Montgomery County Department of Human Resources v. W. J.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 10/2/09 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 , A l a b a m a 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, 2009 2080350 Montgomery County Department o f Human Resources v. W.J. Appeal from Montgomery J u v e n i l e Court (JU-06-667.03) BRYAN, J u d g e . The Montgomery ("DHR") a p p e a l s from County Department o f Human a j u d g m e n t o f t h e Montgomery Resources Juvenile C o u r t r e f u s i n g t o 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 o f W.J. ( " t h e f a t h e r " ) t o h i s c h i l d , S . J . ("the c h i l d " ) , a g i r l b o r n i n June 2080350 2 0 0 6 . We r e v e r s e The record a n d remand w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n s . on appeal establishes became i n v o l v e d w i t h t h e c h i l d a n d M.P. 24, 2006, when m o t h e r was u s i n g DHR received a the following. DHR ("the m o t h e r " ) on J u l y report i n d i c a t i n g that c o n t r o l l e d s u b s t a n c e s and t h a t the the c h i l d ' s w e l l - b e i n g was i n d a n g e r . On J u l y 25, 2006, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t issued a pick-up order petition f o r the c h i l d . DHR f i l e d a dependency on J u l y 27, 2006, b a s e d on t h e m o t h e r ' s h i s t o r y o f drug use, her i n a t t e n t i v e n e s s t o t h e c h i l d ' s m e d i c a l needs, and b e c a u s e she was s u s p e c t e d o f a b u s i n g h e r o t h e r The j u v e n i l e court 2006, and found i t awarded subsequently placed the c h i l d custody of d e p e n d e n t on A u g u s t 28, the the c h i l d i n f o s t e r The f a t h e r f i l e d a p e t i t i o n s e e k i n g child to DHR. DHR care. custody of the c h i l d on S e p t e m b e r 7, 2006. The f a t h e r ' s p a t e r n i t y was in children. established J a n u a r y 2007. On June 25, 2007, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t h e l d a permanency hearing dependent and t h a t and d e t e r m i n e d i t was that the c h i l d i n the c h i l d ' s best remained interest to r e m a i n i n t h e t e m p o r a r y l e g a l c u s t o d y o f DHR. DHR f i l e d a p e t i t i o n t o t e r m i n a t e the parental t h e m o t h e r a n d t h e f a t h e r on A u g u s t 1 7 , 2007. 2 r i g h t s of On F e b r u a r y 1 3 , 2080350 2008, the paternal custody of the The petition the grandmother a petition seeking child. juvenile court to terminate mother, filed on heard the the ore parental paternal tenus evidence r i g h t s of grandmother's the on DHR's father petition c u s t o d y , and on t h e f a t h e r ' s p e t i t i o n f o r c u s t o d y on M a r c h 2008, May On 5, 2008, A u g u s t 18, December 1, 2008, 2008, and the judgment r e f u s i n g t o t e r m i n a t e The O c t o b e r 27, juvenile the judgment s t a t e d , i n p e r t i n e n t court 2008. entered father's parental and for 17, 1 a rights. part: "[T]he c o u r t i s of the [ o ] p i n i o n t h a t the [ f ] a t h e r ... has d e m o n s t r a t e d a w i l l i n g n e s s t o e x e r c i s e h i s parental responsibility. However, he has fallen short i n f u l f i l l i n g h i s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . With goodf a i t h a s s i s t a n c e from [DHR], the c o u r t i s of the [o]pinion that [the father] can work toward r e u n i f i c a t i o n w i t h t h e ... [ c ] h i l d . A d d i t i o n a l l y , the c o u r t notes t h a t the [ p ] a t e r n a l [g]randmother has a l s o d e m o n s t r a t e d a w i l l i n g n e s s t o p r o v i d e and c a r e f o r t h e m i n o r c h i l d . However, t h e c o u r t i s unable to award custody to the [p]aternal [ g ] r a n d m o t h e r a t t h i s t i m e b a s e d upon p o s i t i v e d r u g t e s t s and h e r r e f u s a l t o c o m p l y w i t h [DHR] requests f o r drug screens." The j u v e n i l e court entered an amended o r d e r i n response The f a t h e r w i t h d r e w h i s p e t i t i o n f o r c u s t o d y on A u g u s t 18, 2008. The m o t h e r s i g n e d a w a i v e r v o l u n t a r i l y r e l i n q u i s h i n g h e r p a r e n t a l r i g h t s t o t h e c h i l d on S e p t e m b e r 8, 2008. The mother i s not a p a r t y t o t h i s a p p e a l . 