2080369 L. T. v. W.L. and T.L.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

11/6/09 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 Reporter o f Decisions, Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 2080369 L.T. v. W.L. and T.L. Appeal from Lee J u v e n i l e Court (JU-05-36.03) THOMAS, J u d g e . L.T. C.K. ("the m o t h e r " ) h a s f o u r c h i l d r e n . ("the c h i l d " ) , October 2003, w h i l e child, W.L. was b o r n p r e m a t u r e l y Her t h i r d child, i n J u l y 2003. In t h e m o t h e r was p r e g n a n t w i t h h e r f o u r t h ("the m a t e r n a l grandfather") a n d T.L. ("the 2080369 maternal stepgrandmother") maternal grandparents"), (collectively i n response r e f e r r e d t o as "the t o p r e s s u r e from f a m i l y members and i n v o l v e m e n t by t h e Montgomery C o u n t y D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s and ("DHR"), b e g a n c a r i n g f o r t h e c h i l d on weekends. would take the During child t h e week, t h e m a t e r n a l t o the mother's residence mother c o u l d care f o r the c h i l d d u r i n g the However, t h i s 2003, a f t e r a r r a n g e m e n t was t h e c h i l d was grandparents wearing her t h a t morning. diaper stepgrandmother, weight child that the day. d i s c o n t i n u e d i n December child's b o t t o m was In addition, t h e c h i l d was continued raw instruction, maternal as a r e s u l t f a i l i n g to thrive, to on of to p r o p e r l y tend a c c o r d i n g to the and h a v i n g c o n t r a c t e d a s c a l p The so t h e same d i a p e r t h a t had b e e n p l a c e d The changes. grandfather r e p e a t e d l y r e t u r n e d to the the mother's f a i l u r e , even a f t e r to overnight maternal having lost fungus. reside with the maternal g r a n d p a r e n t s t h r o u g h o u t 2004, w i t h l i t t l e i n v o l v e m e n t f r o m t h e mother. I n M a r c h 2005, t h e m a t e r n a l dependency p e t i t i o n a c t i o n was was seeking legal a s s i g n e d case stepgrandmother f i l e d custody of the c h i l d ; t h a t number J U - 0 5 - 0 3 6 . 0 1 . The petition g r a n t e d ; h o w e v e r , t h e m o t h e r m a i n t a i n s t h a t she was 2 a never 2080369 s e r v e d w i t h the dependency p e t i t i o n or given n o t i c e M a r c h 2005 h e a r i n g i n t h e d e p e n d e n c y of the action. In M a r c h 2007, t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s f i l e d a p e t i t i o n s e e k i n g the t e r m i n a t i o n of the mother's p a r e n t a l r i g h t s ; t h a t a c t i o n was a s s i g n e d c a s e number JU-05-036.03. The m o t h e r and V.L., filed the c h i l d ' s maternal great-grandmother, petitions in seeking custody; those p e t i t i o n s are not contained t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l . 036.03, also filed The m o t h e r , i n c a s e number a Rule 60(b), A l a . R. s e e k i n g t o s e t a s i d e the d e f a u l t judgment dependency In C i v . P., JU-05motion i n the March 2005 action. July competing 2008, the j u v e n i l e petitions. stepgrandmother, c o u r t h e l d a h e a r i n g on t h e The mother, t e s t i f i e d at the hearing. tendency evidence of the maternal t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d f a t h e r , and t h e m a t e r n a l great-grandmother the abdicated her p a r e n t a l maternal separate was that the The had simply to the c h i l d responsibilities mother overwhelming to the grandparents. The m o t h e r testified that the c h i l d first went t o s t a y w i t h t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s when DHR asked her f a m i l y f o r a s s i s t a n c e d u r i n g her f o u r t h pregnancy, w h i c h was a h i g h - r i s k 3 2080369 pregnancy. According t o t h e mother, the c h i l d weekends w i t h t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s some t i m e i n early stepgrandmother 2005. only from October She e x p l a i n e d t h a t spent 2003 t o the maternal w o u l d n o t l e t t h e m o t h e r t a k e t h e c h i l d home a f t e r an E a s t e r g a t h e r i n g i n 2005, r e s u l t i n g i n an a l t e r c a t i o n between t h e mother and t h e m a t e r n a l stepgrandmother. The mother d e n i e d h a v i n g knowledge a t t h a t time t h a t t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s h a d r e c e i v e d a j u d g m e n t a w a r d i n g them c u s t o d y o f the c h i l d i n March 2005. A t t h e h e a r i n g i n J u l y 2008, t h e m o t h e r a d m i t t e d t h a t she had tested positive f o r THC, m a r i j u a n a , i n A u g u s t 2007. at three different places the chief intoxicant in She t e s t i f i e d t h a t she h a d w o r k e d o f employment during the year p r e c e d i n g t h e h e a r i n g a n d t h a t she h a d w o r