A.H. v. Houston County Department of Human Resources (Appeal from Houston Juvenile Court: JU-10-292.09 & .10)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 03/08/2013 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o 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 , Alabama 36104-3741 ((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 2120061, 2120062, and 2120063 A.H. v. Houston County Department o f Human Resources Appeals from Houston J u v e n i l e Court (JU-10-292.09 & .10, JU-10-293.09 & .10, and JU-10-294.09 & .10). THOMAS, J u d g e . On J u l y 16, 2 0 1 2 , t h e H o u s t o n C o u n t y D e p a r t m e n t o f Human Resources Juvenile ("DHR") filed three petitions Court ("the j u v e n i l e c o u r t " ) i n t h e Houston alleging that J.W.M. 2120061, 2120062, and 2120063 I I I , A.L.M., and A.J.M. (sometimes r e f e r r e d t o c o l l e c t i v e l y as "the children") juvenile court were dependent terminate and the p a r e n t a l requesting r i g h t s o f A.H. m o t h e r " ) and J.W.M., J r . ("the f a t h e r " ) . petition for the September 20, 2012. return of dependent parental judgments court and ("the The m o t h e r f i l e d of the entered heard evidence judgments terminating the r i g h t s t o each c h i l d also the children a on A h e a r i n g was h e l d on September 24, 2012, at which the j u v e n i l e court juvenile custody that denied declaring mother's on and September the mother's custody of the c h i l d r e n . ore tenus. petition The the children the father's 26, 2012. 1 for return The of The m o t h e r f i l e d a t i m e l y n o t i c e o f a p p e a l f r o m e a c h j u d g m e n t w i t h t h i s c o u r t on O c t o b e r 2, 2 0 1 2 . We have c o n s o l i d a t e d the 2 appeals. S e p a r a t e a c t i o n s r e l a t i n g t o e a c h c h i l d were i n i t i a t e d i n t h e 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 e n t e r e d a s e p a r a t e judgment i n each a c t i o n ; o t h e r than r e f e r e n c i n g a d i f f e r e n t c h i l d ' s name, e a c h j u d g m e n t was i d e n t i c a l . The j u d g m e n t r e g a r d i n g A.J.M. was amended on O c t o b e r 2, 2012, i n o r d e r t o correct a c l e r i c a l error. 1 The f a t h e r d i d not appear a t the t r i a l ; the f a t h e r ' s attorney a p p e a r e d b e f o r e t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t on t h e f a t h e r ' s behalf. The f a t h e r d i d n o t a p p e a l t h e t e r m i n a t i o n o f h i s p a r e n t a l r i g h t s to the c h i l d r e n . 2 2 2120061, 2120062, and The r e c o r d 2120063 on a p p e a l i s s p a r s e r e g a r d i n g the d e t a i l s of t h e m o t h e r ' s c r i m i n a l h i s t o r y and h e r e n s u i n g i n c a r c e r a t i o n as well as t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n v o l v e d with the family. facts relevant A.L.M. was under which DHR initially became The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h e f o l l o w i n g to these appeals. At the time of the trial, 11 y e a r s o l d , A.J.M. was 9 y e a r s o l d , and J.W.M. III was 7 y e a r s o l d . in 2007. DHR had The m o t h e r a n d t h e f a t h e r h a d been involved with t h e mother divorced and the c h i l d r e n s i n c e M a r c h 2010, when t h e c h i l d r e n were removed f r o m t h e m o t h e r ' s home. The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t a t some p o i n t t h e mother was convicted methamphetamine. It in Alabama i s unclear incarcerated after that conviction. t h a t , at the time of the t r i a l , year house-arrest living whether manufacturing the mother was However, i t i s u n d i s p u t e d t h e m o t h e r was s e r v i n g a t w o - sentence i n Bonifay, a t the time of the t r i a l . initially of F l o r i d a , where she was The m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d she was for a s s a u l t and b a t t e r y o f a l a w - e n f o r c e m e n t o f f i c e r a n d f o r resisting arrest sentenced to serve