B.C. v. A.A. and M.A. (Appeal from DeKalb Juvenile Court: JU-11-235.01 and JU-11-239.01)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL:08/02/2013 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 SPECIAL TERM, 2013 2111247 B.C. v. A.A. and M.A. 2120407 R.H.M. and H.R.M. v. A.A. and M.A. Appeals from DeKalb J u v e n i l e Court (JU-11-235.01 and JU-11-239.01) 2111247 a n d 2120407 THOMAS, J u d g e . I n 2006, B.C. ("the the Jackson children") Juvenile and h i s w i f e noncustodial alternating 8:00 1 The o f M.A. a n d A.A., t h e c h i l d r e n ' s (referred Thursday weekends a.m. A.B. a n d A.M. ("the R.H.M. a n d H.R.M., t h e m a t e r n a l relatives"), every placing and her husband ( 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 u s t o d i a n s " ) . children Court i n the custody maternal great-aunt uncle mother") c o n s e n t e d t o a judgment o f from record were from to collectively as " t h e awarded v i s i t a t i o n with the 8:00 a.m. Friday does great- t o 8:00 p.m. a n d a t 5:00 p.m. t o Sunday a t not indicate the specific v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s a f f o r d e d t h e m o t h e r ; h o w e v e r , M.A. t e s t i f i e d that " i t ' s i n t h e p a p e r s t h a t s h e c a n come a n d v i s i t . " In April children. termination 2011, t h e c u s t o d i a n s To t h a t end, they of the parental sought filed p e t i t i o n s seeking the rights c h i l d r e n i n the DeKalb J u v e n i l e C o u r t . t o adopt t h e o f t h e mother 2 tothe Those p e t i t i o n s a l s o The r e c o r d does n o t c o n t a i n t h e 2006 j u d g m e n t ; h o w e v e r , the parties are i n apparent agreement regarding i t s p r o v i s i o n s , and they t e s t i f i e d r e g a r d i n g those p r o v i s i o n s a t trial. 1 The p e t i t i o n s a l s o sought t e r m i n a t i o n rights of the fathers of the children. 2 2 of the parental 2111247 a n d 2120407 sought t h e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s awarded t o t h e noncustodial relatives. The m o t h e r a n s w e r e d t h e p e t i t i o n s and f i l e d separate p e t i t i o n s seeking custody of the c h i l d r e n . noncustodial relatives filed complaint i n intervention the children rights. a petition to intervene i n each a c t i o n , juvenile court of t h e i r v i s i t a t i o n permitted relatives to intervene; i talso and a seeking custody of or, at least, a continuation The The the noncustodial consolidated the actions f o r trial. After August several continuances, 14, 2012. consistently M.A. the actions testified v i s i t e d the children that after were t h e mother late children, who, the custodians o l d e r c h i l d . M.A. c h a r a c t e r i z e d believed, had not 2008, when t h e m o t h e r h a d resumed h e r r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e f a t h e r the t r i e d on o f one o f had abused the t h e change i n t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e m o t h e r a n d t h e c u s t o d i a n s as b e i n g l i k e "we became the enemy" between the relationship that and s a i d that i t h a d become and M.A. mother to benefit t h e mother had instead the children. not paid child more of M.A. a of a cooperative further support battle or testified provided f i n a n c i a l support f o r the c h i l d r e n u n t i l the c u s t o d i a n s sought 3 2111247 a n d 2120407 a c h i l d - s u p p o r t o r d e r ; M.A. t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e m o t h e r h a d n o t been current termination on h e r c h i l d - s u p p o r t payments a t t h e time t h e p e t i t i o n s were f i l e d , b u t she a d m i t t e d that the m o t h e r m i g h t have b e e n c u r r e n t on h e r p a y m e n t s a t t h e t i m e o f trial. M.A. the testified that children to provide s h e a n d A.A. were s e e k i n g them s t a b i l i t y . c h i l d r e n w o u l d be e n t e r i n g t o adopt She s a i d t h a t t h e t h e second and f o u r t h grades and t h a t t h e y o u n g e r c h i l d made " s t r a i g h t A ' s " a n d t h a t t h e o l d e r child made " A ' s " a n d one "B" the previous A l t h o u g h t h e c h i l d r e n were p e r f o r m i n g said that forth" i t was d i f f i c u l t i n a situation negative, negative." school well academically, year. she f o r t h e c h i l d r e n t o "go b a c k a n d where t h e y were b e i n g According t o M.A., told the "negative, noncustodial r e l a t i v e s w o u l d make d i s p a r a g i n g comments a b o u t t h e c u s t o d i a n s to the c h i l d r e n . She a d m i t t e d , h o w e v e r , t h a t s h e m i g h t have made d i s p a r a g i n g comments a b o u t t h e n o n c u s t o d i a l r e l a t i v e s a n d about t h e mother and t h a t , a t t i m e s , children she had q u e s t i o n e d the a b o u t what was s a i d a n d done when t h e y v i s i t e d t h e noncustodial relatives. been i n a p p r o p r i a t e M.A. a d m i t t e d and s t a t e d t h a t 4 t h a t t h a t behavior had she had d i s c o n t i n u e d t h e 2111247 and 2120407 practice. "roller She described the ride." M.A. coaster "completely however, wipe the the children's mother petitions denied from that the as she being wanted children's for termination s t a t e d t h a t the custodians lives of "realize that a to lives"; parental rights ... t h e m o t h e r will be g i v i n g up any and a l l b e n e f i t s o f a r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e minor c h i l d [ r e n ] and