k e d a t e a c h o f them f o r b e t w e e n two a n d f o u r months. D e s p i t e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t she h a d b e e n e m p l o y e d f o r a t l e a s t p a r t o f t h e t i m e t h e c h i l d was in the custody of the maternal grandparents, t h e mother a d m i t t e d t h a t she h a d n o t p a i d a n y c h i l d s u p p o r t due u n d e r t h e 2005 c u s t o d y j u d g m e n t . items of clothing returned to her. She d i d s a y t h a t f o r the c h i l d she h a d s e n t but that they had some been The m o t h e r f u r t h e r a d m i t t e d t h a t she h a d h a d 4 2080369 no contact w i t h the c h i l d 2006 a n d a g a i n f r o m f r o m E a s t e r 2005 t o T h a n k s g i v i n g T h a n k s g i v i n g 2006 t o A u g u s t mother e x p l a i n e d t h a t h e r f a i l u r e with the c h i l d had r e s u l t e d 2007. The t o c o n t a c t o r communicate from her b e l i e f that another f a m i l y member h a d s e c u r e d a r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r a g a i n s t h e r . The the maternal great-grandmother, time of t r i a l , explained that who was 65 y e a r s o l d a t she h a d f i l e d a petition s e e k i n g c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d b e c a u s e she b e l i e v e d t h a t , i f t h e m o t h e r d i d n o t have c u s t o d y , choice she w o u l d be t h e n e x t f o r c u s t o d y b e c a u s e she h a d h a d l e g a l m o t h e r when she was a m i n o r . grandmother, logical custody of the According to the maternal great- she h a d h a d c u s t o d y o f t h e mother because t h e m o t h e r ' s p a r e n t s , one o f whom i s t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d f a t h e r , h a d been u n f i t due t o d r u g u s e . The m a t e r n a l great-grandmother i n d i c a t e d t h a t she h a d c a r e d f o r t h e m o t h e r ' s o l d e s t c h i l d on a very frequent basis second oldest evidence child indicated since h i s b i r t h f r e q u e n t l y s t a y e d w i t h h e r as w e l l ; t h e that those maternal great-grandmother time of the J u l y and t h a t t h e mother's two c h i l d r e n stayed with the on a n e a r l y c o n s t a n t b a s i s a t t h e 2008 t r i a l . She a l s o testified that the m a t e r n a l g r a n d f a t h e r a n d t h e m o t h e r h a d smoked a d r u g o f some 5 2080369 type i n her backyard trial; the maternal had p a s s e d a drug with complaints 2003. of before grandfather denied the July s m o k i n g any d r u g grandfather the child testified when DHR t h a t he h a d contacted i t had r e c e i v e d about t h e mother him grandfather said and of the mother's children, become about i n the f a l l A l t h o u g h DHR o r i g i n a l l y r e q u e s t e d t h a t he t a k e a l l three 2008 test. The m a t e r n a l involved one t o two y e a r s the of custody maternal t h a t he h a d r e s p o n d e d t h a t he a n d h i s w i f e c o u l d n o t t a k e on t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f c a r i n g f o r t h r e e young children a t that time. B e c a u s e t h e o l d e r two c h i l d r e n been f r e q u e n t l y c a r e d f o r by t h e m a t e r n a l had great-grandmother, who was w i l l i n g t o c o n t i n u e t o a s s i s t t h e m o t h e r , t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d f a t h e r h a d a g r e e d t o assume r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e c h i l d , who was an i n f a n t . The m a t e r n a l grandfather said that the d e c i s i o n t o t a k e t h e c h i l d was p r o m p t e d b y t h e f a c t t h a t b e i n g up a t n i g h t c a r i n g f o r a t h r e e - m o n t h - o l d for the maternal i n f a n t was difficult great-grandmother. When q u e s t i o n e d a b o u t c o n t a c t 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 s i n c e t h e m a t e r n a l grandparents had taken custody o f the c h i l d , the maternal g r a n d f a t h e r responded by e x p l a i n i n g t h a t 6 2080369 the mother had n o t c o n t a c t e d t h e c h i l d a t a l l . the maternal grandfather noted p r o v i d e d any monetary s u p p o r t child. rare According instance child, like calls or personal-care t o the maternal when t h e mother t h e mother items had not f o r the g r a n d f a t h e r , e v e n on t h e was i n t h e p r e s e n c e a t a May 2008 b i r t h d a y p a r t y grandfather, child. that In addition, t h e mother o n l y spent of the f o r the maternal 5 t o 10 m i n u t e s w i t h t h e The m a t e r n a l g r a n d f a t h e r s t a t e d t h a t t h e two t e l e p h o n e t h e m o t h e r h a d made t o t h e m a t e r n a l grandfather since A u g u s t 2007 d i d n o t i n c l u d e a r e q u e s t t o s p e a k w i t h t h e c h i l d . When asked termination why he had o f t h e mother's decided parental to petition rights, for a the maternal grandfather mentioned the d e s i r e t o provide the c h i l d w i t h a l l t h e b e n e f i t s she w o u l d be e n t i t l e d maternal grandfather continuing t o have said custody that t o i f he a d o p t e d h e r . he w o u l d of the c h i l d improved her a b i l i t y t o care f o r the c h i l d . that t h e m o t h e r h a d shown no i n t e r e s t her f a i l u r e did The n o t be o p p o s e d t o while t h e mother However, he n o t e d i n the c h i l d and t h a t t o v i s i t w i t h t h e c h i l d i n d i c a t e d t o h i m t h a t she n o t care about t h e c h i l d . 