C.O. v. S.O., N.O., and Etowah County Department of Human Resources

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 11/18/2011 Notice: This 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 of 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, 2011-2012 2100770 C.O. v. S.O., N.O., and Etowah County Department o f Human Resources Appeal from Etowah J u v e n i l e Court (JU-08-405.01) THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e . On May 16, 2 0 1 1 , t h e Etowah J u v e n i l e C o u r t o r d e r t h a t , among o t h e r t h i n g s , a w a r d e d c u s t o d y c h i l d " ) t o S.O. a n d N.O. ( " t h e m a t e r n a l e n t e r e d an o f A.B. ("the g r a n d p a r e n t s " ) and 2100770 suspended the v i s i t a t i o n C.O. ("the The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e m o t h e r was a f o s t e r child; mother"). rights The m o t h e r t i m e l y o f t h e mother, appealed. when she was a p p r o x i m a t e l y e i g h t y e a r s o l d , s h e was a d o p t e d b y the maternal testified grandparents. that the S.O., mother had the maternal been diagnosed a t t a c h m e n t d i s o r d e r a n d t h a t , as a r e s u l t , behavioral grandfather grandfather, been v i o l e n t . t h a t t h e mother's From t h e t i m e an she h a d e x p e r i e n c e d a n d e m o t i o n a l i s s u e s as a t e e n a g e r . testified with The m a t e r n a l behavior she was 13 y e a r s had o f t e n o l d u n t i l she was 18, t h e m o t h e r l i v e d i n a s e r i e s o f g r o u p a n d t h e r a p e u t i c homes. The m o t h e r a n d t h e c h i l d ' s f a t h e r , K.B. ("the f a t h e r " ) , n e v e r m a r r i e d . The m o t h e r was 19 y e a r s o l d when t h e c h i l d was born. I n September Human R e s o u r c e s seeking 2008, t h e Etowah ("DHR") i n i t i a t e d an a w a r d o f c u s t o d y a dependency of the c h i l d , two months o l d , b e c a u s e o f an i n c i d e n t between t h e mother declared DHR. DHR the c h i l d and the dependent placed the c h i l d County Department proceeding, who was t h e n only of domestic v i o l e n c e father. and awarded The juvenile custody with the maternal 2 of court of her to grandparents. 2100770 Pursuant t o a number o f d e p e n d e n c y has r e m a i n e d i n t h e l e g a l c u s t o d y o f DHR a n d i n t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s ' home s i n c e September On J a n u a r y the return review orders, the c h i l d 2008. 5, 2 0 1 1 , t h e m o t h e r of custody filed seeking N e i t h e r DHR of the c h i l d . a petition nor the maternal grandparents responded t o that p e t i t i o n . However, a t t h e May 9, 2 0 1 1 , h e a r i n g on t h e m o t h e r ' s c u s t o d y p e t i t i o n , t h e maternal grandparents asserted a claim custody of the c h i l d . The m o t h e r juvenile custody the Ala. s e e k i n g an award o f d i d not object court's consideration of the maternal claim, implied a n d we c o n c l u d e consent that of the parties that to the grandparents' c l a i m was t r i e d b y pursuant t o Rule 15(b), R. C i v . P. On May 16, 2 0 1 1 , t h e j u v e n i l e awarding denying custody of the c h i l d t h e mother's r e q u e s t c o u r t e n t e r e d a judgment t o the maternal forvisitation grandparents, "at this time," and t e r m i n a t i n g DHR's c o n t i n u e d p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e a c t i o n . 1 The mother's p e t i t i o n f o r custody arose from t h e dependency p r o c e e d i n g s i n i t i a t e d b y DHR. Although the v i s i t a t i o n i s s u e r a i s e d b y t h e m o t h e r on a p p e a l p r i m a r i l y implicates the rights o f t h e mother and t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s , DHR was a p a r t y b e l o w , was named i n t h e n o t i c e of a p p e a l , a n d h a s f i l e d a b r i e f on a p p e a l . 