mother capacities to properly A j u v e n i l e c o u r t can terminate parental r i g h t s i f c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e proves t h a t t h e p a r e n t i s "unable o r u n w i l l i n g t o discharge and their responsibilities to f o r t h e c h i l d , " § 12-15-319, A l a . Code 1975, i n c l u d i n g t h e responsibility emotional Res., harm. f o r protecting the c h i l d from p h y s i c a l or See B.B.T. v. H o u s t o n C n t y . Dep't o f Human 89 So. 3d 169 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 1 ) . We f i n d t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t d i d n o t e r r i n f i n d i n g t h a t t h e mother the ability The to properly parent the c h i l d r e n . mother next prematurely terminated contends that parenting had o b t a i n e d steady c l a s s , had attended had p a i d c h i l d s u p p o r t . the her parental r i g h t s . out t h a t , a t t h e time o f t h e t r i a l , apartment, lacked juvenile court The m o t h e r p o i n t s s h e h a d moved i n t o h e r own employment, mental-health had completed a counseling, and J e s s i c a R i d d l e , an e m p l o y e e o f Y o u t h 14 2111073; 2111074 Villages, mother testified had worked that, from harder May than t o September any parent 2011, had she the ever c o u n s e l e d and t h a t t h e m o t h e r h a d i m p r o v e d h e r c i r c u m s t a n c e s . Riddle testified that she had terminated her efforts to r e h a b i l i t a t e t h e m o t h e r o n l y upon a change i n t h e p e r m a n e n c y p l a n and t h a t , i f she h a d been g i v e n an a d d i t i o n a l f i v e she felt like the mother c o u l d have been years, r e u n i t e d w i t h the children. Section terminate 12-15-319 a parent's authorizes parental a juvenile court to rights i f "the conduct or c o n d i t i o n o f t h e p a r e n t [ ] r e n d e r s them u n a b l e t o p r o p e r l y c a r e f o r t h e c h i l d and ... t h e c o n d u c t o r c o n d i t i o n i s u n l i k e l y t o change in purposes the foreseeable of the present future." argument, Conceding, t h a t the mother f o r the could be c o m p l e t e l y r e h a b i l i t a t e d i n f i v e y e a r s , t h a t change w o u l d n o t occur " i n the foreseeable f u t u r e . " Concerned parents r e h a b i l i t a t e as q u i c k l y as p o s s i b l e i n o r d e r t o resume of their children. The legislature should custody has e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t a 12-month p e r i o d f r o m t h e t i m e a c h i l d e n t e r s f o s t e r c a r e i s "a presumptively M.A.J. v. reasonable S.F., 994 So. time f o r a parent 2d 280, 15 291 to rehabilitate." ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008) 2111073; 2111074 ( d i s c u s s i n g f o r m e r § 1 2 - 1 5 - 6 2 ( c ) , A l a . Code 1975, now c o d i f i e d a t § 1 2 - 1 5 - 3 1 5 ( a ) , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 ) . is The asking fora total j u v e n i l e court of almost I n t h i s case, t h e mother 75 months t o r e h a b i l i t a t e . d i d n o t e r r by t e r m i n a t i n g t h e mother's p a r e n t a l r i g h t s d e s p i t e t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h e mother might sufficiently See rehabilitate a t t h e end o f such a long period. T.B. v . C u l l m a n C n t y . Dep't o f Human R e s . , 6 So. 3d 1195 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008) ( a f f i r m i n g j u d g m e n t 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 when e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e d t h a t i t w o u l d t a k e as l o n g as t h r e e y e a r s t o r e h a b i l i t a t e p a r e n t ) ; c f . S.U. v. M a d i s o n C n t y . Dep't o f Human R e s . , 91 So. 3d 716 (reversing judgment t e r m i n a t i n g w o u l d be r e l e a s e d ( A l a . C i v . App. 2012) parental from p r i s o n w i t h i n r i g h t s when m o t h e r three weeks a n d c o u l d assume c a r e o f c h i l d r e n s o t h a t r e u n i f i c a t i o n was foreseeable