1 3 2080350 to DHR's motion to alter, amend, or vacate the juvenile c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t , p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 9 ( e ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. j u v e n i l e court again refused to terminate the parental The rights o f t h e f a t h e r b e c a u s e t h e p a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r was " w i l l i n g t o care f o r t h e ... amended a g a i n paternal At was child." failed However, t o award the f i n a l custody judgment of the c h i l d as to the grandmother. t h e M a r c h 2008 h e a r i n g , a "rap" artist possibility and t h a t of a "record t h e f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t he he h a d l e f t deal" so t h a t New Y o r k he c o u l d and t h e return to Montgomery a n d s e e k c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d . Upon h i s r e t u r n , t h e f a t h e r moved i n t o t h e p a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r ' s home a n d f o u n d a j o b w i t h an a u t o m o b i l e - a u c t i o n The father claimed company e a r n i n g $6 p e r hour. t h a t he d i d n o t c o m p l e t e t h e p a r e n t i n g c l a s s e s a t t h e F a m i l y G u i d a n c e C e n t e r t h a t were recommended b y DHR because visitation different the with classes the c h i l d . parenting class conflicted He c l a i m e d that with his scheduled t h a t he h a d l o c a t e d a d i d not c o n f l i c t with h i s s c h e d u l e b u t t h a t DHR d i d n o t f i n d t h a t c l a s s a p p r o p r i a t e . The father later admitted that DHR arrangement f o r him a t t h e F a m i l y 4 had s e t up a special G u i d a n c e C e n t e r so t h a t he 2080350 could attend parenting The father admitted support f o r the "clothes and classes during child, shoes that but and he he had stuff." He company and for two years. the utility He a second DHR for to 2007; the first the he had had refused in paternal The bought that f o r the monetary he her earned automobile- same e m p l o y e r r e n t and of home. grandmother's half He c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d he w o u l d have evidence screens drug indicating on screen January was p o s i t i v e for cocaine. "touched i t . " The father that 9, The father and father admitted stated that i n June 2007 was admitted three 5, and that the because that or f o u r had June for marijuana, 2007. He also t o s u b m i t t o d r u g s c r e e n s on the 2007, positive smoked m a r i j u a n a on M a r c h 8, 2006 and had worked f o r the r e a s o n he t e s t e d p o s i t i v e f o r c o c a i n e he cars no job. drug s e c o n d was the obtained introduced submitted had stated t e s t i f i e d t h a t he p a i d no bill s t a t e d t h a t i f he to get t h a t he break. provided s t a t e d t h a t he a p p r o x i m a t e l y $800 a month d r i v i n g auction h i s lunch he had occasions 2007. father admitted that drug-rehabilitation he had failed to complete program at L i g h t h o u s e Counseling 5 the Center 2080350 ( " L i g h t h o u s e " ) t h a t DHR that DHR had made s p e c i a l L i g h t h o u s e l a t e due t h a t he March had recommended. The father a r r a n g e m e n t s f o r him t o h i s w o r k s c h e d u l e . The testified to a r r i v e father admitted c o u l d n o t p a s s a h a i r - f o l l i c l e t e s t on t h e day 2008 hearing because he had "been at of around" the someone smoking m a r i j u a n a . The with was the not father testified he had c h i l d e v e r y T u e s d a y f o r one scheduled o c c a s i o n a l l y get father that stated to work on scheduled h o u r . He Tuesdays visitation stated that but that he would c a l l e d i n t o work a f t e r h i s v i s i t a t i o n . that he t h r o u g h o u t 2007, e x c e p t had visited f o r "a the child he The regularly c o u p l e o f d a y s " t h a t he was c a l l e d i n t o work. The relative that father resources the list adequately stated that was care r e q u e s t e d any to also t h a t he a list of take custody of the child