visitation with the minor further i n [ t h e i r ] Regarding [she] w i l l rights visitation rights be nor child[ren], entitled to any p a r t i c i p a t e any li[ves]." the request visitation never be that the n o n c u s t o d i a l terminated, granted presenting d i f f i c u l t i e s under M.A. relatives' explained that t h e 2006 judgment f o r the custodians the h a d begun and t h e c h i l d r e n . M.A. s a i d t h a t t h e T h u r s d a y v i s i t a t i o n s , w h i c h were e x e r c i s e d from after school year, school prevented extracurricular Thursday until 8:00 on Thursdays the c h i l d r e n from b e i n g activities practices. p.m. She because also they noted that could during the involved i n not attend alternate-weekend v i s i t s would i n t e r f e r e w i t h a c t i v i t i e s t h a t might r e q u i r e the c h i l d r e n t o p a r t i c i p a t e on t h e weekends. the communication between the c u s t o d i a n s 5 According to M.A., and t h e n o n c u s t o d i a l 2111247 and 2120407 r e l a t i v e s was possible to nonexistent. "set up She e x p l a i n e d t h a t i t would not anything" regarding transportation p r a c t i c e s or attendance at a c t i v i t i e s because of the meaningful testified returned was that communication that the she had the testified r e l a t i v e s had she treated the acted differently t o l d the she had by cried heard when they older child c h i l d r e n t h a t the complained noncustodial "a l o t " m o r e . that of also and the to M.A. differently younger c h i l d younger c h i l d that parties. commented t h a t t h e toward the been r e l a t i v e s , while further children from v i s i t a t i o n ; more a g g r e s s i v e between lack be the M.A. noncustodial custodians were not C h r i s t i a n s and t h a t t h e y were "demon p o s s e s s e d " ; she a l s o s a i d that the custodians although noncustodial from she receiving a testified children's emotional back and regarding forth," the L i k e M.A., tried "ministry that she said that was she to prevent license." concerned h e a l t h because they M.A. However, about were r e q u i r e d t o had no the real the "go concerns with relatives. testified he had c h i l d r e n ' s s a f e t y when t h e y were v i s i t i n g the n o n c u s t o d i a l A.A. relatives t h a t he testified works i n C h a t t a n o o g a , T e n n e s s e e . t h a t he 6 had no i n t e n t i o n of cutting 2111247 the a n d 2120407 mother out of the children's lives completely; he s a i d t h a t s h e c o u l d s t i l l v i s i t e v e n a f t e r h e r p a r e n t a l r i g h t s were terminated. He a l s o said that v i s i t s with the noncustodial he would like determining said that t o be he h a d no d e s i r e r e l a t i v e s e i t h e r ; he s t a t e d able t o u s e "common when t h e n o n c u s t o d i a l t h e mother t o end a l l sense" r e l a t i v e s could v i s i t . and t h e n o n c u s t o d i a l relatives that when He were f a m i l y a n d t h a t "you c a n ' t t a k e someone o u t o f someone e l s e ' s l i f e completely and e n t i r e l y w i t h o u t there b e i n g T h a t w o u l d be h o r r i b l e . " Like devastation. M.A., he d i d n o t e , however, t h a t the c h i l d r e n ' s b e h a v i o r changed a f t e r v i s i t a t i o n w i t h the noncustodial that relatives; he s a i d the children's behavior that teachers had reported c h a n g e d on F r i d a y s . A.A. a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e o l d e r c h i l d h a d r e p o r t e d b e i n g c a l l e d a "GD l i t t l e B" a t a v i s i t . improve their explained that He a d m i t t e d t h a t t h e p a r t i e s n e e d e d t o relationship i t would and t h e i r take effort communication. from He a l l parties to e f f e c t i v e l y do s o . R.H.M. visitation testified that he a n d H.R.M. were awarded i n t h e 2006 j u d g m e n t . He s a i d t h a t , although the c o m m u n i c a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s was n o n e x i s t e n t atf i r s t , i t 7 2111247 a n d 2120407 had i m p r o v e d f o r a few y e a r s . dispute arose children over to visit However, he e x p l a i n e d , the custodians a t Christmas, refusing despite when a to allow the the fact C h r i s t m a s f e l l on a v i s i t a t i o n weekend, he t o l d t h e that custodians t h a t he d i d n o t l i k e how he and H.R.M. were b e i n g t r e a t e d . He s a i d t h a t M.A. became u p s e t a f t e r t h a t d i s c u s s i o n a n d t h a t the communication between a d m i t t e d t h a t he had, about the custodians the parties a t times, disintegrated. made d i s p a r a g i n g R.H.M. statements i n the p r e s e n c e o f the c h i l d r e n and t h a t he h a d a l s o s o m e t i m e s i n q u i r e d o f t h e c h i l d r e n what was b e i n g s a i d a n d done a t t h e c u s t o d i a n s ' home; h o w e v e r , he t e s t i f i e d t h a t he and H.R.M. h a d r e a l i z e d s u c h c o n d u c t was i n a p p r o p r i a t e and that they had discontinued R.H.M. t e s t i f i e d that those p r a c t i c e s . he a n d H.R.M. d e s i r e d custody of the c h i l d r e n because t h e y would promote the i n v o l v e m e n t o f the mother, who, he s a i d , involved with custodians' being able h a d become more the children. relationship with t o maintain interested According i n being t o R.H.M., t h e t h e mother p r e v e n t e d h e r from a relationship with thechildren. He s a i d t h a t M.A. was h i s s i s t