three with violence. her The u n d e r l y i n g i n f r a c t i o n f o r which t h e mother a r r e s t e d i s not r e a d i l y apparent from the r e c o r d . was 3 3 later probation violated 3 She years' that 2120061, 2120062, and 2120063 probation by her probation o f f i c e r ; at t h a t time, her and she moving was community sentenced service. t e r m i n a t e on A p r i l lived 3, her for house without arrest although notifying p r o b a t i o n was house-arrest 2014, and 150 sentence 30 at t r i a l months. to p l a c e the her revoked, hours is t h a t the During 3, that had not DHR time, c h i l d r e n with a maternal to 2013. children that of set the mother o p i n e d f o r e a r l y r e l e a s e on A p r i l mother a d m i t t e d with attempted to The she m i g h t be e l i g i b l e The residence had aunt, p a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s , and t h e i r m a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r . their At one p o i n t , t h e c h i l d r e n were p l a c e d w i t h t h e f a t h e r ; h o w e v e r , t h e f a t h e r moved w i t h t h e c h i l d r e n f r o m A l a b a m a t o F l o r i d a informing DHR. Because the f a t h e r proved r e t u r n i n g t h e c h i l d r e n t o A l a b a m a , DHR p i c k u p order t o r e t r i e v e the c h i l d r e n . DHR worker assigned approximated August 2011. to the mother was without uncooperative in forced to obtain a A l i c i a Anderson, and the the children, t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n had b e e n moved 10 t i m e s since 4 DHR a t t e m p t e d t o m a i n t a i n t h e p l a c e m e n t o f t h e c h i l d r e n w i t h the f a t h e r i n F l o r i d a . However, A n d e r s o n s t a t e d t h a t Florida authorities objected to the placement, citing v i o l a t i o n s o f F l o r i d a p o l i c y and t h e I n t e r s t a t e Compact on t h e Placement of C h i l d r e n . 4 4 2120061, 2120062, a n d 2120063 The mother a d m i t t e d at t r i a l w i t h a l c o h o l and d r u g s . the mother's t h a t she had had a p r o b l e m Anderson t e s t i f i e d I n d i v i d u a l i z e d Service Plan t h a t , as p a r t o f ("ISP"), DHR h a d r e q u e s t e d t h a t the mother complete a s u b s t a n c e - a b u s e - t r e a t m e n t program. court, However, i n r e s p o n s e t o q u e s t i o n s t h e mother inpatient though o r an admitted that outpatient from t h e j u v e n i l e she had n o t c o m p l e t e d substance-abuse program, an even a substance-abuse assessment i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e mother n e e d e d t o c o m p l e t e an i n p a t i e n t - t r e a t m e n t p r o g r a m . The m o t h e r further stated that she had stopped methamphetamine on h e r own w i t h o u t treatment using alcohol the assistance of a formal program. A n d e r s o n 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 made g r e a t since May 2012 t o w a r d children and improving and c o o p e r a t i n g with strides her r e l a t i o n s h i p with the DHR. Further, according to Anderson, h e r s u p e r v i s o r had suggested t o t h e mother t h a t t h e mother should custody o f the c h i l d r e n . Anderson a l s o admitted, to examination was file t h e September 20, 2012, p e t i t i o n f o r by t h e mother's a t t o r n e y , t h a t t h a t i n response suggestion made t o a l l o w t h e m o t h e r more t i m e t o r e h a b i l i t a t e h e r s e l f in light of the recent progress 5 t h e mother had e x h i b i t e d . 