7 2080369 The m a t e r n a l s t e p g r a n d m o t h e r quite concerned maternal October mother about grandparents 2003. until She the health first said she was t e s t i f i e d t h a t she had been of the c h i l d became i n v o l v e d that better they able A c c o r d i n g t o the maternal stepgrandmother, a labor child, and d e l i v e r y nurse caused the i n her care i n intended t o care when to assist f o r the the child. h e r e x p e r i e n c e as her to suspect that the who h a d b e e n b o r n p r e m a t u r e l y , was n o t r e c e i v i n g t h e s p e c i a l c a r e she r e q u i r e d a n d m i g h t be s u f f e r i n g a f a i l u r e t o thrive. S p e c i f i c a l l y , the maternal stepgrandmother noted that t h e c h i l d ' s s k i n was e s p e c i a l l y s e n s i t i v e a n d t h a t t h e c h i l d r e q u i r e d f r e q u e n t d i a p e r changes t o p r o t e c t h e r s k i n ; however, as n o t e d a b o v e , t h e m o t h e r d i d n o t change t h e c h i l d ' s d i a p e r e v e n once d u r i n g t h e d a y , r e s u l t i n g i n a raw, s o r e , a n d e v e n bleeding The tried She bottom. maternal stepgrandmother said that at f i r s t she h a d t o m a i n t a i n a bond between t h e mother and t h e c h i l d . said that the c h i l d knew t h e mother however, t h e m a t e r n a l stepgrandmother was her mother; admitted that the c h i l d c a l l e d h e r "mama." The m a t e r n a l s t e p g r a n d m o t h e r said that, i n t h e e a r l i e r months o f t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s ' c a r e o f t h e 8 2080369 c h i l d , the maternal stepgrandmother had telephoned to t o say things allow the c h i l d t o her over the T h i s p r a c t i c e ended, s a i d t h e m a t e r n a l the mother's telephone When q u e s t i o n e d the maternal the Easter altercation, s t e p g r a n d m o t h e r e x p l a i n e d t h a t she h a d o b j e c t e d stepgrandmother of terminated. 2005 t o t h e m o t h e r ' s t a k i n g t h e c h i l d home w i t h h e r . safety telephone. s t e p g r a n d m o t h e r , when s e r v i c e was s u s p e n d e d o r regarding t h e mother said her objections the c h i l d because, at had been the time, The maternal based on t h e t h e mother's a u t o m o b i l e was o v e r c r o w d e d w i t h p a s s e n g e r s a l r e a d y , t h e m o t h e r had no c h i l d s a f e t y s e a t f o r t h e c h i l d t o r i d e i n , a n d i t was dark and r a i n y o u t s i d e . from t h e mother toward t h e door admitted she said and t h a t while t h a t she t o l d could "respect that return, She s a i d t h a t s h e h a d t a k e n t h e c h i l d she m i g h t telling her to leave. the house," the maternal that t h e mother Although she t h e m o t h e r t h a t s h e c o u l d r e t u r n when s h e d i d n o t mean but only have p u s h e d that she c o u l d proper respect f o r the maternal t h e mother stepgrandmother could not ever r e t u r n when she showed t h e stepgrandmother and h e r r u l e s . 9 2080369 When s h e was a s k e d why s h e h a d f i l e d t h e p e t i t i o n to terminate t h e mother's parental rights, s t e p g r a n d m o t h e r s a i d t h a t s h e was m o t i v a t e d stability i n the c h i l d ' s life. The m a t e r n a l seeking the maternal by t h e need f o r stepgrandmother a d m i t t e d t h a t s h e h a d n o t b e e n i n t h e m o t h e r ' s home o r a r o u n d t h e m o t h e r f o r two y e a r s , s o s h e c o u l d n o t know w h e t h e r t h e mother had improved h e r l i f e s t y l e . maternal stepgrandmother, However, a c c o r d i n g t o t h e maintaining steady employment was not t h e mother's s t r o n g p o i n t . After the J u l y judgment denying 2008 t r i a l , the j u v e n i l e court entered a t h e mother's motion t o s e t a s i d e t h e March 2005 j u d g m e n t , d e n y i n g t h e mother's and t h e m a t e r n a l great- g r a n d m o t h e r ' s p e t i t i o n s f o r c u s t o d y , a n d d e f e r r i n g a r u l i n g on the termination p e t i t i o n . The j u v e n i l e court outlined the s t e