e r a n d t h a t s h e seemed d e t e r m i n e d to cut o f f the c h i l d r e n ' s " f a m i l y t i e s , " 8 s t a r t i n g with their 2111247 a n d 2120407 relationships contended stable with that home t h e mother and w i t h he a n d H.R.M. c o u l d and a l s o foster h i m a n d H.R.M. provide their He the children a relationships with the mother and w i t h t h e c u s t o d i a n s . R e g a r d i n g the a b i l i t y t o handle t r a n s p o r t i n g the c h i l d r e n t o a n d f r o m p r a c t i c e s o r a c t i v i t i e s , R.H.M. s a i d t h a t he a n d H.R.M. w o u l d have no p r o b l e m m a k i n g s u r e transported and t o wherever they H.R.M. lived custodians. schedules only 20 He s a i d t h a t having tried license," little n e e d e d t o b e ; he n o t e d t h a t he t o 25 m i n u t e s B." perhaps from t h e t o exchange i na limited r e g a r d i n g t h e c h i l d r e n . He d e n i e d to interfere a n d he d e n i e d away he w o u l d be w i l l i n g and t o communicate, a l t h o u g h manner, w i t h t h e c u s t o d i a n s t h e c h i l d r e n were with having When q u e s t i o n e d the custodians' called regarding "ministry the older c h i l d another a "GD incident i n w h i c h t h e y o u n g e r c h i l d h a d r e p o r t e d t h a t he h a d s t a t e d t h a t he wanted t o k i l l been upset over the custodians, the pending he e x p l a i n e d action, that t h a t he h a d he h a d made some s t a t e m e n t t h a t may have c o n t a i n e d p r o f a n i t y i n d i c a t i n g t h a t he was f e d up w i t h the matter, gone i n t o h i s y a r d , t h a t he h a d l e f t t h a t he h a d d i s c o v e r e d 9 h i s house a n d t h a t h i s dog had 2111247 a n d 2120407 c h e w e d t h r o u g h some w i r e s then returned to kill on h i s lawnmower, a n d t h a t he h a d t o t h e h o u s e a n d t o l d H.R.M. t h a t "he w o u l d l i k e that dog." He s a i d that i t was l i k e l y that the y o u n g e r c h i l d h a d o v e r h e a r d some o f t h e s t a t e m e n t s a n d t h a t he had b e e n c o n f u s e d r e g a r d i n g t h e t h r e a t t o k i l l . R.H.M. d e n i e d h a v i n g anger-management i s s u e s b u t a d m i t t e d t h a t , a t t i m e s , he did become a n g r y . R.H.M. testified that t h e mother visited with the c h i l d r e n when t h e c h i l d r e n were v i s i t i n g w i t h h i m a n d H.R.M. He e x p l a i n e d t h a t t h e m o t h e r w o u l d come t o t h e i r home a t t i m e s and that, a t other provide times, they would t r a v e l t o Chattanooga t o t h e mother v i s i t a t i o n w i t h t h e c h i l d r e n . According t o R.H.M., t h e m o t h e r v i s i t e d with said t h e c h i l d r e n and t h a t her. that t h e mother l o v e d He d e s c r i b e d the mother. not best they He loved t h e y o u n g e r c h i l d as " g l o w i n g " when he saw He f u r t h e r o p i n e d t h a t t h e m o t h e r ' s r i g h t s be t e r m i n a t e d should b e c a u s e i t w o u l d n o t be i n t h e c h i l d r e n ' s interest. The her thechildren regularly. mother t e s t i f i e d t h a t parents, both she l i v e s i n Chattanooga o f whom s u f f e r f r o m m e d i c a l said that herbrother issues. with She a l s o l i v e s w i t h h e r and h e r p a r e n t s i n 10 2111247 a n d 2120407 the three-bedroom h o u s e . at a "call months. would center" The m o t h e r r e p o r t e d and t h a t t h a t she w o r k e d she h a d w o r k e d there six She t e s t i f i e d t h a t she l o v e d t h e c h i l d r e n , t h a t she like t h e c h i l d r e n t o be r e t u r n e d t o h e r c u s t o d y , and t h a t t h e y c o u l d l i v e w i t h h e r a t h e r p a r e n t s ' home. upon for cross-examination, t h e mother admitted that However, t h e 2006 judgment p r o h i b i t e d t h e c h i l d r e n from b e i n g i n t h e presence o f her f a t h e r and h e r b r o t h e r . The m o t h e r a d m i t t e d t h a t she h a d h a d l i m i t e d c o n t a c t with t h e c h i l d r e n b e t w e e n l a t e 2008 a n d 2011, when t h e p e t i t i o n s t o terminate The m o t h e r s a i d parental r i g h t s were f i l e d . communication between h e r and t h e c u s t o d i a n s r e s u l t i n g i n d i f f i c u l t y arranging her telephone telephoned. on calls even when they She s a i d that s o m e t i m e s d i d n o t answer were a t home when she She a l s o c o m p l a i n e d t h a t M.A. w o u l d r e f u s e t o g e t t h e t e l e p h o n e when t h e m o t h e r t h a t M.A. w o u l d t e l l M.A. was " b u s y . " a s k e d t o speak t o h e r and the older c h i l d to t e l l t h e mother that However, t h e m o t h e r s a i d t h a t she h a d b e e n v i s i t i n g t h e c h i l d r e n when t h e n o n c u s t o d i a l children h a d b r o k e n down, visitation. she h a d b e e n t o l d t h a t t h e c u s t o d i a n s that for visitation. The 11 mother r e l a t i v e s had the testified that she 2111247 a n d 2120407 o b j e c t e d t o the c u s t o d i a n s ' adopting the c h i l d r e n because they w o u l d change t h e c h i l d r e n ' s l a s t names a n d b e c a u s e t h e y w a n t e d to c u t her out of t h e i r l i v e s . She f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t she w o u l d be w i l l i n g t o a l l o w t h e n o n c u s t o d i a l r e l a t i v e s t o a d o p t the c h i l d r e n because children's last they would agree n o t t o change t h e names a n d w o u l d a l l