2120061, 2120062, and 2120063 Anderson t e s t i f i e d t h a t the mother had p a s s e d t h r e e d r u g t e s t s i n the l a s t s i x months. DHR had requested September Anderson testing that the 21, 2012, t h r e e said that, facility, Anderson f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d mother in although t h e mother she h a d r e p o r t e d left drug complete the drug t e s t . on however, the d r u g - t e s t i n g drug- facility A c c o r d i n g t o t h e m o t h e r , she an residence a d e q u a t e amount o f t i m e to The m o t h e r f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t h a d remained a t the d r u g - t e s t i n g returned test to the t h e f a c i l i t y b e c a u s e she h a d t o r e t u r n t o h e r F l o r i d a and d i d n o t have she a days b e f o r e the h e a r i n g ; before completing the drug t e s t . left take that facility she w o u l d n o t have home b y t h e t i m e r e q u i r e d b y t h e c o n d i t i o n s of her house a r r e s t . The mother testified that she i s c u r r e n t l y l i v i n g in a t h r e e - b e d r o o m house t h a t has p l e n t y o f room f o r t h e c h i l d r e n . She a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t , b e c a u s e she i s c u r r e n t l y u n e m p l o y e d , her also f a m i l y i s h e l p i n g her t o pay f o r the house. admitted months. The that mother she has also moved testified 4 times that The i n the she had mother last not 30 been e m p l o y e d f o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y two months, t h a t she h a d r e c e n t l y b e e n e m p l o y e d c l e a n i n g c o n d o m i n i u m s i n Panama C i t y , F l o r i d a , 6 2120061, 2120062, and and 2120063 t h a t t h a t employment transportation testified been to and that before employed since h a d e n d e d b e c a u s e she d i d n o t have from work. Further, h e r most r e c e n t she was employment arrested on the mother she h a d n o t July 8, 2010. However, Rhonda S a n d e r s , an e m p l o y e e o f t h e S a l v a t i o n Army i n B o n i f a y , where t h e m o t h e r was c o m p l e t i n g hours, testified dependable. that the mother her community-service was a hard A d d i t i o n a l l y , Sanders t e s t i f i e d worker and t h a t t h e mother p l a n n e d t o w o r k a t t h e S a l v a t i o n Army i n t h e f u t u r e . It i s undisputed visitation 2012. had with that t h e mother the c h i l d r e n every had other been Friday T h o s e v i s i t s were f a c i l i t a t e d b y DHR. been earlier visitation mother with had classes. periods when the exercising since However, mother May there d i d not have t h e c h i l d r e n due t o h e r i n c a r c e r a t i o n . also According completed anger-management and The parenting t o the mother, other than the m i s s e d drug test, she has c o m p l i e d w i t h everything DHR has r e q u e s t e d of her. Anderson a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t , other than her f a i l u r e to complete a s u b s t a n c e - a b u s e - t r e a t m e n t program, the mother had c o m p l i e d w i t h h e r ISP g o a l s . "Our standard of review of terminating parental rights i s well 7 a judgment settled. 'A 2120061, 2120062, a n d 2120063 j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s f a c t u a l f i n d i n g s , b a s e d on o r e tenus evidence, i n a judgment t e r m i n a t i n g p a r e n t a l r i g h t s a r e p r e s u m e d t o be c o r r e c t a n d w i l l n o t be disturbed unless they are p l a i n l y and p a l p a b l y w r o n g . ' J.C. v. S t a t e D e p ' t o f Human Res., 986 So. 2d 1172, 1183 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2007) . However, a t r i a l court's a p p l i c a t i o n of the law t o undisputed f a c t s i s n o t g i v e n a p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s on a p p e a l , a n d t h i s c o u r t a p p l i e s a de novo s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w t o q u e s t i o n s o f l a w . See J.A. v . C.M., 93 So. 3d 953, 954 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 2 ) . " J.K. v. J e f f e r s o n C n t y . December 7, 2 0 1 2 ] Dep't o f Human R e s . , [Ms. 2110493, ___ So. 3d , ___ ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 2 ) . "'To terminate parental r i g h t s , the t r i a l c o u r t must f i r s t d e t e r m i n e f r o m c l e a r and 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 c h i l d i s d e p e n d e