Y. N. v. Jefferson County Department of Human Resources
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL: 11/13/2009 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 2080692 Y.N. v. J e f f e r s o n County Department o f Human Resources Appeal from J e f f e r s o n J u v e n i l e Court (JU-07-54206 and JU-07-54207) THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e . On December 13, 2007, t h e J e f f e r s o n 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 W.N. children") ("DHR") f i l e d I I I(hereinafter were dependent complaints together referred children. I n some p a r t s o f t h e r e c o r d , r e f e r r e d t o a s "W.N., J r . " 1 a l l e g i n g t h a t B.N. W.N. 1 The t o as " t h e dependency I I I i s incorrectly 2080692 complaints alleged that m o t h e r " ) and W.N., the children's p a r e n t s , Y.N. J r . ("the f a t h e r " ) , were a b u s i n g d r u g s t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n were n o t a d e q u a t e l y s u p e r v i s e d . 14, 2007, children the of indicates submit juvenile dependent custody K.F., that to ("the and a the court entered placing cousin them the of substance-abuse the children. and mother the father assessments On December orders in finding pendente The 2 were and family stable h o u s i n g and reunification. w i t h the record ordered to psychological and requirements f o r B o t h p a r e n t s were a w a r d e d visitation children. Subsequently parents employment as the lite e v a l u a t i o n s , t o s u b m i t t o random d r u g t e s t s , and t o o b t a i n maintain and were entered ordered to review orders comply with indicate the that the recommendations r e s u l t i n g from the substance-abuse assessments, which i n c l u d e d treatment f o r substance-abuse problems. that the parents did not comply with The r e c o r d the indicates reunification requirements. T h e r e c o r d r e f e r s t o K.F. as a " s e c o n d c o u s i n , " b u t i t i s n o t c l e a r i f he i s t h e s e c o n d c o u s i n o f t h e c h i l d r e n o r o f t one o f t h e c h i l d r e n ' s p a r e n t s . 2 2 2080692 Pursuant pendente to lite review custody orders of the entered children in was them i n t h e p e n d e n t e l i t e c u s t o d y o f K.F. April 2008, changed t o p l a c e and h i s m o t h e r , R e f e r e n c e s i n t h e r e c o r d , i n c l u d i n g s t a t e m e n t s i n a DHR S.F. court r e p o r t , i n d i c a t e t h a t the c h i l d r e n spent a g r e a t d e a l of time with S.F. The record indicates that K.F. and S.F. have r e s i d e n c e s on t h e same s t r e e t . R e v i e w o r d e r s e n t e r e d w i t h r e g a r d t o e a c h c h i l d on 21, 2008, s p e c i f i e d t h a t t h e p e r m a n e n c y p l a n f o r t h e was "permanent r e l a t i v e p l a c e m e n t the relative." pendente lite At that custody requirements for the the o f K.F. children and S.F. remained The remained and maintaining stable housing same, ordered to pay child support for the i.e., substance-abuse and employment. P u r s u a n t t o o r d e r s e n t e r e d on December 23, 2008, e a c h was i n the reunification the s u b m i t t i n g t o random d r u g t e s t i n g , u n d e r g o i n g treatment, children w i t h t r a n s f e r of custody to time, parents August benefit parent of the children. On M a r c h 11, 2009, t h e j u v e n i l e court entered orders i n w h i c h i t , among o t h e r t h i n g s , s u s p e n d e d visitation w i t h the c h i l d r e n pending 3 the p a r e n t s ' r i g h t s to a further order of the 2080692 court; the record does not indicate p a r e n t s ' v i s i t a t i o n was s u s p e n d e d . the reason that The M a r c h 11, 2009, the orders i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n ' s c a s e s were s c h e d u l e d f o r an A p r i l 9, 2009, " r e v i e w hearing." The r e c o r d c o n t a i n s hearing. The mother f a t h e r was n o t . 