L.R. v. C.G. and M.G. (Appeal from Morgan Juvenile Court: JU-03-755)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 08/12/2011 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS SPECIAL TERM, 2011 2100215, 2100216, and 2100217 L.R. v. C.G. and M.G. 2100218, 2100219, and 2100220 D.E.R. v. C.G. and M.G. Appeals from Morgan J u v e n i l e Court (JU-03-755, JU-04-410, and JU-08-188) 2100215, 2100216, 2100217, 2100218, 2100219, & 2100220 THOMAS, J u d g e . I n 2006, K.H., Ke.R., a n d Ka.R. ( r e f e r r e d t o c o l l e c t i v e l y as " t h e c h i l d r e n " ) were removed f r o m t h e c u s t o d y o f L.R. ("the m o t h e r " ) b y t h e Morgan C o u n t y D e p a r t m e n t o f Human Resources a f t e r t h e two o l d e r c h i l d r e n were s u b j e c t e d t o s e x u a l a b u s e a t t h e hands of neighbors children. The c h i l d r e n h a d b e e n i n t h e c u s t o d y o f t h e m o t h e r pursuant w i t h whom t h e m o t h e r h a d l e f t t o a divorce judgment; D.E.R. those ("the f a t h e r " ) was i n c a r c e r a t e d a t t h e t i m e t h e c h i l d r e n were removed f r o m t h e mother's custody. The c h i l d r e n were p l a c e d w i t h C.G. ("the m a t e r n a l g r a n d f a t h e r " ) a n d M.G. (sometimes referred to ("the m a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r " ) collectively as "the maternal g r a n d p a r e n t s " ) as p a r t o f a s a f e t y p l a n i n A p r i l 2 0 0 6 ; a t t h a t t i m e , t h e m o t h e r came t o l i v e w i t h t h e m a t e r n a l in grandparents Decatur. The their maternal home grandparents a t some point ordered after t h e mother the maternal d i s c o v e r e d t h e m o t h e r u s i n g d r u g s i n t h e home. to leave grandmother The m a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s were a w a r d e d p e r m a n e n t l e g a l a n d p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d r e n i n June 2008. does n o t appear A l t h o u g h t h a t custody judgment i n the record, the p a r t i e s 2 agree that i t 2100215, 2100216, 2100217, 2100218, 2100219, awarded t h e mother v i s i t a t i o n & 2100220 and o r d e r e d t h e mother t o pay $75 p e r month i n c h i l d s u p p o r t ; i t a p p a r e n t l y any r i g h t s o r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s d i d not address of the f a t h e r . I n June 2010, 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 seeking to terminate father to the grandparents abandoned limited t h e p a r e n t a l r i g h t s o f t h e m o t h e r and t h e children. alleged In t h e i r that the the c h i l d r e n , that visitation petition, mother and the the maternal father had the mother had e x e r c i s e d i n t h e months b e f o r e the f i l i n g only of the p e t i t i o n , t h a t t h e m o t h e r and t h e f a t h e r h a d l e f t t h e c h i l d r e n w i t h o u t n e c e s s a r y c a r e , t h a t t h e m o t h e r and t h e f a t h e r h a d n o t i m p r o v e d t h e i r c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n o r d e r t o be a b l e t o a d e q u a t e l y care f o r the children, incarcerated. After juvenile entered court terminating the p a r e n t a l and a that trial from those on judgments father was September 23, on November presently 2010, 18, the 2010, r i g h t s o f t h e m o t h e r and t h e f a t h e r to each of the three c h i l d r e n . appeal the B o t h t h e m o t h e r and t h e f a t h e r judgments. We have consolidated appeals. "A j u v e n i l e c o u r t i s required to apply a two-pronged t e s t i n determining whether t o terminate 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 ; 3 the 2100215, 2100216, 2100217, 2100218, 2100219, & 2100220 and (2) t h e c o u r t must p r o p e r l y c o n s i d e r a n d r e j e c t a l l viable alternatives to a termination of parental r i g h t s . Ex p a r t e B e a s l e y , 564 So. 2d 950, 954 ( A l a . 1990). " B.M. v. S t a t e , 895 So. 2d 319, 331 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 4 ) . A j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t t e r m i n a t i n g p a r e n t a l r i g h t s must be supported Dep't by c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g evidence. o f Human R e s . , 534 So. 2d 304, 305 1988). " C l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g evidence" Bowman v . S t a t e (Ala. Civ. i s "'[e]vidence App. that, when w e i g h e d a g a i n s t e v i d e n c e i n o p p o s i t i o n , w i l l p r o d u c e i n the mind o f t h e t r i e r essential of fact a firm c o n v i c t i o n as t o each element o f t h e c l a i m and a h i g h p r o b a b i l i t y the c o r r e c t n e s s o f t h e c o n c l u s i o n . ' " 2d 1 7 1 , 179 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2002) 6-11-20(b)(4)). L.M. v . D.D.F., 840 So. ( q u o t i n g A l a . Code 1975, § The j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s