n t . S.F. v. Dep't o f Human Res., 680 So. 2d 346 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1996) . The t r i a l c o u r t must t h e n d e t e r m i n e t h a t t h e r e e x i s t s no a l t e r n a t i v e t o t e r m i n a t i o n . L.A.G. v . S t a t e Dep't o f Human Res., 681 So. 2d 596 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 6 ) . ' "M.W. v. H o u s t o n C n t y . Dep't o f Human Res., 2d 484, 485-86 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 0 ) . " A.K. (Ala. v. H e n r y C n t y . Dep't o f Human Res., 84 So. 3d 68, 69-70 C i v . App. 2 0 1 1 ) . The out 773 So. grounds in § f o r termination 12-15-319, A l a . Code of parental 1975, w h i c h rights are set provides, pertinent part: "(a) I f t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t f i n d s f r o m c l e a r a n d convincing evidence, competent, m a t e r i a l , and relevant i n nature, that the parents of a c h i l d are 8 in 2120061, 2120062, and 2120063 unable or unwilling to discharge their 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 t h a t t h e c o n d u c t o r c o n d i t i o n o f t h e p a r e n t s 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 a t 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 i n t h e f o r e s e e a b l e f u t u r e , i t may t e r m i n a t e t h e p a r e n t a l r i g h t s of the p a r e n t s . In d e t e r m i n i n g whether or not the parents are unable or u n w i l l i n g to d i s c h a r g e t h e i r 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 and t o terminate the p a r e n t a l r i g h t s , the j u v e n i l e c o u r t s h a l l c o n s i d e r the f o l l o w i n g f a c t o r s i n c l u d i n g , but not l i m i t e d t o , the f o l l o w i n g : II "(2) Emotional illness, mental illness, or mental d e f i c i e n c y of the p a r e n t , o r e x c e s s i v e use o f a l c o h o l o r c o n t r o l l e d substances, of a d u r a t i o n or n a t u r e as t o r e n d e r t h e p a r e n t u n a b l e t o c a r e f o r [ t h e ] needs o f t h e c h i l d . " "(12) L a c k o f e f f o r t by t h e p a r e n t t o a d j u s t h i s o r h e r c i r c u m s t a n c e s t o meet t h e needs of the c h i l d i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h agreements reached, i n c l u d i n g agreements r e a c h e d w i t h l o c a l d e p a r t m e n t s o f human resources or licensed child-placing a g e n c i e s , i n an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e v i e w o r a j u d i c i a l review." C l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e weighed a g a i n s t evidence mind of essential the trier of element of the i s " ' [ e ] v i d e n c e t h a t , when in opposition, w i l l fact a firm c l a i m and c o n v i c t i o n as to a high p r o b a b i l i t y t h e 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 . ' " L.M. 9 produce i n the each as v. D.D.F., 840 to So. 2120061, 2120062, and 2d 171, 179 2120063 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2002) ( q u o t i n g A l a . Code 1975, § 6-11-20(b)(4)). The mother appears to b r i e f l y challenge the juvenile c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n were d e p e n d e n t b y d i s p u t i n g t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g t h a t she i s " u n a b l e o r u n w i l l i n g to provide mother testified months. were of that income. 3, to obtain eligible The 2014, Furthermore, t h e mother c o u l d year house-arrest April she h a d moved 4 t i m e s i n the l a s t 30 significant employment, leave although the t h e m o t h e r i s s e r v i n g a two- s e n t e n c e t h a t i s n o t due t o t e r m i n a t e although the mother f o r e a r l y r e l e a s e on A p r i l juvenile court had ample avers that See until she m i g h t be 3, 2013. evidence before her i t to circumstances t o meet t h e needs o f h e r c h i l d r e n b y h e r f r e q u e n t o f employment, record h e r h o u s e f o r work i f determine t h a t the mother had not a d j