and of inclusive f o r the DHR thought could child. s e r v i c e s f r o m DHR had given everyone He he admitted t h a t DHR had that he could had f a i l e d to not provide him. At the worker w i t h hearing DHR, i n May testified 2008, that 6 DHR Allison had McNeil, held a social individualized 2080350 service plan 25, ("ISP") m e e t i n g s r e g a r d i n g 2006, J u l y 27, December 20, 2006, J a n u a r y 29, drug r e h a b i l i t a t i o n psychological provide evaluation, drug-free, safe, M c N e i l s t a t e d t h a t DHR those goals, transportation evaluation, but the goals McNeil parenting father parenting the indicated d i d not classes, stable to submit to employment, housing for at the parenting assistance, f a t h e r had that attend. classes and the a to child. not a drug psychological been c o m p l i a n t with ISPs. she had Family After and classes, the interfered with referred the father to Center, but the indicated that the Guidance father his s c h e d u l e , M c N e i l made s p e c i a l a r r a n g e m e n t s w i t h an i n s t r u c t o r a t t h e F a m i l y C e n t e r so t h a t t h e f a t h e r c o u l d meet w i t h parenting during classes and to attend parenting maintain set f o r t h i n the classes 2007, had o f f e r e d t h e f a t h e r s e r v i c e s t o meet treatment, all August required including visitation, that on f a t h e r was at Lighthouse, to and child 2007, J u l y 16, 2007. M c N e i l s t a t e d t h a t t h e t o s u b m i t t o random d r u g s c r e e n s , to attend the his lunch the break. Guidance instructor The father for was r e q u i r e d t o c o n t a c t t h e i n s t r u c t o r t o s e t up a p p o i n t m e n t s , but the did father never d i d so. McNeil 7 stated that the father 2080350 suggest another p a r e n t i n g class, b u t DHR d i d not approve o f t h a t c l a s s f o r t h e f a t h e r b e c a u s e i t was d e s i g n e d t o counsel couples i n c o n f l i c t . Although still the f a t h e r employed testified company that to had 2008 automobile-auction had contacted his the employment, that company, he was McNeil automobile-auction but, she o f t h e company h a d s t a t e d t h a t on F e b r u a r y had m a i n t a i n e d f i n a l hearing At she i n March said, the f a t h e r a no w o r k e d f o r t h e company and t h a t h i s l a s t p a y c h e c k h a d been i s s u e d father the verify representative longer at claimed 1, 2008. M c N e i l d i d n o t know i f t h e a j o b between F e b r u a r y 2008 and t h e i n O c t o b e r 2008. t h e May 2008 h e a r i n g , not v i s i t e d the c h i l d McNeil since stated the p r i o r 2008. A t t h e O c t o b e r 2008 h e a r i n g , visits indicating that with the the f a t h e r child. the f a t h e r hearing i n March McNeil t e s t i f i e d that the f a t h e r h a d v i s i t e d t h e c h i l d on 38 o c c a s i o n s scheduled that DHR presented had not v i s i t e d J a n u a r y 22, 2008, t h r o u g h May 27, 2 0 0 8 , 2 b u t h a d m i s s e d 55 evidence the c h i l d from and t h a t f r o m May 27, I t was t h e f a t h e r ' s t e s t i m o n y t h a t he h a d c o n t r a c t e d t h e f l u i n F e b r u a r y 2008 and h a d n o t v i s i t e d t h e c h i l d f o r f e a r o f making her s i c k . 2 8 2080350 2008, t h r o u g h June 25, 2008, t h e f a t h e r h a d v i s i t e d t h e c h i l d on o n l y one o c c a s i o n . A s o f O c t o b e r 27, 2008, t h e f a t h e r h a d not v i s i t e d t h e c h i l d s i n c e A u g u s t 12, 2 0 0 8 . McNeil s t a t e d t h a t the f a t h e r had f a i l e d t o complete drug r e h a b i l i t a t i o n a t L i g h t h o u s e . Records i n d i c a t e that the father began substance-abuse 2 0 0 7 . As treatment corroborated by at Lighthouse the father's on M a r c h testimony, 9, special a r r a n g e m e n t s were made b y DHR w i t h t h e s t a f f a t L i g h t h o u s e so that the father could arrive late, i n order April 30, 2007, a r e p o r t to the r e h a b i l i t a t i o n meetings t o c o m p l y w i t h h i s w o r k s c h e d u l e . However, b y from L i g h t h o u s e i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e f a t h e r ' s a t t e n