o w h e r t o c o n t i n u e involved i n their t o be lives. The j u v e n i l e c o u r t e n t e r e d j u d g m e n t s d e n y i n g t h e m o t h e r ' s custody p e t i t i o n s and t e r m i n a t i n g t h e p a r e n t a l r i g h t s o f t h e mother t o t h e c h i l d r e n . noncustodial terminated relatives; Those j u d g m e n t s f u r t h e r d e n i e d t h e 3 relatives' specified petitions visitation t h e judgments permitted seeking for the visitation custody and noncustodial between t h e c h i l d r e n and t h e n o n c u s t o d i a l r e l a t i v e s at the d i s c r e t i o n of the mother custodians. Both the r e l a t i v e s timely appealed. and the noncustodial 4 The judgments also terminated the rights of the children's respective fathers. N e i t h e r f a t h e r has a p p e a l e d the judgment t e r m i n a t i n g h i s p a r e n t a l r i g h t s . 3 The n o n c u s t o d i a l r e l a t i v e s a p p e a l e d t h e judgments t o t h e DeKalb C i r c u i t Court. However, b e c a u s e t h e r e c o r d was d e c l a r e d t o be a d e q u a t e f o r a p p e a l t o t h i s c o u r t , s e e R u l e 2 8 ( A ) ( 1 ) ( a ) , A l a . R. J u v . P., t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t t r a n s f e r r e d t h e i r appeal t o t h i s court. R u l e 2 8 ( d ) , A l a . R. J u v . P. We 4 12 2111247 a n d 2120407 "A j u v e n i l e court i s required t o apply a two-pronged t e s t i n d e t e r m i n i n g whether t o terminate p a r e n t a l r i g h t s : (1) c l e a r a n d c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e must 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 i s d e p e n d e n t ; and (2) t h e c o u r t must p r o p e r l y c o n s i d e r a n d r e j e c t a l l viable alternatives to a termination of parental r i g h t s . Ex p a r t e B e a s l e y , 564 So. 2d 950, 954 ( A l a . 1990) ." B.M. v. S t a t e , 895 So. 2 d 319, 331 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 4 ) . A 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 p a r e n t a l r i g h t s must be supported Dep't by c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g evidence. Bowman v. S t a t e o f Human R e s . , 534 So. 2 d 304, 305 1988). " C l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g evidence" (Ala. C i v . i s "'[e]vidence App. that, when w e i g h e d a g a i n s t e v i d e n c e i n o p p o s i t i o n , w i l l p r o d u c e i n the mind o f t h e t r i e r essential of fact a firm element o f t h e c l a i m and a h i g h p r o b a b i l i t y the c o r r e c t n e s s o f t h e c o n c l u s i o n . ' " 2d 171, c o n v i c t i o n as t o e a c h 179 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2002) as t o L.M. v. D.D.F., 840 So. ( q u o t i n g A l a . Code 1975, § 6-11-20(b) ( 4 ) ) ; s e e a l s o Ex p a r t e M c I n i s h , 47 So. 3d 767 ( A l a . 2008) ( e x p l a i n i n g s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w o f f a c t u a l determinations required t o be b a s e d on c l e a r a n d c o n v i n c i n g evidence). juvenile court's parental rights factual based f i n d i n g s i n a judgment on e v i d e n c e consolidated the noncustodial mother's appeal. 13 presented relatives' A terminating ore tenus are appeal with the 2111247 a n d 2120407 presumed c o r r e c t . R.B. v. S t a t e Dep't o f Human R e s . , 669 So. 2d 187 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 5 ) . F u r t h e r m o r e , where a 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 of 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 findings those necessary t o support f i n d i n g s are supported i t s judgment, by t h e e v i d e n c e . those provided that D.M. v . W a l k e r C n t y . Dep't o f Human R e s . , 919 So. 2d 1197, 1210 ( A l a . App. Civ. 2005). The 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 e r r e d in terminating custodians her parental failed rights to present because, she s a y s , t h e c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g t h a t no v i a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e t o t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h o s e available. custody serve The m o t h e r or v i s i t a t i o n as a v i a b l e parental rights. specifically argues to the noncustodial evidence r i g h t s was that awarding relatives a l t e r n a t i v e to the termination She p o s i t s that they should could of her have been a l l o w e d t o s u p e r v i s e v i s i t a t i o n o r t h a t t h e y s h o u l d have been awarded custody so t h a t t h e y could assist mother's 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 . 14 i n preserving the 2111247 a n d 2120407 As this considering court an a p p e a l has from explained, a judgment an appellate terminating court parental rights "'must r e v i e w not only whether [ t h e c h i l d r e n ] r e m a i n [ ] dependent, b u t a l s o whether t h e [ j u v e n i l e ] c o u r t c o n s i d e r e d a n d r e j e c t e d , b a s e d on c l e a r a n d convincing evidence, the possible viable alternatives before terminating [ t h e mother's] p a r e n t a l r i g h t s . See Ex p a r t e O g l e , 516 So. 2d [243] at 247 [ ( A l a . 