factual judgment terminating presented o r e tenus a r e presumed c o r r e c t . of Human R e s . , 669 Furthermore, factual that So. 2d rights 187 f i n d i n g s i n support court i t s judgment, based findings i n a on evidence R.B. v . S t a t e Dep't (Ala. when 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 support parental C i v . App. h a s n o t made those provided 4 that findings those 1995) . specific o f i t s j u d g m e n t , we must made as t o presume necessary to findings are 2100215, 2100216, 2100217, 2100218, 2100219, & 2100220 supported by t h e e v i d e n c e . Human Res., The 919 So. 2d 1197, D.M. v. Walker Dep't o f 1210 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 5 ) . termination of parental rights Code 1975, § 12-15-319. Cnty. i s governed by A l a . That s t a t u t e p r o v i d e s , i n p a r t : "(a) I f t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t f i n d s from c l e a r and convincing evidence, competent, material, and relevant i n nature, that the parents of a c h i l d are 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 unable t o p r o p e r l y care 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 o f t h e p a r e n t s . In d e t e r m i n i n g whether o r not the parents a r e unable o r 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 t h e c h i l d and t o terminate the parental rights, the j u v e n i l e court s h a l l consider the following factors including, but not l i m i t e d t o , t h e f o l l o w i n g : II "(2) Emotional illness, mental illness, or mental deficiency of the parent, or e x c e s s i v e use of 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 needs o f t h e c h i l d . II "(4) C o n v i c t i o n o f a n d for a felony. imprisonment " "(7) T h a t r e a s o n a b l e e f f o r t s 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 o r l i c e n s e d 5 2100215, 2100216, 2100217, 2100218, 2100219, & 2100220 public or p r i v a t e child care agencies l e a d i n g toward the r e h a b i l i t a t i o n of the p a r e n t s have f a i l e d . II "(9) F a i l u r e for the m a t e r i a l pay a r e a s o n a b l e c h i l d , where t h e by t h e p a r e n t s t o p r o v i d e needs o f t h e c h i l d o r t o p o r t i o n of support of the p a r e n t i s a b l e t o do s o . " "(12) L a c k o f e f f o r t b y 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 o f t h e c h i l d i n a c c o r d a n c e with agreements reached, i n c l u d i n g agreements reached w i t h l o c a l departments 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." § 12-15-319(a). The charged mother with pleaded g u i l t y period was manufacturing t o the charge a in 2008, controlled and was o f i n c a r c e r a t i o n , w h i c h was probation. she substance. sentenced suspended, 29, 2009. and she was released to a was She 10-year and 3 y e a r s o f A f t e r her release from i n c a r c e r a t i o n f o r a short t i m e and t h e n b e g a n r e n t i n g 6 on from i n c a r c e r a t i o n , the m o t h e r s a i d , t h e m o t h e r and h e r f i a n c e , C.M., family after The m o t h e r h a d r e m a i n e d i n j a i l w h i l e h e r c r i m i n a l c a s e was p e n d i n g , October incarcerated l i v e d with h i s a m o b i l e home 2100215, 2100216, 2100217, 2100218, 2100219, in Falkville where t h e y have l i v e d s i n c e December m o t h e r , who was 41 a t t h e t i m e o f t r i a l , who was 52 a t t h e t i m e o f t r i a l , & 2100220 2009. The t e s t i f i e d t h a t C.M., i s d i s a b l e d and had c r i m i n a l charges pending against him a t t h a t time. A l t h o u g h the mother was o f C.M.'s n o t aware charges, of the exact she s a i d that character she thought charges r e l a t e d t o drug offenses court C.M.'s criminal a n d n o t e d t h a t he h a d b e e n t o on t h e c h a r g e s a n d was c u r r e n t l y r e q u i r e d t o t a k e screens. his that criminal She a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t C.M. was a g o o d man a n d t h a t grandchildren testified visited t h a t he l o v e d " a l l the time." the children. She The m o t h e r further testified t h a t s h e became e m p l o y e d a t H u d d l e House i n December that drug s h e was s t i l l working there full time 2009 a n d a t the time o f trial. The m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d that she has been i n c o n t a c t the c h i l d r e n r e g u l a r l y s i n c e h e r r e l e a s e testified children not that, since April manage t o v i s i t from p r i s o n , and she 2010, she had spoken every day by t e l e p h o n e . She a d m i t t e d t h a t the c h i l d r e n every with to the she d i d week, b u t she s a i d t h a t s h e d i d v i s i t them a b o u t e v e r y o t h e r week; s h e s a i d t h a t her work schedule and t h e d i s t a n c e 7 between Falkville and 2100215, 2100216, 2100217, 