p s f o r t h e m o t h e r t o t a k e b e t w e e n t h e e n t r y o f t h e J u l y 14, 2008, j u d g m e n t a n d t h e December 15, 2008, r e v i e w h e a r i n g s e t in the juvenile court's p a s s i n g two random d r u g exercising visitation judgment. Those tests, completing steps included parenting classes, as s e t o u t i n t h e judgment, and p a y i n g $50 p e r month i n c h i l d s u p p o r t , $10 o f w h i c h was t o be a p p l i e d 10 2080369 to the c h i l d - s u p p o r t arrearage and a c c u m u l a t e d b e t w e e n M a r c h 2005 J u l y 2008. On December 15, 2008, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t h e l d t h e hearing c o n t e m p l a t e d b y t h e J u l y 2008 j u d g m e n t . f a i l e d to attend that hearing. by c o u n s e l . counsel evidence t h a t she h a d no p r o o f c l a s s e s ; admitted represented the mother's the mother's compliance The m o t h e r ' s a t t o r n e y t h e mother had not t a k e n admitted any random t h a t , t o h e r knowledge, t h e mother had a v a i l e d h e r s e l f o f more t h a n although that mother t h a t t h e mother had c o m p l e t e d p a r e n t i n g that drug s c r e e n s ; admitted requested regarding w i t h t h e J u l y 2008 j u d g m e n t . not She was, h o w e v e r , The j u v e n i l e c o u r t provide The review one v i s i t with the child, she s a i d t h a t t h e m o t h e r h a d i n d i c a t e d t h a t she h a d had d i f f i c u l t y c o n t a c t i n g t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s t o a r r a n g e visitation; child and support. reiterating admitted The the that maternal mother's t h e mother had stepgrandmother failure to comply r e q u i r e m e n t s o f t h e J u l y 2008 j u d g m e n t as w e l l . court entered rights. a judgment not p a i d terminating testified, with parental appeals. "A j u v e n i l e c o u r t i s r e q u i r e d t o a p p l y a t w o pronged t e s t i n determining whether to terminate 11 those The j u v e n i l e the mother's From t h a t j u d g m e n t t h e m o t h e r t i m e l y any 2080369 p a r e n t a l r i g h t s : ( 1 ) c l e a r and 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 ; a n d (2) t h e c o u r t m u s t 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 rights. E x p a r t e B e a s l e y , 564 S o . 2 d 9 5 0 , 954 ( A l a . 19 9 0 ) . " B.M. v . S t a t e , juvenile court's supported Dep't "Clear when w e i g h e d the mind the 2d R e s . , 534 against element correctness evidence. So. 2d and c o n v i n c i n g of fact of the claim i s "'[e]vidence a firm (quoting terminating presented o r e tenus a r e presumed c o r r e c t . Human Res., Furthermore, factual that when 669 So. rights 187 f i n d i n g s i n support i t s judgment, Ala. based Code on provided 12 that 840 S o . 1975, § evidence R.B. v . S t a t e h a s n o t made o f i t s j u d g m e n t , we m u s t h a s made t h o s e as t o findings i n a ( A l a . C i v . App. the j u v e n i l e court the j u v e n i l e court support 2d probability factual judgment of that, produce i n L.M. v . D.D.F., The j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s parental App. c o n v i c t i o n as t o each and a h i g h 1 7 1 , 179 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 2 0 0 2 ) State (Ala.C i v . i n opposition, w i l l of the conclusion.'" 6-11-20(b)(4)). Bowman v . 3 0 4 , 305 evidence" evidence of the t r i e r essential 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 must be by c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g o f Human 1988). 895 S o . 2 d 3 1 9 , 3 3 1 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 2 0 0 4 ) . Dep't 1995). specific presume f i n d i n g s necessary those findings to are 2080369 supported Human by Res., the evidence. 919 So. 2d Section 26-18-7(a), for D.M. 1197, v. Walker 1210 (Ala. Civ. A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , terminating parental County 1 Dep't App. of 2005). s p e c i f i e d the grounds rights: "If the court finds from clear and convincing evidence, competent, material, and relevant in n a t u r e , t h a t the p a r e n t s of a c h i l d are unable or u n w i l l i n g t o 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 the c h i l d , or t h a t the conduct or c o n d i t i o n of t h e p a r e n t s i s s u c h as t o r e n d e r them u n a b l e to 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 such 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 to change i n the 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 o f t h e parents." In deciding discharge the whether h i s or juvenile her court whether the parent as to render him a parent is unable responsibilities may consider abuses a l c o h o l or her several and factors, caring to child, including substances f o r the so child, 26- 1 8 - 7 ( a ) ( 3 ) , and w h e t h e r r e a s o n a b l e e f f o r t s t o r e h a b i l i t a t e the have failed, § 26-18-7(a)(6). abused the c h i l d , § § parent has unwilling f o r the or c o n t r o l l e d i n c a p a b l e of 26-18-7(a)(2), whether the parent to or When a c h i l d i s not in By Act No. 2008-277, Ala. Acts 2008, the Alabama L e g i s l a t u r e , among o t h e r t h i n g s , a m e n d e d a n d r e n u m b e r e d A l a . Code 1975, § 2 6 - 1 8 - 7 , and e n a c t e d t h e 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 ( " A J J A " ) , c o d i f i e d a t A l a . Code 1975, § 12-15-101 e t s e q . 