1987)] (holding that the party attempting t o terminate a parent's parental r i g h t s has t h e b u r d e n t o p r o v e , b y c l e a r a n d c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e , t h a t t h e r e a r e no v i a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s ) ; J.D. v. T u s c a l o o s a C o u n t y Dep't o f Human Res., 923 So. 2d 303, 307 n.1 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2005) ("When a n o n p a r e n t s u c h a s DHR s e e k s t o t e r m i n a t e parental r i g h t s , i t must e s t a b l i s h b y c l e a r a n d c o n v i n c i n g evidence n o t o n l y t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n a r e dependent b u t a l s o t h a t no v i a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e t o t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e p a r e n t a l r i g h t s e x i s t s . " ) ; D.O. v. C a l h o u n C o u n t y Dep't o f Human Res., 859 So. 2d [439] a t 443 [ ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 3 ) ] ("A n o n p a r e n t who s e e k s t o t e r m i n a t e a p a r e n t ' s p a r e n t a l r i g h t s must p r o v e b y c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g evidence t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n a r e d e p e n d e n t a n d t h a t t h e r e a r e no v i a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s t o t h e 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 . " ) ; A.M. v. Lamar C o u n t y Dep't o f Human R e s . , 848 So. 2d 258, 259 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2002) (same). The n e e d t o consider a l l v i a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s i srooted, i n part, in the recognition that the termination of parental r i g h t s i s a d r a s t i c s t e p t h a t once t a k e n c a n n o t be w i t h d r a w n a n d t h a t i m p l i c a t e s due p r o c e s s . Thus, t h e Beasley two-pronged t e s t i s designed t o p r o t e c t t h e welfare of the c h i l d while also p r o t e c t i n g the rights of parents. [Ex p a r t e ] B e a s l e y , 564 So. 2d [950] a t 952 [ ( A l a . 1 9 9 0 ) ] . The r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t clear and convincing evidence support the determination t o terminate p a r e n t a l r i g h t s i s based on t h e n e e d t o p r o t e c t t h e d u e - p r o c e s s r i g h t s o f t h e 15 2111247 and 2120407 p a r e n t s . S a n t o s k y v. K r a m e r , 455 U.S. 745, 769, 102 S. C t . 1388, 71 L. Ed. 2d 599 ( 1 9 8 2 ) . The party seeking to terminate a person's p a r e n t a l r i g h t s thus has t h e b u r d e n o f p r o d u c i n g c l e a r and convincing e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e r e a r e no v i a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s t o t h e 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 . Ex p a r t e O g l e , 516 So. 2d a t 247; see a l s o K.W. v. J.G., 856 So. 2d 859, 874 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2003) ( h o l d i n g t h a t t h e p a r t y seeking to terminate the p a r e n t a l r i g h t s of another bears the burden of p r o v i n g t h a t t e r m i n a t i o n of those r i g h t s i s the a p p r o p r i a t e remedy).'" C.E.W. v. P.J.G., 14 So. 3d 166, 170-71 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009) ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e 971 2d (some emphasis As So. 1, 8-9 ( A l a . 2007)) omitted). the contain T.V., mother c l e a r and effectively convincing argues, the record does evidence demonstrating that not no v i a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e to the t e r m i n a t i o n of the mother's p a r e n t a l rights existed. She points visitation to the alternative to termination present case. noncustodial Although p e t i t i o n s seeking custody, bore the proving burden of proof, by alternative parental clear and existed rights. out The of her the awarding relatives custody is parental juvenile the court custodians the termination evidence presented 16 had evidence a that of in denied the or viable rights on w h i c h t h e n o n c u s t o d i a l convincing to that the their relatives burden no of viable the mother's at t r i a l indicates 2111247 and 2120407 t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n have v i s i t e d w i t h t h e n o n c u s t o d i a l nearly M.A. every said although Thursday she she had was and no every concerned c h i l d r e n c a u s e d by h a v i n g of r e l a t i v e s admitted asking the when t h e y t o "go that they indicated although the the c h i l d r e n , and report other that the was toll on on both sets what was relatives; those forth." done however, b o t h said practices. some vague t e s t i m o n y The as evidence i n school, than t o say one behaviors c r i e d more favoritism. The record further the mother; the r e c o r d a l s o r e v e a l s t h a t the mother v i s i t s c h i l d r e n r e g u l a r l y w i t h the a i d of the n o n c u s t o d i a l b a s e d on R.H.M.'s t e s t i m o n y , her and t o w a r d t h e o t h e r b e c a u s e o f what r e f l e c t s t h a t t h e m o t h e r l o v e s t h e c h i l d r e n and t h a t t h e y in maintaining and, t h a t the c h i l d r e n "act n e i t h e r c u s t o d i a n e x p l a i n e d what more a g g r e s s i v e admitted s a i d and c h i l d r e n performed w e l l m i g h t have b e e n p e r c e i v e d who, the been c h i l d r e n e x h i b i t e d other t h a t one visits, t h a t some d i s p a r a g i n g comments had discontinued out" a f t e r v i s i t s , the emotional b a c k and 2006. sets had t h e r e was since Both c h i l d r e n to were w i t h about about the made i n t h e p r e s e n c e o f t h e to weekend concerns safety other relatives the relatives, d e s i r e t o a s s i s t the mother r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h the c h i l d r e n . 