a t t i m e j u d g m e n t was Citing Resources, C.M. entered). County Department 81 So. 3d 391 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 1 ) , next maintains her v. T u s c a l o o s a parental that the j u v e n i l e court erred f o r adoption. emotional disorders. o f Human t h e mother i n terminating r i g h t s b e c a u s e t h e c h i l d r e n have no prospects reasonably convincing I n C.M., t h e c h i l d r e n s u f f e r e d B e c a u s e o f h e r own m e n t a l 16 from disability, 2111073; 2111074 the mother i n t h a t case c o u l d not needs o f t h e c h i l d r e n . p r o p e r l y meet t h e s p e c i a l Nevertheless, the u n d i s p u t e d evidence showed t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n had a s i g n i f i c a n t e m o t i o n a l b o n d w i t h the mother and that, i f they were unable to maintain v i s i t a t i o n w i t h her, the c h i l d r e n would l i k e l y s u f f e r adverse psychological impacts. circumstances, the law This court held that, in those requires juvenile courts "'to weigh the advantage of [some a l t e r n a t i v e placement resource t h a t would a l l o w the c h i l d to v i s i t p e r i o d i c a l l y w i t h the u n f i t parent] against the a d v a n t a g e o f t e r m i n a t i o n and placement f o r a d o p t i o n w i t h p e r m a n e n t f i t p a r e n t s , and t o d e c i d e w h i c h o f t h e s e a l t e r n a t i v e s w o u l d be i n t h e c h i l d ' s best i n t e r e s t . ' " 81 So. 871 3d a t 397 So. 2d opinion)). it was ( q u o t i n g D.M.P. v. S t a t e Dep't o f Human 77, Due 95 n.17 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003) Res., (plurality t o t h e s p e c i a l needs o f t h e c h i l d r e n i n uncertain whether those c h i l d r e n would be C.M., adopted. G i v e n t h e c l e a r e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n w o u l d be harmed i f t h e y were n o t a l l o w e d t o m a i n t a i n mother, and prospects, the this lack of their relationship with evidence regarding c o u r t h e l d t h a t the i n t e r m i n a t i n g the mother's p a r e n t a l 17 their adoption j u v e n i l e c o u r t had rights. the erred 2111073; 2111074 In t h i s and case, the children b e h a v i o r a l problems children suffer stemming reside i n special from from severe their emotional abuse. Both t h e r a p e u t i c f o s t e r homes. Their f o s t e r p a r e n t s have i n d i c a t e d t o DHR t h a t t h e y a r e amenable t o providing has long-term care f o r the children, committed t o adoption. very much resemble the In those children adoptive resource does termination of p a r e n t a l r i g h t s . Res., 669 So. 2d 187 court held only that, respects, the children i n C.M. prospects for adoption are uncertain. identified although neither because However, t h e l a c k o f an not n e c e s s a r i l y I n C.M., bond w i t h an u n f i t this circumstances, parental rights s h o u l d n o t be t e r m i n a t e d when p r e s e r v a t i o n o f a emotional preclude R.B. v. S t a t e Dep't o f Human ( A l a . C i v . App. 1995) . i n such their parent significant would b e t t e r serve the i n t e r e s t s of the c h i l d r e n . The mother in this indicating t h a t she s h a r e d children, but other case presented some a s t r o n g e m o t i o n a l bond w i t h t h e evidence disputed that connection. S p e c i f i c a l l y , J o h n R u f f i n , M.S.'s c u r r e n t t h e r a p i s t , t h a t a l t h o u g h M.S. cared evidence testified f o r a n d l o v e d t h e m o t h e r , M.S. h a d r a r e l y even t a l k e d about t h e mother and had n o t i n f o r m e d him 18 2111073; 2111074 that she times, want wanted to r e t u r n to the M.S. to had live informed with the custody of the other counselors mother and that that she mother. she not angry was did and c o n f u s e d by h e r m o t h e r ' s r e f u s a l t o b e l i e v e t h a t she was s e x u a l l y abused. During counseling i n 2010, he d i d n o t want t o l i v e w i t h t h e m o t h e