u s t e d treatment. the s i n c e J u l y 2010, and h e r f a m i l y a p p e a r s t o be h e r source indicates she that At t r i a l , M o r e o v e r , t h e m o t h e r has n o t m a i n t a i n e d employment only a s t a b l e home f o r [ t h e c h i l d r e n ] . " moves, l a c k and r e f u s a l t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n s u b s t a n c e - a b u s e § 1 2 - 1 5 - 1 0 2 ( 8 ) , A l a . Code 10 1975 (defining 2120061, 2120062, a n d 2120063 dependent c h i l d ) . T h e r e f o r e , we c o n c l u d e t h a t the juvenile c o u r t d i d n o t e r r by f i n d i n g t h e c h i l d r e n dependent. The prove mother n e x t by c l e a r asserts i n her b r i e f and c o n v i n c i n g evidence viable alternatives to the termination The 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 c l u d e d of that that DHR d i d n o t there were no of her parental rights. the f o l l o w i n g findings fact: "(2) T h a t t h e s a i d c h i l d i s a d e p e n d e n t c h i l d w i t h i n the meaning o f T i t l e 12-15-102 o f t h e Code o f A l a b a m a o f 1975 i n t h a t : The c h i l d i s d e p e n d e n t on the p u b l i c f o r s u p p o r t ; i s w i t h o u t a p a r e n t a b l e t o provide f o r the child's support, t r a i n i n g or e d u c a t i o n ; a n d t h e m o t h e r a n d f a t h e r have n o t been w i l l i n g or able t o discharge t h e i r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s to and f o r s a i d c h i l d o r p r o v i d e f o r t h e p h y s i c a l , e m o t i o n a l a n d f i n a n c i a l needs o f s a i d c h i l d . "(3) The p a r e n t s a r e u n a b l e o r u n w i l l i n g t o p r o v i d e a s t a b l e home f o r s a i d c h i l d . "(4) The D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s a n d t h i s C o u r t have c o n s i d e r e d s e v e r a l l e s s d r a s t i c m e a s u r e s s i n c e M a r c h , 2010. The C o u r t f i n d s t h e r e i s no reasonable or v i a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e t o the termination of p a r e n t a l r i g h t s . " The allowing mother argues the children that maintaining t o remain the status i n foster care completes her sentence i s a v i a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e t o of h e r p a r e n t a l rights. T h i s c o u r t has h e l d t h a t quo a n d while she termination maintaining a c h i l d i n f o s t e r care i n d e f i n i t e l y while a parent attempts t o 11 2120061, 2120062, and 2120063 r e h a b i l i t a t e h i m s e l f or h e r s e l f i s not a 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 p a r e n t a l r i g h t s . Cnty. Dep't o f So. 3d primary Human Res., , focus c h i l d r e n and [Ms. of a court a t t h e same t i m e to p r o t e c t the 73 So. f i n d A.S. So. 3d 1223, 1228 2d 950, 18, 2013] However, 2013). i s to p r o t e c t 564 Lauderdale January ... Ex p a r t e A.S., was T.L.S. v. 2111073, ( A l a . C i v . App. p a r e n t s . ' Ex p a r t e B e a s l e y , We See "'the the welfare r i g h t s of 952 of their (Ala. 1990)." ( A l a . 2011). i n s t r u c t i v e i n t h i s case. The child in A.S. f o u n d d e p e n d e n t due t o t h e m o t h e r ' s i n c a r c e r a t i o n ; c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d was At the maternal awarded t o the c h i l d ' s m a t e r n a l grandmother's request, the grandmother. j u v e n i l e court i n t h a t c a s e e n t e r e d a judgment t e r m i n a t i n g t h e m o t h e r ' s p a r e n t a l rights trial to the child. Id. at 1227. The evidence c o u r t i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e m o t h e r had before maintained w i t h t h e c h i l d d u r i n g h e r i n c a r c e r a t i o n , had s o u g h t f o r her [was] kleptomania, and was "apparently i n c a r c e r a t e d b e c a u s e she h a [ d ] I d . a t 1229. an o p i n i o n . A.S. 2010), 92 So. 3d 188 Civ. 12 treatment she earned good-time c r e d i t . " v. I.M.S. (No. (Ala. contact behaving while This court a f f i r m e d the t r i a l without the App. court's judgment, 2090774, November 19, 2010)(table). Our 2120061, 2120062, and supreme trial court 2120063 reversed court's this judgment court's judgment terminating the affirming mother's r i g h t s b e c a u s e t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r had the parental f a i l e d to present s u f f i c i e n t 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 t o t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e m o t h e r ' s p a r e n t a l r i g h t s e x i s t e d . 