1 3 2100770 In reaching other i t s judgment, things, that appealed that part with the j u v e n i l e t h e m o t h e r was unfit. court found, The m o t h e r of the judgment suspending her timely visitation the c h i l d . A d e t a i l e d h i s t o r y of the e n t i r e a c t i o n i s not in among the record. indicate that However, court review t h e m o t h e r and t h e f a t h e r orders failed contained from 2009 to v i s i t c h i l d r e g u l a r l y and t h a t t h e i r l i v e s were g e n e r a l l y the unstable. The m o t h e r ' s t e s t i m o n y i n d i c a t e d t h a t d o m e s t i c v i o l e n c e was a continuing i s s u e b e t w e e n t h e m o t h e r and t h e f a t h e r e v e n a f t e r the was child placed with m o t h e r and t h e f a t h e r have the maternal separated grandparents. and r e c o n c i l e d The several times. The m o t h e r h a d a n o t h e r c h i l d , father. and, I n February according 2010, a s o n ("the s o n " ) , the father t o the mother, h e l d over a weekend. 2 At t h a t time, her hostage t h e s o n was w i t h members. The and i n c a r c e r a t e d ; t h e f a t h e r was again record escaped indicates that with the incarceration i n h e r home other t h e f a t h e r was family captured i n p r i s o n at the time T h e r e c o r d does n o t i n d i c a t e t h e c h a r g e s upon w h i c h t h e f a t h e r was i n c a r c e r a t e d o r f o r what l e n g t h o f t i m e he was incarcerated. 2 4 2100770 o f t h e May 9, 2 0 1 1 , h e a r i n g . hearing that she had r e c e n t l y r e c o n c i l e again The with The m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d d u r i n g t h e with record decided not t o attempt the father. also indicates that t h e mother the maternal grandparents, apparently they had sometimes pendency o f t h i s that assisted action. a DHR s o c i a l to her lived briefly i n 2009, a n d t h a t financially during The m a t e r n a l g r a n d f a t h e r worker had asked the maternal the testified grandparents t o s t o p a s s i s t i n g t h e m o t h e r so t h a t t h e m o t h e r c o u l d l e a r n t o r e l y on h e r s e l f a n d p r o v e t h a t s h e c o u l d p r o p e r l y p r o v i d e a n d care f o r the child. D i a n e S t e w a r t , t h e DHR s o c i a l w o r k e r a s s i g n e d since January 2011, t e s t i f i e d that DHR t o t h e case h a d recommended i n S e p t e m b e r 2010 t h a t c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d be t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h e maternal grandparents. accept that a However, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t recommendation a t t h a t time, determination that t h e mother apparently h a d made d i d not b a s e d on progress toward stability. The m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t for the l a s t employment. year The s h e h a s b e e n i n t h e same home and a h a l f testimony and t h a t at 5 the she had m a i n t a i n e d hearing, however, 2100770 established that frequently. The hearing. another the mother mother was had changed unemployed jobs relatively a t the time of the However, she t e s t i f i e d t h a t she h a d l e f t one j o b f o r and that her orientation i n t e r r u p t e d by the A p r i l at 27, 2011, the new tornadoes. j o b had been 3 The m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t , f o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y s i x weeks i n January child and F e b r u a r y 2011, she h a d f r o m Wednesday t h r o u g h testified that Sunday the v i s i t a t i o n s had had v i s i t a t i o n e a c h week. gone well w i t h the The and mother that she b e l i e v e d she was c a p a b l e o f p r o v i d i n g f o r a n d c a r i n g f o r b o t h t h e c h i l d and t h e s o n . That l e v e l of v i s i t a t i o n stopped a M a r c h 2011 c o u r t r e v i e w h e a r i n g . after Stewart t e s t i f i e d that the mother's v i s i t a t i o n had been reduced because of c o n f r o n t a t i o n s b e t w e e n t h e m o t h e r and t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s t h a t o c c u r r e d d u r i n g v i s i t a t i o n exchanges. The the maternal g r a n d p a r e n t s c o n t i n u e d a f t e r t h e M a r c h 2011 h e a r i n g . In early April c o n f r o n t a t i o n s between 2011, N.O., the maternal the mother g r a n d m o t h e r , and We t a k e j u d i c i a l n o t i c e t h a t on A p r i l of tornadoes o c c u r r e d over a g r e a t p o r t i o n t h e d e a t h s o f more t h a n 240 p e o p l e and damage. The m o t h e r l i v e d i n an a r e a tornadoes. 