3 the t r a n s c r i p t of the A p r i l was present No t e s t i m o n y a number o f r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s at the hearing, attorney. the was t a k e n a t t h a t h e a r i n g , but and a r g u m e n t s were made b y t h e A f t e r that hearing, ad l i t e m , and t h e on A p r i l 11, 2009, the j u v e n i l e c o u r t , over the o b j e c t i o n of the mother, orders a w a r d i n g c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d r e n t o K.F. c l o s i n g the cases. The A p r i l 11, 2009, o r d e r s the parents have no c o n t a c t The timely mother appealed, 2009, but p a r t i e s ' attorneys, the c h i l d r e n ' s guardian custodians' 9, entered and S.F. and s p e c i f i e d that or v i s i t a t i o n with the c h i l d r e n . challenging those p a r t s of the A p r i l 11, 2009, o r d e r s t h a t d e n i e d h e r t h e r i g h t t o v i s i t a t i o n with the c h i l d r e n . During arguments the of the hearing before attorneys the indicated juvenile that court, the mother the had T h e f a t h e r has n o t a p p e a l e d , and t h i s o p i n i o n does n o t reference f a c t s relevant to h i s attempts at r e u n i f i c a t i o n with the c h i l d r e n . 3 4 2080692 failed to submit to random drug f a i l e d to v i s i t the c h i l d r e n . t e s t i n g and The attorneys' that she had representations i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e m o t h e r had r e p e a t e d l y p r o m i s e d t o v i s i t the c h i l d r e n , but had had had a negative f a i l e d t o do e f f e c t on arguments of c o u n s e l , of the the and t h a t t h a t conduct children. Based the j u v e n i l e c o u r t , mother, awarded so, determined custody to K.F. the and and the over the children S.F., on to objection be denied oral dependent, the mother visitation rights. I n d o i n g so, the j u v e n i l e c o u r t n o t e d t h a t the file mother could improved her a modification j u v e n i l e c o u r t are intended to the j u v e n i l e c o u r t . (specifying that determine whether reasonable doubt dispositional ... may be when she conducted by the circumstances. D i s p o s i t i o n a l h e a r i n g s s u c h as 1975 petition See a the that hearings, received"). one t o be b a s e d on e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d § 12-15-65(d), court shall evidence the the child ( f ) , ( h ) , A l a . Code hear evidence demonstrates i s dependent " a l l relevant Similarly, and and material and beyond a that, in evidence i t i s well settled that, w i t h r e g a r d t o a p a r e n t ' s r i g h t to v i s i t a t i o n w i t h a dependent c h i l d , t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t must c o n s i d e r w h e t h e r t h e 5 requested 2080692 visitation i s i n the best interests of the child. § 1 2 - 1 5 - 7 1 ( a ) ( 4 ) , A l a . Code 1975; K.B. v . C l e b u r n e C o u n t y Dep't o f Human Res., Floyd 897 So. 2d 379, 387-88 v. A l a b a m a Dep't ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 8 ) ; ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 4 ) ; o f Human R e s . , 550 So. 2d 980, 981 a n d Heup v . S t a t e Dep't o f Human R e s . , 522 So. 2d 295, 298-99 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 8 ) . The a l l e g a t i o n s of t h e a t t o r n e y s i n t h i s case, i f supported by evidence, might be sufficient to warrant visitation rights. evidence. a suspension "The u n s w o r n s t a t e m e n t s , 2d 719, 725 the mother's However, t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l c o n t a i n s no factual assertions, arguments o f c o u n s e l a r e n o t e v i d e n c e . " So. of and Ex p a r t e R u s s e l l , 911 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 5 ) . A c c o r d i n g l y , we r e v e r s e t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t a n d remand t h e c a u s e f o r the juvenile c o u r t t o conduct an e v i d e n t i a r y dispositional hearing. REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Pittman, Bryan, a n d Moore, J J . , c o n c u r . Thomas, J . , c o n c u r s i n the r e s u l t , without w r i t i n g . 6
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.