17 love 2111247 a n d 2120407 "Clear and c o n v i n c i n g evidence' i s "'[e]vidence that, when w e i g h e d a g a i n s t e v i d e n c e i n o p p o s i t i o n , w i l l p r o d u c e i n the mind of the t r i e r essential the o f f a c t a f i r m c o n v i c t i o n as t o e a c h element o f t h e c l a i m and a h i g h correctness p r o b a b i l i t y as t o o f t h e c o n c l u s i o n . ' " L.M., 840 So. 2d a t 179 ( q u o t i n g A l a . Code 1975, § 6 - 1 1 - 2 0 ( b ) ( 4 ) ) . the evidence at t r i a l convincing o f the mother's p a r e n t a l indicates that custody of the custodians the evidence supports i n v o l v i n g the custodians be well The i n the a n d t h a t t h e y have c l o s e bonds relatives. the conclusion that and t h e n o n c u s t o d i a l a v i a b l e method t o p r e s e r v e w i t h t h e i r mother and s t i l l arrangement o f c l e a r and rights exists. the c h i l d r e n are doing the mother and w i t h t h e n o n c u s t o d i a l of the l e v e l that e v i d e n c e d e m o n s t r a t i n g t h a t no v i a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e to termination evidence does n o t r e a c h We c o n c l u d e No t e n d e n c y no a l t e r n a t i v e r e l a t i v e s would the children's r e l a t i o n s h i p provide f o r the c h i l d r e n . with a safe and s t a b l e See L.R. v . C.G., living 78 So. 3d 436, 444 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2011) ( r e v e r s i n g a t e r m i n a t i o n of a mother's p a r e n t a l r i g h t s and h o l d i n g t h a t a v i a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e t o t e r m i n a t i o n o f h e r p a r e n t a l r i g h t s e x i s t e d when t h e m o t h e r and t h e c h i l d r e n h a d a r e l a t i o n s h i p b o t h t h e m o t h e r 18 and t h e 2111247 and 2120407 children desired to preserve, relative p l a c e m e n t , and one that the mother could t h e c h i l d r e n were of the custodians visit the p a r e n t a l r i g h t s were t e r m i n a t e d ) . children relatives appeal testified even after rights. of the c h i l d r e n t h e a w a r d o f s p e c i f i e d v i s i t a t i o n t o them. noncustodial r e l a t i v e s f i l e d p e t i t i o n s seeking custody children, i n which they interests w o u l d be b e t t e r asserted served Once a j u v e n i l e c o u r t has p l a c e d "permanent" c u s t o d y the her the judgments i n s o f a r as t h e y d e n i e d t h e i r p e t i t i o n s s e e k i n g c u s t o d y and t e r m i n a t e d had A c c o r d i n g l y , we r e v e r s e t h e judgments t e r m i n a t i n g the mother's p a r e n t a l The n o n c u s t o d i a l i n a stable that of the the c h i l d r e n ' s i f custody were The best modified. a dependent c h i l d i n t o the of a p r o p e r c a r e g i v e r , t h e dependency of c h i l d ends and any f u r t h e r change o f c u s t o d y i s governed by t h e s t a n d a r d s set forth 863 See Ex p a r t e J . P . , 641 So. 2d 276, 278 ( A l a . ( A l a . 1984) . 1994) i n Ex p a r t e McLendon, ( a p p l y i n g t h e McLendon standard 455 So. i n a custody dispute b e t w e e n two s e t s o f r e l a t i v e s when one s e t o f r e l a t i v e s been a w a r d e d c u s t o d y noncustodial standard under a p r i o r j u d i c i a l o r d e r ) . relatives i n order were t o be required entitled 19 t o meet the 2d had Thus, t h e McLendon to a m o d i f i c a t i o n of the 2111247 a n d 2120407 custody of the c h i l d r e n . Ex p a r t e C l e g h o r n , As o u r supreme c o u r t r e a f f i r m e d i n 993 So. 2d 462, 466-67 ( A l a . 2008): " I n Ex p a r t e McLendon, we h e l d t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t c a n n o t o r d e r a change o f c u s t o d y ' " u n l e s s [ t h e p a r t y s e e k i n g t h e change o f c u s t o d y ] c a n show t h a t a change o f t h e c u s t o d y w i l l m a t e r i a l l y p r o m o t e [ t h e ] c h i l d ' s w e l f a r e . " ' 455 So. 2d a t 865 ( q u o t i n g G r e e n e v. G r e e n e , 249 A l a . 155, 157, 30 So. 2d 444, 445 ( 1 9 4 7 ) ) . We n o t e d i n Ex p a r t e McLendon t h a t ' [ i ] t i s important t h a t [ t h e p a r t y s e e k i n g t h e change i n custody] show that the child's i n t e r e s t s are promoted by t h e change, i . e . , t h a t [the p a r t y s e e k i n g t h e change i n c u s t o d y ] p r o d u c e e v i d e n c e t o overcome t h e " i n h e r e n t l y d i s r u p t i v e e f f e c t c a u s e d b y u p r o o t i n g t h e c h i l d . " ' 455 So. 2d a t 866." Our supreme c o u r t h a s a l s o s t r e s s e d t h a t " [ t ] h e standard i s a ' r u l e of repose,' changes o f custody McLendon meant t o m i n i m i z e d i s r u p t i v e because t h i s C o u r t presumes t h a t stability i s i n h e r e n t l y more b e n e f i c i a l t o a c h i l d t h a n d i s r u p t i o n . " Ex parte Cleghorn, contains 993 So. 2d a t 468. As n o t e d a b o v e , t h e r e c o r d evidence indicating grades and a r e d o i n g Nothing that the c h i l d r e n w e l l i n the custody i n the record would support make of the custodians. the conclusion c h i l d r e n ' s b e s t i n t e r e s t w o u l d be s e r v e d b y m o d i f y i n g and good that the custody r e m o v i n g t h e c h i l d r e n f r o m t h e home o f t h e c u s t o d i a n s . A c c o r d i n g l y , we a f f i r m 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 s i n s o f a r as t h e y d e n i e d the noncustodial r e l a t i v e s ' custody 20 petitions. 