73 3d a t So. 1229. In the present case, DHR failed to present clear and c o n v i n c i n g 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 the mother c o n t i n u e s to s u f f e r from a drug or a l c o h o l a d d i c t i o n or t h a t the mother i s "unable or u n w i l l i n g to discharge and f o r the the [mother] [children] [children], renders and change i n t h e 1975. [her] t h a t the " T h i s c o u r t has of parent's inability children is implicit parental r i g h t s be the unable conduct or foreseeable evidence D.O. or t h a t [her] conduct or to p r o p e r l y condition care for or unwillingness i n the b a s e d on conduct relating to for his care requirement that c l e a r and 859 So. A l t h o u g h t h e m o t h e r had 13 to or termination convincing v. C a l h o u n C n t y . Dep't o f Human Res., 2003). of the f u t u r e . " § 1 2 - 1 5 - 3 1 9 ( a ) , A l a . Code conditions or to c o n d i t i o n i s u n l i k e l y to c o n s i s t e n t l y h e l d t h a t the e x i s t e n c e current ( A l a . C i v . App. responsibilities of a her of evidence." 2d 439, not 444 attended 2120061, 2120062, a n d 2120063 a s u b s t a n c e - a b u s e - t r e a t m e n t program, she had p a s s e d e v e r y test e x c e p t t h e most r e c e n t one b e f o r e trial, drug w h i c h she d i d n o t t a k e due t o t i m e c o n s t r a i n t s i m p o s e d b y h e r house a r r e s t . A l b e i t with the help s u i t a b l e housing has o f h e r f a m i l y , t h e mother had p r o c u r e d f o r the c h i l d r e n . S i n c e May 2012, t h e m o t h e r also c o n s i s t e n t l y exercised v i s i t a t i o n with thechildren. "'"[T]he 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 s a d r a s t i c m e a s u r e , a n d we know o f no means by w h i c h t h o s e r i g h t s , once t e r m i n a t e d , c a n be r e i n s t a t e d . The e v i d e n c e i n [this] c a s e [ ] 'does n o t r i s e t o t h e l e v e l o f b e i n g so c l e a r a n d c o n v i n c i n g as t o s u p p o r t termination of the parental r i g h t s of the m o t h e r , s u c h a c t i o n b e i n g t h e l a s t a n d most extreme disposition permitted by ^ 44--,-, 4- ^ I II I statute.'"' "D.O. v. C a l h o u n C o u n t y Dep't o f Human R e s . , 859 So. 2d 439, 445 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2003) ( q u o t i n g V.M. v. S t a t e Dep't o f Human R e s . , 710 So. 2d 915, 921 ( A l a . C i v . App. 19 9 8 ) ) . " A.S., 73 So. 3d a t 1230. B a s e d on t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d before we this cannot rights court regarding agree that i s warranted t h e mother's c u r r e n t c o n d i t i o n s , termination at this time o f t h e mother's because parental maintaining the s t a t u s quo i s 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 u n d e r t h e specific reverse facts presented i n this case. t h e judgments o f t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t 14 Accordingly, we terminating the 2120061, 2120062, a n d 2120063 parental rights o f t h e m o t h e r , a n d we remand t h e c a u s e s f o r further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 2120 0 61 -- REVERSED AND REMANDED. 2120 0 62 -- REVERSED AND REMANDED. 2120063 -- REVERSED AND REMANDED. Thompson, P . J . , and P i t t m a n and Donaldson, J J . , concur. Moore, 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 15 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.