2100218, 2100219, & 2100220 Decatur sometimes children as o f t e n i n t e r f e r e d with as s h e w o u l d her a b i l i t y to v i s i t the like. The m o t h e r that she h a d p a i d 2010 a n d $80 i n M a r c h 2010; h o w e v e r , she a d m i t t e d t h a t she h a d paid no other judgment. custody the maternal grandparents testified child support since $93 i n F e b r u a r y the entry The m o t h e r a d m i t t e d t h a t o f t h e 2008 she was u n a b l e of the c h i l d r e n a t the time t o take of the t r i a l ; t h a t she w o u l d n e e d a few m o n t h s , a n d p e r h a p s she s a i d as many as s i x , b e f o r e she w o u l d be i n a p o s i t i o n t o p r o v i d e f o r t h e c h i l d r e n . The father incarcerated testified that in 2008 he had f o r 19 months on 2 d r u g - m a n u f a c t u r i n g been charges. He s a i d t h a t he h a d b e e n " c l e a n " f o r two a n d a h a l f y e a r s . also said screens that since he h a d t a k e n h i s release and passed from four or five He drug i n c a r c e r a t i o n i n J u l y 2010. The f a t h e r c o n f i r m e d t h a t he w o u l d be r e l e a s e d f r o m "community c o r r e c t i o n s , " a form o f p r o b a t i o n , The in May i n J u l y 2012. f a t h e r s a i d t h a t he h a d b e e n p l a c e d on work 2010, a f t e r opportunity t o make week. said He visitations, which, he telephone that he i n accordance had with 8 release said, he h a d e x e r c i s e d calls to the children continued weekly the maternal the every telephone grandmother's 2100215, 2100216, 2100217, 2100218, 2100219, restrictions, since spoke with Since h i s release that a l l three time. According children during & 2100220 t o t h e f a t h e r , he telephone visitation. f r o m i n c a r c e r a t i o n i n J u l y 2010, s a i d t h e f a t h e r , he h a d v i s i t e d t h e c h i l d r e n t h r e e t i m e s i n t h e home o f the m a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s . I n a d d i t i o n , h o w e v e r , he s a i d t h a t he h a d a t t e n d e d a few f o o t b a l l games a t w h i c h t h e o l d e s t cheered, said some s c h o o l that events, he was p e r m i t t e d v i s i t with child a n d some g y m n a s t i c s e v e n t s ; he by t h e m a t e r n a l the c h i l d r e n a t those grandparents to events. The f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t he h a d been i n j u r e d i n a workrelated accident a n d t h a t he h a d h a d b a c k s u r g e r y t e s t i f i e d that h i s doctors work. He s a i d t h a t he t h o u g h t he was p u r s u i n g He h a d t o l d h i m t h a t he was u n a b l e t o that c o u l d do d e s p i t e h i s w o r k - r e l a t e d trial, i n 2006. a work there was s o m e t h i n g he back i n j u r y ; a t the time of rehabilitation p r o g r a m a t C a l h o u n S t a t e Community C o l l e g e . or r e t r a i n i n g In a d d i t i o n , the f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t he was p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n a p r o g r a m c a l l e d the F a t h e r h o o d Program o r t h e Parenthood Program t o h e l p him l e a r n t o be a b e t t e r The father father. admitted that he h a d n o t p a i d g r a n d p a r e n t s any c h i l d s u p p o r t . 9 the maternal He s a i d t h a t he h a d n o t b e e n 2100215, 2100216, 2100217, 2100218, 2100219, & 2100220 ordered to pay child support in the 2008 judgment. In a d d i t i o n , t h e f a t h e r s a i d , he had n o t b e e n e m p l o y e d s i n c e 2006 and had b e e n i n p r i s o n f o r 19 months. had r e c e i v e d a $10,000 s e t t l e m e n t c o m p e n s a t i o n c l a i m ; he b i l l s t h a t he had to f i n d a place The father said that as a r e s u l t o f h i s w o r k e r s ' s a i d t h a t he had u s e d t h e money t o incurred after his work-related to l i v e . He s t a t e d t h a t he had to the m a t e r n a l grandmother i n the p a s t but him the The c h i l d r e n had father everything earned s u f f i c i e n t w o u l d be t h e c h i l d r e n , e v e n t h o u g h she J.D. has those four years when own large two t h a t she able space t e s t i f i e d t h a t she was custody of her he take to the c h i l d r e n of her t h a t he had was for three divorced, children. told not own incarcerated. l i v e s w i t h the f a t h e r s a i d t h a t she 10 t o J.D., had for for father l i v e d with more c h i l d r e n . According J.D., hour, to provide c h i l d r e n , a t h r e e - b e d r o o m home, i s to provide had t e s t i f i e d t h a t she and t h e t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e home i n w h i c h she her per two had b e e n e n g a g e d f o r f o u r y e a r s and for and o f f e r e d money f o r them b e c a u s e h i s f i a n c e e , i n c o m e , i . e . , $11 whom she must p r o v i d e . accident pay t h e y needed. t e s t i f i e