r and mother. The record K.S.'s current suggested that contains feelings the almost toward the no K.S. indicates behaviorally evidence, after the stated evidence mother. the visiting juvenile court damaged by F u r t h e r m o r e , some would mother. Based reasonably the evidence children the that regarding No c h i l d r e n n e c e s s a r i l y w o u l d be that being t h a t he f e a r e d e n d i n g t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h the mother. evidence At could regress on that have been c l e a r l y c o n v i n c e d t h a t i t would not serve the b e s t i n t e r e s t s of the c h i l d r e n to forgo t e r m i n a t i o n of the mother's parental r i g h t s e v e n i n t h e a b s e n c e o f an i d e n t i f i e d a d o p t i v e resource. Thus, we case f i n d C.M. t o be d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from t h i s c o n c l u d e t h a t t h i s c a s e f a l l s more c l e a r l y w i t h i n t h e cases h o l d i n g t h a t , g e n e r a l l y speaking, m a i n t a i n i n g indefinite foster termination of care parental is not rights. 19 a viable See T.G. line of a child in alternative v. and Houston to Cnty. 2111073; 2111074 Dep't o f Human R e s . , 39 So. 3d 1146, 1152-53 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009). Next, t h e mother m a i n t a i n s in terminating mother the parental contends, children. was resource f o rthe a small home w i t h h i s w i f e and A f t e r learning of the children's p l i g h t , f a t h e r and h i s w i f e 2009. relative The e v i d e n c e shows t h a t t h e f a t h e r a n d was s h a r i n g t h e i r two c h i l d r e n . erred r i g h t s o f t h e f a t h e r , who, t h e viable We d i s a g r e e . had m a r r i e d the a that the j u v e n i l e court assumed t h e i r custody i n the f a l l of The c h i l d r e n soon e x h i b i t e d d a n g e r o u s p r o p e n s i t i e s , s e x u a l l y a c t i n g o u t and t h r e a t e n i n g t h e l i f e o r s a f e t y o f t h e father's other children. children to counseling t o h e l p them. The f a t h e r and h i s w i f e t h r o u g h o u t 2009 a n d 2010 i n an e f f o r t They a l s o i n s t i t u t e d p r o t o c o l s w i t h i n t h e home i n an a t t e m p t t o s a f e g u a r d t h e i r own c h i l d r e n . efforts as t h e b e h a v i o r regressed proved fruitless under t h e i r care. they reached a boarding the children. lacked the a b i l i t y However, their of the children The f a t h e r a n d h i s w i f e t h a t t h e y c o u l d no l o n g e r p r o p e r l y c a r e take took the decided f o r t h e c h i l d r e n , and a g r e e m e n t w i t h DHR i n A u g u s t 2010 t o At t r i a l , the father testified t h a t he a n d w i l l i n g n e s s t o meet t h e s p e c i a l needs 20 2111073; 2111074 of the c h i l d r e n and children's that current therapeutic A f t e r r e c e i v i n g advice the termination Even i f termination foster-care from c o u n s e l , of h i s p a r e n t a l the of t h o s e needs were b e i n g mother the the parental that 9 So. (one p a r e n t l a c k s s t a n d i n g other the parent's parental juvenile court arrangements. to contest to rights, 3d 506 see the D.C.L. (Ala. Civ. v. App. to appeal the t e r m i n a t i o n rights), erred the father consented standing M a r i o n C n t y . Dep't o f Human Res., 2008) in rights. had father's the met in we of would not conclude terminating the parental r i g h t s o f t h e f a t h e r and i n r e f u s i n g t o r e t u r n t h e c h i l d r e n t o his custody as a viable alternative to terminating p a r e n t a l r i g h t s of the mother. I t i s c l e a r from the testimony h i s wife's best t h a t , d e s p i t e h i s and f a t h e r c o u l d n o t meet t h e s p e c i a l needs o f t h e safe the e n v i r o n m e n t and grounds to t e r m i n a t e Dep't of that j u v e n i l e court his parental rights. Human Res., 984 So. 2d 447 the father's efforts, the children in a had sufficient C f . C.C. (Ala. Civ. v. App. State 2007) ( r