d a n c e was u n s a t i s f a c t o r y a n d t h a t he was m a k i n g no p r o g r e s s i n h i s t r e a t m e n t . The f a t h e r was s c h e d u l e d t o be discharged f r o m t h e p r o g r a m on May 2 1 , 2 0 0 7 . treatment with Lighthouse again The f a t h e r b e g a n on June 13, 2 0 0 7 . However, b y O c t o b e r 3 1 , 2007, t h e f a t h e r ' s c a s e h a d b e e n c l o s e d due t o t h e fact that the father's attendance was b e c a u s e t h e f a t h e r h a d made no f u r t h e r McNeil relative unsatisfactory progress. t e s t i f i e d t h a t DHR h a d made an e f f o r t resources and to locate who c o u l d t a k e c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d as an alternative to terminating the father's parental 9 r i g h t s . DHR 2080350 investigated seven individuals, including the paternal g r a n d m o t h e r . O n l y two o f t h o s e r e l a t i v e s e x p r e s s e d an i n t e r e s t i n adopting her the c h i l d . McNeil supervisor custody of relatives and suggested the c h i l d . viable grandmother disability file attempted and contacting testified that she r e l i e d payments to termination. The paternal she h a d n o t b e e n e m p l o y e d on a p p r o x i m a t e l y as i n c o m e . She g r a n d m o t h e r ' s home t h a t since $618 a month i n stated that she h a d DHR e v a l u a t e d t h e she s h a r e d w i t h her fiancé f o u n d t h a t i t was a d e q u a t e t o meet t h e needs o f t h e c h i l d . The paternal grandmother admitted that, f i r s t h e a r i n g i n M a r c h 2008, DHR h a d r e q u e s t e d to a drug screen one. both custody w i t h t h e p a t e r n a l grandmother r e c e n t l y moved i n t o a home w i t h h e r f i a n c e . paternal petitions for b u t h e r t e l e p h o n e c a l l s were n o t alternative 2007 a n d t h a t they relative. DHR a l s o c o n s i d e r e d a that McNeil f o ra follow-up, returned by e i t h e r as r e f e r r e d t h e two i n d i v i d u a l s t o on f o u r o c c a s i o n s prior to the t h a t she submit b u t t h a t she had o n l y taken She s t a t e d t h a t DHR h a d i n f o r m e d h e r t h a t a r e f u s a l t o submit t o a drug screen screen. The drug w o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d screen that 10 a p o s i t i v e drug the paternal grandmother 2080350 submitted to, cocaine. She and that March insisted she cocaine. in had However, the cocaine. n o t use The on indicated t h a t she made "one random d r u g s c r e e n for 2008, was had used a h a b i t u a l drug user by self-medicating with grandmother S e p t e m b e r 30, paternal she not mistake" paternal that submitted 2008, w h i c h was grandmother i n s i s t e d to positive that she did cocaine. At the May testified that since 2008 prior the admitted that she had court she had hearing, not the paternal m i s s e d any with the child i n M a r c h 2008, b u t hearing she later noted that m i s s e d two visits grandmother visits. McNeil d e s p i t e the f a c t t h a t t h e p a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r had b e e n the to v i s i t the visited the opportunity grandmother had S e p t e m b e r 2006 and April child June 25, grandmother 2008, attend counseling Lighthouse. paternal at remain g r a n d m o t h e r was DHR 25 paternal times between i n t r o d u c e d an ISP recommended parenting exam, only given 2008. which psychological e v e r y week, t h e child A t t h e O c t o b e r 2008 h e a r i n g , dated a classes, drug-free, The present 11 that and the paternal submit to complete report indicated during the ISP report a intake that the meeting at 2080350 w h i c h t h o s e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s were made. Y e t , M c N e i l the paternal those grandmother had not f u l l y recommendations. The p a t e r n a l testified, complied with grandmother any o f stated that b e c a u s e she u s e s t h e p u b l i c - t r a n s p o r t a t i o n s y s t e m , she w o u l d have had t o walk psychological approximately five miles to attend the evaluation. McNeil t e s t i f i e d that she b e l i e v e d that the c h i l d would be i n i m m i n e n t d a n g e r i f p l a c e d i n the custody