d t h a t he c h i l d r e n home and p r o v i d e he her She and sufficiently J.D., who always had she p a i d a l l t h e 2100215, 2100216, 2100217, 2100218, 2100219, b i l l s w i t h h e r employment e a r n i n g s ; employed d u r i n g The had placed $90 child time. grandmother t e s t i f i e d support i n her care one t h e f a t h e r h a d n e v e r been t h e t i m e she h a d known h i m . maternal paid & 2100220 a t any t i m e other that since neither parent the c h i l d r e n were t h a n when t h e m o t h e r h a d g i v e n The m a t e r n a l grandmother s a i d t h a t her both the m o t h e r and t h e f a t h e r h a d t e l e p h o n e d t h e c h i l d r e n on a w e e k l y b a s i s ; she t e s t i f i e d t h a t she h a d s p e c i f i c a l l y t o l d t h e f a t h e r not to call maternal more than grandmother, once she telephone e i t h e r parent, t h a t she be p e r m i t t e d visited, done so explained only per week. d i d not despite t o do s o . According allow the o l d e s t begun visiting children child's since his t o the maternal with the to request the maternal grandmother, the f a t h e r twice the A l t h o u g h b o t h the p a r e n t s had July 2010 i n c a r c e r a t i o n and t h e m o t h e r ' s v i s i t s were According the to release after from irregular. grandmother, the mother children had her release had from i n c a r c e r a t i o n i n l a t e 2009; h o w e v e r , t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r explained t h a t t h e m o t h e r h a d "no c l o c k t i m i n g " and t h a t she w o u l d p e r i o d i c a l l y c a l l t o s e t up a v i s i t and t h a t , s o m e t i m e s , she w o u l d n o t show up f o r t h e v i s i t 11 she h a d a r r a n g e d . The 2100215, 2100216, mother's visits, anywhere from however, spent the night the 2100217, said 2100218, the maternal 10-15 m i n u t e s week b e f o r e 2100219, & 2100220 grandmother, t o an h o u r . lasted The m o t h e r h a d , a t t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r ' s home t h e t r i a l when t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r h a d had s u r g e r y ; t h e mother had a s s i s t e d t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d f a t h e r with getting the c h i l d r e n ready f o r and t o s c h o o l the next morning. The m a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r s a i d she h a d a l l o w e d t h e m o t h e r to take the children home on one o c c a s i o n . on an o v e r n i g h t v i s i t t o t h e mother's The m a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r s a i d t h a t t h e m o t h e r h a d g i v e n t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r t e l e p h o n e numbers t o r e a c h t h e m o t h e r b u t t h a t , when she h a d t r i e d to contact the m o t h e r t o c h e c k on t h e c h i l d r e n t h a t e v e n i n g , no one a n s w e r e d . The m a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r s a i d t h a t s h e h a d been v e r y c o n c e r n e d about t h e c h i l d r e n ' s well-being a l lnight and t h a t she h a d t r i e d a g a i n t o c o n t a c t t h e m o t h e r i n t h e m o r n i n g , t o no a v a i l . The m a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r s a i d t h a t she d i d n o t know where t h e mother l i v e d . the A c c o r d i n g t o t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r , one o f c h i l d r e n had c o n t a c t e d her t o inform her t h a t they returning home, from visit. that and t h e c h i l d r e n The m o t h e r 12 were returned testified, home however, were safely that the 2100215, 2100216, 2100217, 2100218, 2100219, m a t e r n a l grandmother had h e r address. she h a d been unaware that & 2100220 She a l s o t e s t i f i e d the maternal grandmother that had t e l e p h o n e d t o c h e c k on t h e c h i l d r e n ; s h e s a i d t h a t she a n d t h e c h i l d r e n h a d gone on w a l k s i n t h e woods n e a r h e r home the visit. When q u e s t i o n e d parental a b o u t why s h e w a n t e d r i g h t s o f t h e mother grandmother t e s t i f i e d be a b l e she proved and t h e f a t h e r , to get custody of the c h i l d r e n . knew t h a t she had c u s t o d y t o a court children that and t h a t the the maternal She e x p l a i n e d the children e i t h e r t h e mother he o r s h e c o u l d and c o n v i n c e d t h a t or her custody. t o terminate t h a t s h e d i d n o t want e i t h e r p a r e n t t o remain i n h e r custody u n t i l his during court take to return that would or the father care of the the c h i l d r e n to The m a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r also admitted t h a t t h e 2008 judgment p e r m i t t e d h e r t o e x c l u d e t h e mother and the lives father necessary. planning be a b l e from t h e c h i l d r e n ' s The m a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r i f she t h o u g h t said that i t was s h e was a l s o ahead f o r a t i m e a f t e r w h i c h , she s a i d , she would n o t to provide insurance f o r the c h i l d r e n unless she had a d o p t e d them. The m a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r s a i d t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n had i n a good stability environment and t h a t 13 she wanted t o 2100215, adopt 2100216, 2100217, the c h i l d r e n . 