e v e r s i n g 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 of mother by consent evidence of T h a t same e v i d e n c e p r o v e s t h a t the when juvenile court grounds f o r t e r m i n a t i o n ) . failed 21 to adduce 2111073; 2111074 f a t h e r c o u l d n o t s e r v e as a v i a b l e p l a c e m e n t f o r t h e c h i l d r e n . See J.B. 273, v. 283 Cleburne Cnty. ( A l a . C i v . App. a v i a b l e resource Dep't o f 2008) Human Res., that felt the i m p a c t e d M.S., who juvenile court reasonably that served the father's r e j e c t e d by The decision the mother's b r o t h e r , i n t e r e s t s of father, given M.S. the testified at the the date G.R.W., 69 relative's of the termination So. 3d 197 (Ala. Civ. last-minute c u s t o d i a n was two not that works. K.D. Although she 2011) a viable alternative). own and would come See forth M.J.C. (holding jobs stated 22 that she would as has support leaves her c h i l d r e n w i t h r e l a t i v e s w h i l e K.D. v. that to act to be K.D. M o r e o v e r , K.D. w o r k s two the Although d i d not hearing. App. her the f i a n c e of o f f e r s at t e r m i n a t i o n t r i a l s m a l l c h i l d r e n of her her f a m i l y . she sever circumstances. trial c h i l d r e n ' s predicament, the convinced to w i l l i n g t o a c t as a p l a c e m e n t f o r t h e c h i l d r e n . until negatively f a t h e r ; however, F i n a l l y , t h e m o t h e r c o n t e n d s t h a t K.D., the i s not e v i d e n c e shows, c o u l d have b e e n c l e a r l y best r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h the knew o f 2d f o r d e p e n d e n t c h i l d i f r e l a t i v e c a n n o t meet dispute, i t So. (holding that r e l a t i v e needs o f c h i l d d u r i n g c h i l d ' s m i n o r i t y ) . without 991 modify she her 2111073; 2111074 circumstances the to help the c h i l d r e n , i t remains undisputed children in constant court this case a t t e n t i o n and reasonably have s p e c i a l needs that s p e c i a l i z e d knowledge. could have concluded that require The K.D. that juvenile lacked the n e c e s s a r y t i m e o r s k i l l s t o p r o p e r l y c a r e f o r t h e c h i l d r e n and that t h e y w o u l d be better f o s t e r homes u n t i l t h e y c o u l d be I n summary, we had with no reasonable children, that See therapeutic J.B., supra. j u v e n i l e court efforts the current adopted. conclude t h a t the d u t y t o use the off in their juvenile t o r e u n i t e the court convincing evidence before i t to terminate had and DHR mother clear and the p a r e n t a l r i g h t s of the mother, t h a t the j u v e n i l e c o u r t p r o p e r l y c o n s i d e r e d a l l v i a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s before t e r m i n a t i n g the p a r e n t a l r i g h t s of the j u v e n i l e court mother, and that that termination of best i n t e r e s t s of juvenile court's the the the mother's p a r e n t a l children. We, properly concluded r i g h t s served therefore, affirm judgments. 2111073 -- AFFIRMED. 2111074 -- AFFIRMED. Pittman, J., concurs. Thompson, P . J . , concurs i n the Thomas, J . , c o n c u r s i n t h e 23 result, with writing. result, without w r i t i n g . the the 2111073; 2111074 THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e , c o n c u r r i n g i n the result. I a g r e e t h a t t h e j u d g m e n t s o f t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t a r e due t o be a f f i r m e d . Coffee However, t h e m a i n o p i n i o n r e l i e s on F.V.O. v . C n t y . Dep't o f Human R e s . , [Ms. 2110398, Dec. 7, 2012] So. 3d conclusions. ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 2 ) , t o s u p p o r t some o f i t s I d i s s e n t e d i n t h a t case. Id.at . For the same r e a s o n s e x p r e s s e d i n t h a t d i s s e n t i n g o p i n i o n , I d i s a g r e e with relying in this on F.V.O. as a b a s i s f o r a f f i r m i n g t h e j u d g m e n t s case. 24

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.