of the father or because the paternal grandmother demonstrated a refusing submit to lack of desire to drug to The c h i l d ' s g u a r d i a n a d l i t e m juvenile court that recommended r i g h t s be t e r m i n a t e d . requested t h e y h a d "[grown] the father's DHR by and submitted a report that the father's to the parental The g u a r d i a n a d l i t e m s t a t e d t h a t t h e a n d t h a t he comfortable with parental father the opportunity DHR by rights because DHR to rehabilitate himself had n o t t a k e n advantage o f t h a t 12 believed [DHR's] c a r e . " g u a r d i a n a d l i t e m a l s o s t a t e d t h a t he recommended of had results. f a t h e r a n d h i s f a m i l y were i n " d e n i a l " that parties cooperate with screens because of t h e i r p o s i t i v e d r u g - t e s t both opportunity. The termination had g i v e n a n d he the simply 2080350 "This court affords no presumption of correctness to the juvenile court's a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e l a w t o t h e f a c t s . See B r o o k s v . B r o o k s , 991 So. 2d 293, 300 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008) . F u r t h e r m o r e , " ' " ' " [ t ] h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s do n o t s i t i n judgment o f t h e f a c t s , and [they] review the f a c t f i n d e r ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n of facts o n l y t o t h e e x t e n t o f d e t e r m i n i n g whether it i s sufficiently supported by t h e evidence, that question being one o f l a w . " ' " Ex p a r t e T.V., 971 So. 2d 1, 9 ( A l a . 2007) ( q u o t i n g H i n d s v. H i n d s , 887 So. 2d 267, 272-73 n. 2 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2003), q u o t i n g i n t u r n C u r t i s White Constr. Co. v. B u t t s & B i l l i n g s l e y C o n s t r . Co., 473 So. 2d 1040, 1041 ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) ) . ' "J.W.M. v . C l e b u r n e C o u n t y Dep't o f Human Res., So. 2d 432, 433 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 7 ) . " Montgomery C o u n t y Dep't o f Human Res. 1169 v. C.R., 4 So. 3d 1162, ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 8 ) . The evidence pursuant establishes that t o § 12-15-1(10), the c h i l d A l a . Code c o u r t h a d made two p r i o r d e t e r m i n a t i o n s the 980 child dependent; the f i r s t 1975. 3 was d e p e n d e n t The j u v e n i l e i n t h i s case determination finding was made on By A c t No. 2008-277, A l a . A c t 2008, t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e f o r m e r A l a b a m a J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e A c t , § 12-15-1 e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1975, a n d t h e f o r m e r A l a b a m a C h i l d P r o t e c t i o n A c t , § 26¬ 18-1 e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1975, were e i t h e r r e p e a l e d o r amended, renumbered, and i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o t h e c u r r e n t Alabama J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e A c t ( " A J J A " ) , § 12-15-101 e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1975. The e f f e c t i v e d a t e o f t h e A J J A i s J a n u a r y 1, 2009; i t i s n o t a p p l i c a b l e t o t h i s case. 3 13 2080350 A u g u s t 28, mother 2006, and t h e s e c o n d was voluntarily relinquished made on June 25, her parental s i g n e d a g r e e m e n t d a t e d S e p t e m b e r 8, 2008. The his petition Further, custody for the custody of juvenile the court noting child, fulfilling his to that the he had to the responsibility" also paternal cocaine refused grandmother on two evidence determination grant by in DHR after dependent, a i t the 2008. father short The in juvenile child to the positive for submit to After evidence drug considering supports been 564 So. determined i s then 2d 950, 952 that the child required e x i s t s a v i a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e to the of p a r e n t a l r i g h t s . a to (Ala. is determine termination In t h i s case, the j u v e n i l e c o u r t refused the f a t h e r ' s p a r e n t a l r i g h t s because the p a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r