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, 2 0 0 9 ; t h e m o t h e r has not a s s e r t e d t h a t the A J J A a p p l i e s i n t h i s c a s e . 1 13 2080369 the custody consider, of h i s or her parent, a juvenile but i s not l i m i t e d t o , the f o l l o w i n g court must factors: "(1) F a i l u r e by t h e p a r e n t s t o p r o v i d e f o r t h e m a t e r i a l needs of t h e c h i l d or t o pay a r e a s o n a b l e p o r t i o n o f i t s s u p p o r t , where t h e p a r e n t i s a b l e t o do s o . "(2) F a i l u r e by t h e p a r e n t s t o m a i n t a i n r e g u l a r v i s i t s w i t h the c h i l d i n accordance with a plan d e v i s e d by t h e department, o r any p u b l i c o r l i c e n s e d private c h i l d c a r e agency, and agreed t o by t h e parent. "(3) consistent Failure by the parents to maintain contact or communication w i t h the c h i l d . "(4) Lack 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 or h e r c i r c u m s t a n c e s t o meet t h e n e e d s o f t h e c h i l d in accordance w i t h agreements reached, including a g r e e m e n t s 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 r e s o u r c e s o r l i c e n s e d c h i l d - p l a c i n g a g e n c i e s , i n an administrative review or a j u d i c i a l review." Ala. Code 1975, § 26-18-7(b). I n i t s judgment t e r m i n a t i n g the juvenile unwilling that court found to discharge the mother's foreseeable that the mother her r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s condition future. the mother's p a r e n t a l The was court was unable or to the c h i l d and u n l i k e l y to specifically rights, change i n the determined that t h e m o t h e r h a d f a i l e d t o a d j u s t h e r c i r c u m s t a n c e s t o meet t h e needs o f t h e c h i l d , t h a t the mother had f a i l e d t o s u p p o r t the child basis, on a r e g u l a r and t h a t 14 the mother had failed to 2080369 maintain r e g u l a r contact with the c h i l d . f u r t h e r found t h a t i t had g i v e n to The j u v e n i l e c o u r t t h e m o t h e r ample opportunity r e h a b i l i t a t e h e r s e l f b u t t h a t t h e m o t h e r " h a d f a i l e d t o do so o r t o d e m o n s t r a t e any d e s i r e t o do s o . " F i n a l l y , t h e c o u r t f o u n d t h a t no l e s s d r a s t i c a l t e r n a t i v e s t h a t w o u l d s e r v e c h i l d ' s best the i n t e r e s t were a v a i l a b l e and t h a t i t w o u l d be i n t h e c h i l d ' s b e s t i n t e r e s t t h a t t h e m o t h e r ' s p a r e n t a l r i g h t s be terminated so t h a t t h e c h i l d c o u l d have " l o n g t e r m stability w i t h a f a m i l y who c a n c o n s i s t e n t l y l o v e , c a r e and p r o v i d e f o r her." The m o t h e r ' s f i r s t argument c o n c e r n s t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s f a i l u r e t o s e t a s i d e t h e 2005 d e p e n d e n c y and c u s t o d y on h e r R u l e her 60(b) motion. judgment The m o t h e r ' s m o t i o n was b a s e d on a s s e r t i o n s t h a t she h a d n o t been p r o v i d e d n o t i c e of the h e a r i n g and h a d n o t e v e n been s e r v e d w i t h t h e p e t i t i o n i n t h e dependency authority Because action. regarding she fails However, t h e mother the standard to support to cite a p p l i c a b l e to her her c i t a t i o n s to proper a u t h o r i t i e s , fails argument on motion. appeal see R u l e 2 8 ( a ) ( 1 0 ) , any with A l a . R. App. P., we have no a l t e r n a t i v e b u t t o a f f i r m t h e j u d g m e n t o f the j u v e n i l e court i n s o f a r as 15 i t denied the mother's Rule 2080369 60(b) motion. C i v . App. those Asam v. D e v e r e a u x , 686 1996) issues The parental at second The arguing and (emphasis for support that the fails the termination As We part evidence of quantum was clear not the arguing that c h i l d or that of her argument c o u r t made a d e t e r m i n a t i o n time of the 2005 and juvenile 2005. not her of and the no rights disagree. that the evidence e s t a b l i s h dependency, the mother c o m p l a i n s t h a t the the only both the evidence t