2100218, Furthermore, 2100219, & 2100220 the maternal grandmother e x p l a i n e d , b o t h p a r e n t s h a d been i n v o l v e d i n d r u g s , w h i c h , t h e maternal grandmother said, concerned her because of the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h e p a r e n t s w o u l d resume t h e i r d r u g u s e . She said that she m i g h t be more c o n f i d e n t t h e y each been "clean" for five of t h e i r s o b r i e t y had instead o f o n l y two. years The m a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r s a i d t h a t she w o u l d p o s s i b l y l e t t h e p a r e n t s v i s i t t h e c h i l d r e n a g a i n a t some l a t e r d a t e a f t e r t h e termination The changed of t h e i r parental maternal grandmother and had been rights. admitted t r y i n g t o improve that t h e mother had her circumstances. A c c o r d i n g t o t h e m a t e r n a l grandmother, t h e mother had n o t u s e d drugs s i n c e b e i n g r e l e a s e d from i n c a r c e r a t i o n . The m a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t she was v e r y p r o u d o f t h e m o t h e r . The m a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r s a i d t h a t she knew t h e m o t h e r loved h e r c h i l d r e n ; t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r f u r t h e r s t a t e d t h a t she wanted t h e c h i l d r e n t o l o v e t h e mother. When a s k e d event of death grandmother what p l a n s of both testified she h a d f o r t h e c h i l d r e n i n t h e maternal that grandparents, the maternal she a n d t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d f a t h e r i n t e n d e d t o make a w i l l a n d s e t up a t r u s t f o r t h e c h i l d r e n ' s 14 2100215, 2100216, 2100217, 2100218, 2100219, & 2100220 education. She a l s o s a i d t h a t the no c h i l d r e n o f h i s own, guardian. According make s u r e children's uncle, w o u l d p o s s i b l y be made t h e to the the children received they would stay "on the The evidence right grandparents. A-B student The is taking involved grader, also in an the and that established children and w e l l c a r e d advanced that f o r by t h e A-B a classes, cheerleading student sports. attends education would maternal o l d e s t c h i l d i s i n t h e s e v e n t h g r a d e , i s an s t u d e n t c o u n c i l and child she track." concerning they are a l l w e l l a d j u s t e d an has children's maternal grandmother, that who The magnet in m a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r s a i d t h a t she chess. at her the youngest school is school. fourth child, and involved is loves The who is very she a t h a t she to play m a t e r n a l grandmother t h a t she knew i t w o u l d u p s e t t h e o l d e s t c h i l d i f t h e is first bright; a r t and in middle grade; learning r i g h t s were t e r m i n a t e d The and the is testified parents' and t h e p a r e n t s c o u l d no l o n g e r contact her. The parents described good and positive. children and that The they their visits with the children as mother e x p l a i n e d that she loved the were She said that her her 15 life. 2100215, 2100216, 2100217, 2100218, 2100219, & 2100220 overnight v i s i t w i t h t h e c h i l d r e n had gone w e l l ; she s a i d t h a t they gone on had walks i n the woods n e a r h e r home and had colored pictures. According to the u p s e t when he was father, unable to the two attend younger football a c h i l d r e n were game b e c a u s e t h e y had b e e n l o o k i n g f o r w a r d t o s e e i n g him a t t h a t game. The f a t h e r s a i d t h a t he s p o k e w i t h a l l t h r e e o f h i s c h i l d r e n a b o u t t h e i r s c h o o l w o r k and by telephone. with the site. oldest Further, He t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s when he also child the said that via an he spoke w i t h sometimes online them corresponded social-networking Web f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had made c e r t a i n to s t r e s s to the o l d e s t c h i l d t h a t she w i t h him v i a t h e Internet unless the was not to correspond the m a t e r n a l grandmother expressly approved of contact; the respected t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r and father t h a t he had said that he worked w i t h i n her boundaries w h i l e r e e s t a b l i s h i n g h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h his children. On