was stated Beasley, j u v e n i l e court whether there to terminate has the a c h i l d i s dependent. P u r s u a n t t o Ex p a r t e 1990), to by 18, "fallen tested occasions. record, August the refused The father withdrew grant of had had on t h r e e the t h a t the and she rights child. custody because occasions t e s t s requested the to on refused of court child 2007. above, "willing the to care juvenile f o r the court 14 was child." However, unwilling to as grant 2080350 immediate because custody of the c h i l d of her i l l i c i t with [DHR's] r e q u e s t s that the j u v e n i l e court to the paternal grandmother drug use and h e r " r e f u s a l t o comply f o r drug screens." erred On a p p e a l , in failing DHR a r g u e s t o terminate f a t h e r ' s p a r e n t a l r i g h t s because c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g demonstrated that evidence 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 n g t h e father's parental rights existed. The the juvenile court, We i n essence, agree. found t h a t t h e f a t h e r ' s p a r e n t a l r i g h t s s h o u l d n o t be t e r m i n a t e d because the p a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r m i g h t become a v i a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e a t some p o i n t i n t h e f u t u r e . B e c o m i n g a v i a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e a t some p o i n t i n t h e future i s not the proper standard; an i n d i v i d u a l i s a v i a b l e alternative to termination i f the i n d i v i d u a l i spresently f i t and capable of taking custody of the c h i l d . See T.B. v. C u l l m a n C o u n t y Dep't o f Human R e s . , 6 So. 3d 1195, 1204 ( A l a . Civ. App. termination 2008) of ("One of parental the rights 'viable as alternatives' to set out in the p a r e n t a l - r i g h t s - t e r m i n a t i o n s t a t u t e i s placement of the c h i l d w i t h a f i t and w i l l i n g r e l a t i v e q u a l i f i e d t o r e c e i v e and care f o r t h e c h i l d when t h a t p l a c e m e n t s e r v e s t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f the c h i l d . " ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) ) . See a l s o V.M. v . S t a t e Dep't o f 15 2080350 Human R e s . , 710 So. 2d 915, 921 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1998) ( r e q u i r i n g DHR t o c o n s i d e r 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 i n l i g h t of her present DHR excluded circumstances). the paternal grandmother as a a l t e r n a t i v e because the p a t e r n a l grandmother had r e f u s e d drug s c r e e n s and had s u b m i t t e d t o one d r u g s c r e e n that A t t h e May 2008 she h a d u s e d cocaine. 4 p a t e r n a l grandmother p r o f e s s e d one-time lose "mistake" the c h i l d . tested and t h a t However, p o s i t i v e f o r cocaine that the paternal S e p t e m b e r 2008. I n r e f u s i n g t o g r a n t showed was a do a n y t h i n g grandmother a f t e r a random three hearing, the t h a t h e r use o f cocaine she w o u l d n e v e r viable drug to again screen i n custody of the c h i l d t o the p a t e r n a l grandmother, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t i m p l i c i t l y found t h a t t h e p a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r was u n f i t t o t a k e c u s t o d y o f t h e child and terminating was, therefore, not a the father's parental viable alternative to rights. DHR a l s o a r g u e s on a p p e a l t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t erred S e e § 1 2 - 1 5 - 7 1 ( a ) ( 3 ) C . , A l a . Code 1975 ( p r o v i d i n g t h a t , a f t e r a c h i l d i s f o u n d t o be d e p e n d e n t , t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t may t r a n s f e r l e g a l c u s t o d y t o a r e l a t i v e who, " a f t e r s t u d y b y t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s , i s f o u n d b y t h e c o u r t t o be q u a l i f i e d t o r e c e i v e and care f o r the c h i l d " (emphasis a d d e d ) ) . See s u p r a n o t e 3. 