o prove dependency of the v i a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s t o the t e r m i n a t i o n of her p a r e n t a l existed. (Ala. supporting is mother c h a l l e n g e s that which c o n v i n c i n g , and t h e t e n d e n c y o f t h e e v i d e n c e , evidence 1224 added)). argument t r i a l does n o t rights. evidence, presented been c i t e d " mother's presented 2d 1222, ( s t a t i n g t h a t " [ t ] h i s court w i l l address properly a u t h o r i t y has So. at filing the we of the time do not juvenile r e g a r d i n g the c h i l d ' s dependency a t of o r i g i n a l dependency a c t i o n i n the termination c o u r t d i d determine t h a t the However, did not agree c h i l d was with the hearing. The dependent i n mother that the j u v e n i l e c o u r t f a i l e d to determine whether the c h i l d remained dependent a t the time of the t e r m i n a t i o n t r i a l . 16 The juvenile 2080369 court's findings supporting establish that the i t s t e r m i n a t i o n judgment remained child clearly to dependent due the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and h a b i t s o f t h e m o t h e r . The m a i n e m p h a s i s o f t h e m o t h e r ' s argument on a p p e a l i s that the evidence at t r i a l d i d not p r o v e dependency because t h e e v i d e n c e d i d n o t e s t a b l i s h any " f a i l i n g s " a mother. on h e r p a r t However, t h e f l a w i n t h e m o t h e r ' s argument i s t h a t grounds f o r 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 are not l i m i t e d t o i s s u e s i n v o l v i n g d r u g o r a l c o h o l dependence o r living that as conditions. solely unsanitary Although the j u v e n i l e court d i d not t h e mother had abandoned t h e c h i l d , find her conduct toward t h e c h i l d comes c l o s e t o abandonment, and abandonment has l o n g been a s t a t u t o r y b a s i s f o r t h e t e r m i n a t i o n o f p a r e n t a l rights. § 2 6 - 1 8 - 7 ( a ) (1) . support for the c h i l d The f a i l u r e o f t h e m o t h e r t o p r o v i d e and h e r f a i l u r e to v i s i t resembling communication or contact "failings" of the mother that terminating parental rights. can or maintain with be the c h i l d used § 26-18-7(b)(1), The m o t h e r f a i l s t o r e c o g n i z e anything as are also bases f o r ( 2 ) , and ( 3 ) . t h a t she n e e d n o t be u n a b l e t o p a r e n t h e r c h i l d when t h e e v i d e n c e d e m o n s t r a t e s t h a t she i s unwilling to discharge her r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s 17 t o and f o r the 2080369 child. 2008) See R.S. v. R.G., 995 So. 2d 893, 905 ( A l a . C i v . App. (Moore, J . , c o n c u r r i n g i n t h e r e s u l t ) . As J u d g e Moore explained although i n h i s o p i n i o n c o n c u r r i n g i n the r e s u l t a parent might w e l l be able to parent is R.S., h i s or her c h i l d , when " c l e a r 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 e [ s ] t h a t he [ o r s h e ] [ i s ] o b v i o u s l y n o t w i l l i n g t o d i s c h a r g e h i s [ o r her] parental rights responsibilities" may w e l l be w a r r a n t e d . a t e r m i n a t i o n of R.S., 995 So. 2d a t 905. the mother i n t h i s c a s e , t h e f a t h e r i n R.S. effort his child to support "was Like h a d n o t made any content to leave the c u s t o d y and c a r e o f t h e c h i l d t o t h e m a t e r n a l grandparents" f o r a l m o s t two y e a r s . and parental I d . a t 905. A l t h o u g h t h e mother i n the p r e s e n t case d i d f i n a l l y b r i n g a custody p e t i t i o n to request the return i t appears that she of the c h i l d did so to her custody after being grandparents intended to f i l e parental rights. discharge her p a r e n t a l their petition the maternal to terminate her interest t o t h e c h i l d and d i d n o t h i n g t o responsibilities. The e v i d e n c e a t t r i a l little that B e f o r e t h a t t i m e , t h e m o t h e r t o o k no s t e p s to a s s e r t her p a r e n t a l r i g h t s took warned i n 2007, in clearly the 18 indicated child after t h a t the mother the maternal 2080369 grandparents took over parenting duties f o r the c h i l d i n O c t o b e r 2003. The m o t h e r f a i l e d t o v i s i t t h e c h i l d o t h e r on occasions a few r a r e 2007 b e t w e e n December 2003 a n d December and d i d n o t p r o v i d e f o r the c h i l d ' s m e a n i n g f u l manner, a l t h o u g h c l o t h i n g on o c c a s i o n . support failure communication The c h i l d was c l e a r l y d e p e n d e n t due t o opportunity t o make a n y e f f o r t with t o do i n any she m i g h t have s e n t a few i t e m s o f the mother's l a c k o f concern f o r t h e c h i l d ' s w e l f a r e mother's than the c h i l d , so