appeal, the mother first the juvenile f a i l e d to reference 1975, § 1 2 - 1 5 - 3 1 9 ( a ) , and t o r e c i t e t h e f a c t s u n d e r l y i n g i t based specific that court upon w h i c h the argues i t s conclusion 16 s u b p a r t s o f A l a . Code that the children them, were 2100215, 2100216, 2100217, 2100218, 2100219, & 2100220 dependent and warranted. did not that The the says, termination t h e r e was t e r m i n a t i o n i n the present had not of parental rights mother a l s o argues t h a t the e v i d e n c e at support b e c a u s e , she termination proved that termination existed. of her parental was trial rights no e g r e g i o u s s i t u a t i o n r e q u i r i n g c a s e and t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s no less drastic alternatives to T h i s s e c o n d a r g u m e n t i s p r e m i s e d on the f a c t t h a t the m a t e r n a l grandmother t e s t i f i e d t h a t the c h i l d r e n were a l r e a d y i n a s t a b l e p l a c e m e n t i n w h i c h t h e y were t h r i v i n g and on 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 m o t h e r was circumstances; b a s e d upon t h a t e v i d e n c e , that termination the present of her time parental and in the mother r i g h t s i s not the improving present and find s h o u l d be m a i n t a i n e d . this second Accordingly, we See Market Favorite ( A l a . C i v . App. argument pretermit Store We circumstances. d i s p o s i t i v e of Waldrop, at situation, agree w i t h the mother d i s c u s s i o n of her v. maintains warranted E s s e n t i a l l y , t h e m o t h e r ' s argument i s t h a t , i n t h i s t h e s t a t u s quo her 924 her first So. 2d appeals. argument. 719, 723 2005) ( s t a t i n g t h a t t h i s c o u r t w o u l d p r e t e r m i t d i s c u s s i o n of f u r t h e r i s s u e s i n l i g h t of d i s p o s i t i v e nature another i s s u e ) . 17 of 2100215, 2100216, 2100217, 2100218, 2100219, & 2100220 The e v i d e n c e e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t t h e m o t h e r has n o t b e e n a p a r e n t t o t h e c h i l d r e n s i n c e 2006, when t h e y were removed f r o m her custody after neighbors, mother's who use she l e f t apparently of drugs two o f them molested led to a i n the care of her them. Although the 2008 conviction for m a n u f a c t u r i n g a c o n t r o l l e d s u b s t a n c e , f o r w h i c h she h a d s p e n t time i n j a i l awaiting the court's acceptance of her p l e a s e n t e n c i n g , she was f o r t u n a t e enough t o have h a d h e r 1 0 - y e a r s e n t e n c e s u s p e n d e d ; t h e m o t h e r was time of t r i a l , respects. and still on p r o b a t i o n a t t h e and she was c o m p l i a n t w i t h h e r p r o b a t i o n i n a l l She h a d l o c a t e d and m a i n t a i n e d employment and h a d e s t a b l i s h e d what a p p e a r e d t o be a s t a b l e r e s i d e n c e s i n c e h e r r e l e a s e from i n c a r c e r a t i o n . The m o t h e r ' s f a i l u r e t o p a y c h i l d s u p p o r t e v e n a f t e r she became e m p l o y e d i s t r o u b l i n g ; in light of the maternal g r a n d m o t h e r ' s comments however, indicating t h a t she d i d n o t n e e d c h i l d s u p p o r t f r o m t h e p a r e n t s i n o r d e r t o p r o v i d e f o r t h e c h i l d r e n , we c a n n o t see how t h a t f a i l u r e o f the mother, c o n s i d e r e d t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e p o s i t i v e improvements t h e m o t h e r h a d made, i s s u f f i c i e n t t o w a r r a n t a t e r m i n a t i o n o f the mother's p a r e n t a l r i g h t s i n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r 18 situation. 2100215, 2100216, 2100217, 2100218, 2100219, The m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d of t r i a l , she was children to provide well The m o t h e r s i m p l y s h e was n o t a b l e , a t the time a home f o r t h e c h i l d r e n ; s h e s a i d not seeking were that & 2100220 custody and t h a t t h e f o r by t h e m a t e r n a l cared of the c h i l d r e n grandparents. d e s i r e d t h a t she be a l l o w e d t o continue v i s i t w i t h t h e c h i l d r e n and develop h e r r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h as she c o n t i n u e d said, t o improve her circumstances, would take that at least several months. to them which, she The e v i d e n c e a t t r i a l e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t t h e mother l o v e d t h e c h i l d r e n and t h a t the children grandparents continued We loved t h e mother. were not adverse relationship with realize maintaining that the status we In addition, to the maternal t h e mother's having a the c h i l d r e n . have rejected t h e argument that quo w o u l d be a v i a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e i n many c a s e s . "[W]e note that we have