4 16 2080350 in failing clear to terminate and convincing the father's parental evidence demonstrating that was unable or u n w i l l i n g t o d i s c h a r g e and f o r t h e c h i l d . The recognized t h a t t h e f a t h e r had i t believed that the The father his responsibilities to father is c o u l d be evidence. from [DHR]." T h i s finding u n d i s p u t e d e v i d e n c e e s t a b l i s h i n g ( 1 ) t h a t t h e f a t h e r had failed by DHR, juvenile the heard f a t h e r had The reunited with court to attend parenting the his j u v e n i l e court further stated assistance by the " f a l l e n short i n f u l f i l l i n g c h i l d after "good-faith unsupported despite o r i g i n a l judgment of the j u v e n i l e c o u r t [parental] r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . " that rights c l a s s e s as r e q u e s t e d by DHR, (2) t h a t f a i l e d t o c o m p l e t e d r u g r e h a b i l i t a t i o n as r e q u e s t e d and (3) that the consistent v i s i t a t i o n with The j u v e n i l e court had n o t p r o d u c e d c l e a r and erred father the had failed c h i l d as t h e in implicitly convincing to and discharge that the father was his responsibilities determining evidence unable t o and maintain case p r o g r e s s e d . or f o r the that DHR demonstrating t h a t DHR's 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 t h e failed the father had unwilling to child. 5 § 26- A r g u a b l y , the f a t h e r ' s w i t h d r a w a l of h i s p e t i t i o n f o r c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d on A u g u s t 18, 2008, was a t a c i t a d m i s s i o n t h a t he was u n a b l e t o d i s c h a r g e h i s r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s t o and 5 17 2080350 18-7(a)(6), and A l a . Code 1975. See a l s o ( 4 ) , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 . The might juvenile court be a b l e receiving (b)(1), (2), 6 relied on t h e f a c t t h a t to rehabilitate continued § 26-18-7 services himself from the father i n the future DHR. However, after evidence i n t r o d u c e d b y DHR i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e f a t h e r was b e c o m i n g l e s s committed t o o b t a i n i n g c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d as t h e p r o c e e d i n g progressed. existence relating his of evidence Res., of of current i s implicit parental evidence.'" 937 So. 2d 525, has c o n s i s t e n t l y h e l d conditions that the or conduct i n a b i l i t y o r u n w i l l i n g n e s s t o care f o r or her c h i l d r e n convincing rights i n the requirement that be and based on clear P.H. v . M a d i s o n C o u n t y Dep't o f Human 531 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 6 ) . See a l s o T.B. C u l l m a n C o u n t y Dep't o f Human R e s . , 6 So. 3d 1195, 1202 (Ala. for court t o a parent's termination v. "'This 7 C i v . App. 2009)("In the absence of exceptional the c h i l d . 6 S e e s u p r a n o t e 3. Although the father v i s i t e d the c h i l d i n 2006 a n d s p o r a d i c a l l y i n 2007, t h e f a t h e r went a p p r o x i m a t e l y 4 months w i t h o u t v i s i t i n g t h e c h i l d i n e a r l y 2008, a n d a t t h e t i m e o f t h e l a s t h e a r i n g i n O c t o b e r 2008, t h e f a t h e r h a d n o t v i s i t e d t h e c h i l d i n a p p r o x i m a t e l y 11 weeks. 7 18 2080350 circumstances, a parent's e f f o r t s at r e h a b i l i t a t i o n should not e x t e n d b e y o n d 12 months f r o m t h e d a t e t h e c h i l d e n t e r s care foster because our l e g i s l a t u r e has e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t p e r i o d the p r e s u m p t i v e l y reasonable time f o r conducting r e u n i f i c a t i o n e f f o r t s . M.A.J. v. S.F., 2008)."). as 994 So. 2d 280, 291 ( A l a . C i v . App. 8 The j u v e n i l e c o u r t h a s e f f e c t i v e l y s e t a s i d e t h e c h i l d ' s right t o permanency and s t a b i l i t y f a t h e r and t h e p a t e r n a l rehabilitate themselves. i n favor of awarding the grandmother f u r t h e r o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o The child should n o t be forced to s u f f e r a l a c k o f p e r m a n e n c y due t o t h e f a t h e r ' s and p a t e r n a l grandmother's