after to maintain despite being the entry of and t h e contact given or a final the J u l y 2008 judgment. The evidence mother n e x t argues t h a t 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 failed to e s t a b l i s h her current conditions, which, she c o n t e n d s , f a i l s t o s a t i s f y t h e r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t a 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 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. Res., has See, e . g . , D.O. v. C a l h o u n C o u n t y Dep't o f Human 859 So. 2d 439, 444 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2003) consistently held that the existence ("This of evidence c u r r e n t c o n d i t i o n s or conduct r e l a t i n g t o a parent's or u n w i l l i n g n e s s in t o care the requirement that court of inability for h i s or her children i s i m p l i c i t termination 19 of parental r i g h t s be 2080369 b a s e d on 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 . " ) . like D .0., parent the evidence was making reunification at t r i a l progress However, i n c a s e s had e s t a b l i s h e d toward that the rehabilitation a t the time of the t e r m i n a t i o n trial and and t h a t the evidence of h i s o r her e a r l i e r h i s t o r y d i d not adequately portray the parent's current, or h e r c h i l d . decision See D.O., to terminate improved a b i l i t y to parent h i s 859 So. 2d a t 444 ("The t r i a l t h e mother's parental court's rights was premature, c o n s i d e r i n g t h e e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e mother has made a c o n t i n u i n g e f f o r t t o change h e r c i r c u m s t a n c e s a n d that she was m a k i n g s i g n i f i c a n t p r o g r e s s a t t h e t i m e o f t h e termination trial hearings."). i n this case In contrast, d i d n o t show the evidence any i m p r o v e m e n t m o t h e r ' s d e s i r e t o s e r v e as a p a r e n t f o r t h e c h i l d . at the i n the Instead, t h e t e n d e n c y o f t h e e v i d e n c e was t h a t t h e m o t h e r does n o t have the desire to make any r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the c h i l d . juvenile court efforts to assume parental I n t h e J u l y 2008 j u d g m e n t , t h e s e t o u t f o r t h e m o t h e r what w o u l d be e x p e c t e d of h e r i n order t o convince the c o u r t t h a t t e r m i n a t i o n o f her parental r i g h t s was n o t w a r r a n t e d , complete even one of and t h e mother f a i l e d t o the requirements 20 of the July 2008 2080369 judgment. That condition rights evidence proves was one o f a p a t h y , to her c h i l d that the mother's unconcerned w o u l d be t e r m i n a t e d that current her parental f o r her f a i l u r e to act. To t h e e x t e n t to demonstrate t h e mother argues t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e that no v i a b l e alternatives to e x i s t e d , we n o t e t h a t t h e m o t h e r p r o v i d e d her arguments maternal to this court. grandparents She failed However, i f t h e m o t h e r i s a r g u i n g quo would be a viable termination no a l t e r n a t i v e s i n only t o prove asserts that that none that maintaining alternative failed the existed. the status to termination of her p a r e n t a l r i g h t s , we n o t e t h a t we have p r e v i o u s l y r e j e c t e d s u c h a contention situation when is grounds such reunification will f o r termination that, in the n o t be p o s s i b l e . 3d 812, 820 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008) of the reunification quo when children, maintaining foreseeable 11 appeared that potential i n t h e f u t u r e and t o a c h i e v e s t a b i l i t y and c o n t i n u i t y "appellate an i n d e f i n i t e future, ( r e j e c t i n g maintenance w o u l d be a t l e a s t 10 y e a r s commenting t h a t , i n o r d e r for i t and t h e See K.A.P. v . D.P., So. status exist courts custody 21 generally hold arrangement w i t h a that third 2080369 p a r t y i s not i n the best D.E., 874 So. 2d 1109, 1118 on o t h e r 2d 555 that the i n t e r e s t of the c h i l d " ) ; g r o u n d s , F.G. ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 3 ) , o v e r r u l e d v. S t a t e Dep't o f Human R e s . , 988 So. ( A l a . C i v . App. "maintaining B.J.C. v. 2007) ( r e j e c t i n g the father argument t h e s i t u a t i o n t h e c h i l d r e n h a d been i n f o r s i x years before the termination hearing t o be r a i s e d by f a m i l y members" was by l e a v i n g them a viable a l t e r n a t i v e to t e r m i n a t i o n when t h e f a t h e r h a d f a i l e d t o c o n s i s t e n t l y s u p p o r t o r v i s i t w i t h t h e c h i l d r e n and h i s s i t u a t i o n was 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 734, 735 the ( A l a . C i v . App. 1993) status that quo years willing to but expecting that adopt "[t]he the put t o be r e l e a s e d maternal children p e r m a n e n c y and s e c u r i t y " ) . to give contact and noting from p r i s o n i n aunt and them a uncle were feeling of B a s e d on t h e m o t h e r ' s f a i l u r e t o f o r t h any e f f o r t t o assume h e r p a r e n t a l t o and f o r t h e c h i l d 628 So. 2d ( r e j e c t i n g the maintenance of as an a l t e r n a t i v e t o t e r m i n a t i o n t h e f a t h e r was seven f u t u r e ) ; A.N.S. v. K.C., responsibilities and b a s e d on t h e f a c t t h a t t h e l a c k o f and c o m m u n i c a t i o n b e t w e e n the mother and t h e child e v i d e n c e s a l a c k o f a p a r e n t - c h i l d b o n d b e t w e e n t h e two, agree with the juvenile court's 22 implicit conclusion we that 2080369 maintaining viable t h e s t a t u s quo i n t h e p r e s e n t alternative to termination c a s e w o u l d n o t be a o f t h e mother's parental rights. Finally, t h e mother argues t h a t t h e t e r m i n a t i o n judgment was b a s e d on t h e c o n v e n i e n c e o f t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s as a means t o e n d f a m i l i a l c o n f l i c t . B o t h o u r supreme c o u r t a n d t h i s c o u r t have r e v e r s e d j u d g m e n t s t e r m i n a t i n g p a r e n t a l r i g h t s when t h e b a s i s f o r t h e t e r m i n a t i o n was m e r e l y t h e c o n v e n i e n c e of the p a r t i e s . (Ala. 564 1 9 8 7 ) , o v e r r u l e d on o t h e r So. 2d 950 M a r c h 13, 2009] State See Ex p a r t e ( A l a . 1990); So. 3d Brooks, 513 So. 2d 614, 617 g r o u n d s b y Ex p a r t e S.D.P. v . U.R.S., , Beasley, [Ms. 2070977, ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 9 ) ; a n d e x r e l . M c D a n i e l v. M i l l e r , 659 So. 2d 640, 642 (Ala. C i v . App. 1995) ( r e v e r s i n g a j u d g m e n t t e r m i n a t i n g t h e f a t h e r ' s parental rights entered on an a g r e e m e n t o f t h e p a r t i e s rendering a judgment d e n y i n g t h e p a r e n t s ' terminate the father's parental r i g h t s ) . f o r example, agreement o u r supreme c o u r t p o i n t e d to terminate the father's and joint petition to I n Ex p a r t e Brooks, out that the parents' parental rights would waive t h e c h i l d ' s r i g h t t o r e c e i v e s u p p o r t from and t o i n h e r i t from h i s father without bestowing 23 on h i m any perceivable 2080369 benefit. Ex p a r t e B r o o k s , 513 So. 2d a t 617; see a l s o M i l l e r , 659 So. 2d a t 642 parental rights convenience the (noting t h a t the t e r m i n a t i o n of the f a t h e r ' s had been accomplished merely child's rights to current those cases and future the f o r any of the p a r t i e s without c o n s i d e r a t i o n for of support or inheritance). We do not situation, to find to be applicable to this however, because the p a r t i e s are not i n agreement terminate the mother's parental r i g h t s f o r the sake of c o n v e n i e n c e and b e c a u s e t h e e v i d e n c e r e v e a l s t h a t t h e c h i l d ' s best i n t e r e s t s would rights. be served by a termination of those U n l i k e t h e s i t u a t i o n s p r e s e n t i n Ex p a r t e B r o o k s and M i l l e r , where t h e c h i l d r e n were g o i n g t o be r e l y i n g s o l e l y their mothers for their support and were n o t receiving any b e n e f i t i n r e t u r n f o r g i v i n g up t h e r i g h t t o be s u p p o r t e d their a f a t h e r s , the c h i l d i n the p r e s e n t case w i l l permanent emotionally home where she will be be provided and m a t e r i a l l y by h e r m a t e r n a l on by gaining for both grandparents. B e c a u s e c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e a d d u c e d a t t h e J u l y 2008 and court's the December conclusion 2008 hearings support the juvenile t h a t the mother i s unable or u n w i l l i n g t o d i s c h a r g e h e r p a r e n t a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s t o and 24 f o r the child 2080369 and t h a t h e r 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 foreseeable the mother's evidence the terminating rights the would best c h i l d ' s best terminating agree t h a t grounds f o r t e r m i n a t i n g parental supports alternative that f u t u r e , we existed. conclusion serve the that In addition, no other i n t e r e s t s of viable child and the judgment the p a r e n t a l r i g h t s of the mother. The judgment mother's parental served the by the i n t e r e s t s are the of rights is therefore affirmed. AFFIRMED. Pittman and Thompson, without Bryan, J J . , concur. P.J., and Moore, writings. 25 J., concur in the result,

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.