previously rejected [maintenance of the status quo as a viable a l t e r n a t i v e ] when g r o u n d s f o r t e r m i n a t i o n e x i s t a n d the s i t u a t i o n i s such t h a t , i n t h e f o r e s e e a b l e f u t u r e , r e u n i f i c a t i o n w i l l n o t be p o s s i b l e . See K.A.P. v . D.P., 11 So. 3d 812, 820 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008) ( r e j e c t i n g m a i n t e n a n c e o f t h e s t a t u s quo when i t a p p e a r e d t h a t p o t e n t i a l r e u n i f i c a t i o n w o u l d be a t l e a s t 10 y e a r s i n t h e f u t u r e a n d commenting t h a t , i n order t o achieve stability and c o n t i n u i t y f o r children, 'appellate courts generally hold that m a i n t a i n i n g an i n d e f i n i t e c u s t o d y a r r a n g e m e n t w i t h 19 2100215, 2100216, 2100217, 2100218, 2100219, & 2100220 a t h i r d party i s not i n the best i n t e r e s t of the c h i l d ' ) ; B.J.C. v . D.E., 874 So. 2d 1109, 1118 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 3 ) , o v e r r u l e d on o t h e r g r o u n d s , F.G. v . S t a t e Dep't o f Human R e s . , 988 So. 2d 555 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2007) ( r e j e c t i n g t h e f a t h e r ' s argument t h a t ' m a i n t a i n i n g t h e s i t u a t i o n t h e c h i l d r e n had been i n f o r t h e s i x years b e f o r e t h e t e r m i n a t i o n h e a r i n g by l e a v i n g them t o be r a i s e d b y f a m i l y members' was 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 when t h e f a t h e r had 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 a n d 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 f u t u r e ) ; A.N.S. v. K.C., 628 So. 2d 734, 735 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1993) ( r e j e c t i n g t h e m a i n t e n a n c e o f t h e s t a t u s quo 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 a n d n o t i n g t h a t t h e f a t h e r was e x p e c t i n g t o be r e l e a s e d f r o m p r i s o n i n s e v e n y e a r s b u t t h a t ' [ t ] h e m a t e r n a l a u n t a n d u n c l e were w i l l i n g t o a d o p t t h e c h i l d r e n t o g i v e them a f e e l i n g o f p e r m a n e n c y and s e c u r i t y ' ) . " L.T. v . W.L., 47 So. 3d 1 2 4 1 , 1249 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 9 ) . a c a s e s u c h a t t h i s one, where t h e c h i l d r e n have b e e n In placed i n t h e p e r m a n e n t c u s t o d y o f a r e l a t i v e , we a r e n o t c o n c e r n e d w i t h "an i n d e f i n i t e c u s t o d y a r r a n g e m e n t w i t h a t h i r d p a r t y " o r a lack of s t a b i l i t y f o r the c h i l d r e n . s t a b l e and l o v i n g p l a c e m e n t . The c h i l d r e n a r e i n a However, t h e e v i d e n c e i s c l e a r t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n a n d t h e m o t h e r have a r e l a t i o n s h i p t h a t b o t h the c h i l d r e n and t h e mother d e s i r e t o p r e s e r v e ; the maternal g r a n d m o t h e r s a i d t h a t t h e o l d e s t c h i l d w o u l d be u p s e t i f she were told mother. that she c o u l d In a d d i t i o n , no l o n g e r see o r speak the maternal 20 grandmother with her herself 2100215, 2100216, 2100217, 2100218, 2100219, & 2100220 t e s t i f i e d t h a t she m i g h t w e l l l e t t h e m o t h e r have with the c h i l d r e n even after termination visitation of t h e mother's p a r e n t a l r i g h t s , i n d i c a t i n g t h a t she, t o o , d e s i r e s t o m a i n t a i n f o r t h e c h i l d r e n some c o n n e c t i o n We a r e e s p e c i a l l y m i n d f u l t o t h e mother. that the root of the maternal grandparents' desire f o r termination i n this case appears t o be t h e d e s i r e t o be a b l e t o a d o p t t h e c h i l d r e n f o r p u r p o s e s o f providing insurance c o v e r a g e t o them i n t h e f u t u r e . we commend t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s for their f o r t h e c h i l d r e n and t h e i r c a r e f u l p l a n n i n g Although obvious love f o r t h e f u t u r e , we c a n n o t a g r e e t h a t t h e p a r e n t a l r i g h t s o f t h e m o t h e r s h o u l d be terminated f o r such a reason. We therefore agree w i t h the m o t h e r t h a t m a i n t a i n i n g t h e 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 to termination p a r t i c u l a r case. of t h e mother's parental rights in this 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 s i n s o f a r as t h e y t e r m i n a t e the parental r i g h t s of the mother. The f a t h e r f i r s t c h a l l e n g e s t h e judgments t e r m i n a t i n g h i s p a r e n t a l r i g h t s by a r g u i n g , s i m i l a r l y t o t h e mother, t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t c o m m i t t e d r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r when i t