2111247 and 2120407 The court's noncustodial also appeal j u d g m e n t s i n s o f a r as t h e y t e r m i n a t e d specific visitation. R. relatives App. P., the juvenile their rights to In c o n t r a v e n t i o n o f R u l e 28(a) (10), A l a . the noncustodial relatives have not presented a u t h o r i t y f o r t h e i r argument t h a t i t was n o t i n t h e c h i l d r e n ' s best interest for their terminated; legal was visitation often the failure to present 1042, W h i t e Sands G r o u p , L.L.C. v. PRS 1058 authority r e s u l t s i n a determination w a i v e d and t h a t t h e j u d g m e n t s h o u l d issue. rights b e c a u s e we a r e n o t r e q u i r e d t o p e r f o r m a research, argument specific ( A l a . 2008). ("Rule that the to be party's for an argument be a f f i r m e d on that I I , LLC, 998 So. 2d 28(a)(10) requires that a r g u m e n t s i n b r i e f s c o n t a i n d i s c u s s i o n s o f f a c t s and r e l e v a n t l e g a l a u t h o r i t i e s that support the party's p o s i t i o n . I f they do n o t , t h e a r g u m e n t s a r e w a i v e d . " ) ; A i r p o r t Auth., Calm S h i p p i n g 1990)) 613 So. 2d 347, 348 Co., to ( A l a . 1993) (quoting Sea v. C o o k s , 565 So. 2d 212, 216 ( A l a . ("'Where an a p p e l l a n t f a i l s t o c i t e any a u t h o r i t y f o r an a r g u m e n t , t h i s issues, S.A. S p r a d l i n v. B i r m i n g h a m C o u r t may a f f i r m t h e j u d g m e n t as t o t h o s e f o r i t i s n e i t h e r t h i s Court's duty nor i t s f u n c t i o n perform a l l the legal research 21 f o r an appellant.'"). 2111247 a n d 2120407 Although we may sometimes overlook such an omission, t y p i c a l l y do s o when t h e i s s u e h a s been a d e q u a t e l y by t h e a p p e l l e e and t h e a p p e l l e e our consideration of the issue. So. 2d 352, 353 addressed w o u l d n o t be p r e j u d i c e d b y See K i r k s e y v. R o b e r t s , appellate c o u r t may c o n s i d e r an argument t h a t i s n o t c o m p l i a n t with Rule issues i f the court presented); (explaining that 613 an 28(a)(10) ( A l a . 1993) we i s able Bishop to adequately v. R o b i n s o n , discern the 516 So. 2d 723, 724 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1987) ( e x p l a i n i n g t h a t an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t may c o n s i d e r an argument t h a t i s n o t c o m p l i a n t w i t h R u l e 2 8 ( a ) ( 1 0 ) when t h e a p p e l l e e a d e q u a t e l y responds t o t h e i s s u e s r a i s e d by t h e a p p e l l a n t i n b r i e f d e s p i t e t h e n o n c o m p l i a n c e ) ; a n d Thoman Eng'rs, 293, I n c . v . M c D o n a l d , 57 A l a . App. 287, 290, 328 So. 2d 295 ( C i v . 1976) ( e x p l a i n i n g t h a t an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t consider an predecessor argument t o Rule that is 28(a)(10) not when compliant with may the t h e argument "has b e e n r a i s e d i n a manner w h i c h i s f a i r t o a l l c o n c e r n e d " ) . The f a c t t h a t t h e argument may w e l l have m e r i t does n o t change t h e f a c t that an a p p e l l a n t before favored the court. with i s required t o adequately In the present a brief from case, we the custodians. 22 argue an i s s u e have n o t been Thus, we a r e 2111247 a n d 2120407 constrained to a f f i r m the j u v e n i l e it terminated the specific c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t i n s o f a r as visitation rights of the n o n c u s t o d i a l r e l a t i v e s because of t h e i r f a i l u r e t o p r o v i d e the court with l e g a l authority supporting reversal. 2111247 -- REVERSED AND REMANDED. Thompson, P . J . , and P i t t m a n , Moore, a n d D o n a l d s o n , J J . , concur. 2120407 -- AFFIRMED. Thompson, Moore, P . J . , and P i t t m a n J . , concurs i n part writing. 23 and Donaldson, J J . , c o n c u r . and d i s s e n t s i n part, with 2111247 a n d 2120407 MOORE, J u d g e , c o n c u r r i n g i n c a s e no. 2111247 a n d c o n c u r r i n g i n p a r t a n d d i s s e n t i n g i n p a r t i n c a s e no. 2120407. As t o c a s e no. 2111247, I c o n c u r t o r e v e r s e t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s judgments t o t h e e x t e n t they r i g h t s o f B.C. ("the I b e l i e v e t h a t A.A. a n d M.A. ("the no custodians") less rights drastic that f a i l e d t o adequately a l t e r n a t i v e than would p a r e n t a l harm. mother"). terminated adequately termination protect the children from arrangement w h i l e c o n t a c t w i t h the mother t h r o u g h v i s i t s w i t h R.H.M. a n d H.R.M. ("the noncustodial i s no n e e d t o t e r m i n a t e their relatives"), the p a r e n t a l r i g h t s o f mother. As the of parental The e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e maintaining beneficial the parental p r o v e t h a t t h e r e was c h i l d r e n are t h r i v i n g i n the c u r r e n t custody so t h a t t h e r e the t o c a s e no. 2120407, I c o n c u r t o a f f i r m t h a t p a r t o f juvenile modification court's petitions judgments filed denying the by t h e n o n c u s t o d i a l custodyrelatives. I, however, d i s s e n t from the a f f i r m a n c e o f the m o d i f i c a t i o n o f the n o n c u s t o d i a l relatives' visitation 24 rights. 