drug-free, point, to provide, in a timely manner, a s a f e , and s t a b l e home. We have h e l d t h a t , " a t some [a c h i l d ' s ] n e e d f o r p e r m a n e n c y must o u t w e i g h r e p e a t e d efforts b y DHR So. 1130, 2d inability to rehabilitate" 1134 a parent. ( A l a . C i v . App. N.A. v. J.H., 1990)(citing § 571 26-18- The f a t h e r h a d a p p r o x i m a t e l y 23 months t o r e h a b i l i t a t e h i m s e l f , f r o m t h e t i m e t h e f a t h e r ' s p a t e r n i t y was a d j u d i c a t e d i n J a n u a r y 2007 u n t i l t h e e n t r y o f t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s f i n a l o r d e r . DHR p r o v i d e d s e r v i c e s t o t h e f a t h e r t h r o u g h o u t t h o s e 23 months, and, i n a d d i t i o n , DHR o f f e r e d v i s i t a t i o n t o t h e f a t h e r f r o m S e p t e m b e r 2006, b e f o r e he h a d b e e n a d j u d i c a t e d t h e f a t h e r , t h r o u g h December 2006, a p e r i o d o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y f o u r months. 8 19 2080350 7(b)(4), County (Ala. A l a . Code Department 1975)). Further, " [ i ] n R.L.B. v. Morgan o f Human R e s o u r c e s , C i v . App. 2 0 0 1 ) , this court 805 So. 2d 7 2 1 , 725 held that 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 i s not a v i a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e to termination of parental Dep't o f Human R e s . , , rights." T.G. v. H o u s t o n [Ms. 2070841, A p r i l 24, 2009] ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 9 ) . Therefore, County So. 3d we c o n c l u d e t h a t m a i n t a i n i n g t h e c h i l d i n f o s t e r care w h i l e t h e f a t h e r and t h e paternal grandmother attempt t o r e h a b i l i t a t e t h e m s e l v e s was error. The judgment o f t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t i s r e v e r s e d , and t h i s c a u s e i s remanded t o t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n s t o enter a judgment c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h i s opinion. REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, P . J . , a n d Thomas, J . , c o n c u r . Pittman, joins. J . , dissents, with 20 writing, which Moore, J . , 2080350 PITTMAN, J u d g e , d i s s e n t i n g . We that, have been i n s t r u c t e d by t h e Alabama Supreme Court i n c o n s i d e r i n g an a p p e a l i n a 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 c a s e , we a r e t o " a p p l y 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 " t o a determination termination. 117, 122 regarding Ex p a r t e (Ala. the v i a b i l i t y o f an a l t e r n a t i v e t o S t a t e Dep't o f Human Res., 2002). Under a consent judgment, Nachman, 969 F. Supp. 682, 702 (M.D. A l a . F.3d 363 ( 1 1 t h facilitate possible. C i r . 1998), family 834 So. 2d R.C. v . 1 9 9 7 ) , a f f ' d , 145 DHR h a s t h e a f f i r m a t i v e d u t y t o reunification whenever that goal i s The j u v e n i l e c o u r t h a s d e t e r m i n e d i n t h i s c a s e t h a t s u c h r e u n i f i c a t i o n , c o n t r a r y t o DHR's c o n t e n t i o n s , i s p o s s i b l e if a l l p a r t i e s heed t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s together f o r t h e g o o d o f t h e ... c h i l d . " in the j u v e n i l e court grandmother certainly and concerning their current not a l l favorable overwhelming as t o r e q u i r e i n j u n c t i o n t o "work The e v i d e n c e a d d u c e d t h e f a t h e r and t h e p a t e r n a l circumstances, to their interests, a conclusion that although i s n o t so the juvenile court acted outside i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n concluding t h a t DHR h a d not necessary to adduced t h e c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g negate t h e prospect evidence t h a t t h e p a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r may s e r v e a s 21 2080350 a viable alternative to termination until f a t h e r may u l t i m a t e l y r i s e above h i s c u r r e n t therefore dissent from the r e v e r s a l . Moore, J . , c o n c u r s . 22 a time when t h e deficiencies. I

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.