f a i l e d make "articulable findings of fact 21 necessary to support i t s 2100215, 2100216, 2100217, 2100218, 2100219, & 2100220 judgment[s]." juvenile support The court's a evidence pay concerning child appeal, judgments termination juvenile court to f a t h e r a l s o makes a s e c o n d c h a l l e n g e we of the centered that parental ability on support. -- the evidence r i g h t s because to parent presented financial ability As was the case and with the the W a l d r o p , 924 One when making the rights supported the trial So. 2d a t difficult is whether children. supported the decision the conclusion that a s s i s t a n c e f r o m h i s f i a n c e e , J.D., provide. The disability doctors the not only to the failure mother's had c h i l d r e n of f a t h e r was appeal. to her support own who 22 financially evidence had the not the earns only y e t t o be injury at children f o r whom she a work-related r e n d e r e d him consider terminate father u n e m p l o y e d and had b e n e f i t s b a s e d on t o l d him and the c o n c l u s i o n t h a t without two The the could has c u r r e n t l y manage to have § 12-15-319(a) (9). father h o u r and not whether parents s u p p o r t e d t h e c h i l d r e n s i n c e 2006 and per did 723. of the grounds t h a t the j u v e n i l e c o u r t i s t o parental the f i n d t h e f a t h e r ' s s e c o n d argument d i s p o s i t i v e , we w i l l p r e t e r m i t d i s c u s s i o n o f h i s f i r s t a r g u m e n t on See to $11 must awarded that u n a b l e t o work; h o w e v e r , his he 2100215, 2100216, 2100217, 2100218, 2100219, was s e e k i n g & 2100220 t r a i n i n g f o r a new t r a d e , s t a t i n g t h a t he t h o u g h t he c o u l d work a t some t r a d e despite h i s injury. The f a t h e r may n o t have s u p p o r t e d t h e c h i l d r e n s i n c e 2006; h o w e v e r , t h e record discloses a basis f o r the father's f a i l u r e the c h i l d r e n -- h i s unemployment t o support due t o a d e b i l i t a t i n g work- r e l a t e d i n j u r y and h i s i n c a r c e r a t i o n . In a d d i t i o n , t h e f a i l u r e of t h e f a t h e r t o pay support i s , alone, insufficient termination evidence of i n this particular the father's concerning parental h a s made circumstances. warrant Like the concerning t h e mother, t h e evidence and i s c o n t i n u i n g to rights. father indicated that, after h i s release he case the from i n c a r c e r a t i o n , t o make i m p r o v e m e n t s t o h i s He h a s a s t a b l e r e s i d e n c e with h i s fiancée of f o u r y e a r s , he h a s v i s i t e d w i t h t h e c h i l d r e n b y t e l e p h o n e a n d i n p e r s o n as r e g u l a r l y as p e r m i t t e d a n d i n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e d i r e c t i v e s o f t h e maternal grandmother, t h e c h i l d r e n enjoy h i s visits father and d e s i r e loves relationship maintaining a relationship with h i s children with them. the status and desires Because quo the father, i s an we to have and t h e maintain his concluded that appropriate and v i a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e t o t h e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e r i g h t s o f t h e mother i n 23 2100215, 2100216, 2100217, 2100218, 2100219, the present the c a s e , we f u r t h e r c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e t e r m i n a t i o n o f father's circumstances. parental rights was unwarranted A c c o r d i n g l y , we r e v e r s e j u d g m e n t s i n s o f a r as t h e y the & 2100220 terminated in these the j u v e n i l e court's the p a r e n t a l r i g h t s of father. REVERSED AND Pittman REMANDED. and Moore, J J . , c o n c u r . Thompson, P . 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 Bryan, J . , concurs i n the r e s u l t , w i t h 24 writing. writing. 2100215, 2100216, 2100217, 2100218, 2100219, & 2100220 BRYAN, J u d g e , c o n c u r r i n g I am troubled children, the by i n the the result. mother's mother's f a i l u r e failure to maintain to support contact the with the m a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r d u r i n g t i m e t h a t she e x e r c i s e d overnight visitation that the for the maternal with the children, grandparents have the been extended p e r i o d required to care c h i l d r e n , and t h e c a v a l i e r a t t i t u d e d e m o n s t r a t e d by t h e m o t h e r by h e r f a i l u r e to understand the nature drug-related the time of A l t h o u g h I do criminal the and the e x t e n t charges pending against her termination-of-parental-rights not agree w i t h e v e r y t h i n g i n the main I agree t h a t the maternal grandparents failed the parental terminated rights at t h i s of the m o t h e r and time. 25 the of fiancé at hearing. opinion, to prove father the should that be

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.