2111247 a n d 2120407 Upon juvenile terminating court modified previously awarded substituted a new discretion the mother's parental the s p e c i f i e d to the award of the custodians. argue t h a t , i n t h e p a s t , visitation noncustodial granting rights, relatives visitation solely The n o n c u s t o d i a l when t h e c u s t o d i a n s any visitation visitation. Thus, provisions w i l l they and at the relatives exercised maintain, the enable the custodians the schedule d i s c r e t i o n as t o v i s i t a t i o n , t h e c u s t o d i a n s e f f e c t i v e l y them 5 sole denied revised to preclude any v i s i t a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e c h i l d r e n a n d t h e m s e l v e s , as w e l l as between t h e c h i l d r e n and t h e mother, i n t h e f u t u r e . T h i s c o u r t h a s many t i m e s awards v i s i t a t i o n trial court, Pratt v. P r a t t , numerous decide that convenient n o t e d t h a t , when a t r i a l court at the sole d i s c r e t i o n of a custodian, the i n effect, (citing I agree. awards no v i s i t a t i o n 56 So. 3d 638, 643 cases on p o i n t ) . requested visitation at a l l . See ( A l a . C i v . App. 2010) A custodian is not can always practical or a n d deny v i s i t a t i o n w i t h o u t v i o l a t i n g any p r o v i s i o n The j u v e n i l e c o u r t m i g h t have m o d i f i e d t h e v i s i t a t i o n schedule b a s e d on i t s j u d g m e n t s t e r m i n a t i n g t h e p a r e n t a l r i g h t s o f t h e mother. In l i g h t of our r e v e r s a l of the 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 judgments, the j u v e n i l e court s h o u l d have an o p p o r t u n i t y t o r e c o n s i d e r i t s r u l i n g on t h e noncustodial relatives' v i s i t a t i o n . 5 25 2111247 of a a n d 2120407 judgment contempt. that Thus, would this subject court has h e l d d e t e r m i n e s t h a t some v i s i t a t i o n the child, specify the t r i a l court the v i s i t a t i o n visitation occurs. relatives should failing to juvenile court have specify should to being that, craft By f i n d i n g schedule that with held when the best a in court i n t e r e s t s of i t s judgment t o i n order visitation a erred, serves schedule Id. them t o assure that the noncustodial the c h i l d r e n , but f o r that visitation, and i t s judgments t h e r e f o r e the should be reversed. Furthermore, terminating this court has t h e mother's p a r e n t a l reversed rights the judgments because the r e c o r d shows t h a t t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f t h e c h i l d r e n w o u l d be served by m a i n t a i n i n g v i s i t a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e m o t h e r a n d t h e c h i l d r e n . The evidence children when Therefore, indicates they this maintaining visit court a scheduled children and interests of that t h e mother with at least the noncustodial implicitly visitation the noncustodial the c h i l d r e n so visits the relatives. recognizes 6 that arrangement between t h e relatives constitute the best viable C u r r e n t l y , t h e m o t h e r h a s no s p e c i f i e d v i s i t a t i o n o f h e r own. rights 26 to serves a 6 as with 2111247 and 2120407 alternative rights. to Our the reversal mother's p a r e n t a l order the mother's judgments parental terminating judgments relatives to assure relatives' t h a t the mother m a i n t a i n s consistent and w i t h the c h i l d r e n . acknowledging visitation refuses to the merits argument, address noncustodial relatives' Ala. P. App. r e v e r s a l of the the Although R. the rights requires meaningful contact opinion of of the v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s of the n o n c u s t o d i a l modifying in termination the 3d at So. that argument noncompliance Although of I recognize with noncustodial , the based Rule t h a t the main on the 28(a) ( 1 0 ) , noncustodial r e l a t i v e s d i d not c i t e p e r t i n e n t l e g a l a u t h o r i t y i n support of t h e i r p o s i t i o n , t h e y d i d frame t h e i r argument s u f f i c i e n t l y f o r this court t o u n d e r s t a n d i t s f a c t u a l and supreme c o u r t has h e l d t h a t , when "we discern the issue [the a p p e l l a n t ] failure to present are legal merits. able to presents, a u t h o r i t i e s i n support his w i l l not a f f i r m merely because of a t e c h n i c a l i t y . " Roberts, 613 Dubose, 964 c o u r t may So. So. 2d 352, 2d 42, 353 46 n.5 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) ; see ( A l a . C i v . App. claim, his we K i r k s e y v. a l s o Dubose v. 2007) c h o o s e t o a f f i r m a c a s e on t h e b a s i s o f 27 adequately i n s p i t e of of Our ("[T]his Rule 28[, 2111247 a n d 2120407 Ala. R. App. P.,] when an a p p e l l a n t ' s b r i e f with the rule, so." but t h i s (emphasis o m i t t e d ) court fails t o comply i s b y no means r e q u i r e d t o do (citing Kirksey, 613 So. 2d a t 3 5 3 ) ) . M o r e o v e r , t h i s c o u r t h a s h e l d t h a t , when t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f a child rules are at stake, i s a secondary Lewis, posture technical consideration at best. 77 So. 3d 164, 171 ( A l a . of the case, i n t e r e s t s at stake, discretion to compliance with overlook the n o n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h R u l e 28. 28 See F e r m i n v . C i v . App. 2011) . and c o n s i d e r i n g I believe this procedural Given the the importance of the court should exercise i t s noncustodial relatives'

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.