3 6 and the mother 27, 2011, a s e r i e s of Alabama, c a u s i n g extensive property a f f e c t e d by t h o s e 2100770 fought about t h e c l o t h e s or returning during f o rthe c h i l d t h a t e a c h was s e n d i n g t h e mother's v i s i t a t i o n S t e w a r t , who w i t n e s s e d t h a t v i s i t a t i o n she believed lacked with the child. exchange, s t a t e d that t h a t t h e a r g u m e n t was " o v e r d r a w n , " a n d t h a t s h e sympathy f o r a l l t h e p a r t i e s involved. S t e w a r t a l s o w i t n e s s e d the subsequent v i s i t a t i o n exchange, which occurred visitation that, she 16, 2 0 1 1 , a n d s h e c h a r a c t e r i z e d e x c h a n g e as h a v i n g a f t e r t h e mother l e f t gone w e l l . with Stewart the c h i l d testified at that exchange, S t e w a r t and t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d f a t h e r during that 30-minute conversation Stewart had attempted t o v i s i t or f i v e occasions maternal they discussed that t h e m o t h e r a t h e r home on f o u r The m a t e r n a l g r a n d f a t h e r grandparents m o t h e r was s t a y i n g traveled each t e s t i f i e d a n d h a d n o t f o u n d t h e m o t h e r a t home on a n y of those occasions. the that s p o k e 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 f o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y 30 minutes. that on A p r i l and whether t o t h e mother's maternal grandfather were concerned the c h i l d home t o c h e c k testified about that where t h e was s a f e , so t h e y on t h e c h i l d . The t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e m o t h e r was n o t a t home but t h a t t h e y p a s s e d h e r v e h i c l e on t h e r o a d , t u r n e d around, and returned as t h e t o t h e mother's home, 7 arriving there 2100770 mother arrived i n a vehicle mother's b e s t f r i e n d , note were that with grandparents her the son, the and t h e husband o f t h e b e s t f r i e n d . t h e mother a l l e g e d following the c h i l d , and that that the maternal she believed were a t t e m p t i n g t o i n s t i g a t e when the maternal grandparents the maternal a confrontation to p r e v e n t h e r from b e i n g a b l e t o r e g a i n c u s t o d y Regardless, We grandparents of the c h i l d . arrived at the m o t h e r ' s home, i t i s u n d i s p u t e d t h a t t h e m o t h e r a n d t h e b e s t f r i e n d ' s h u s b a n d , C.S., a p p r o a c h e d t h e m a t e r n a l v e h i c l e a n d b e g a n s h o u t i n g a t them. grandparents' The m a t e r n a l g r a n d f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t when C.S. r e a l i z e d t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d f a t h e r was using h i s mobile telephone to record the encounter, attempted t o punch t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d f a t h e r . that C.S. then grabbed the maternal C.S. I t i s undisputed grandfather's mobile t e l e p h o n e and threw i t 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 ' v e h i c l e , b r e a k i n g t h e r e a r - v i e w window on a d o o r o f t h e v e h i c l e . then fled telephone. later t h e scene with the maternal The m a t e r n a l retrieved grandfather's C.S. mobile g r a n d f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t when he the telephone c o n f r o n t a t i o n had been e r a s e d . 8 the video recording of the 2100770 The p o l i c e were c a l l e d t o t h e s c e n e , a r r i v e d as w e l l . conflict Stewart t e s t i f i e d that, given and h e r c o n c e r n s s a f e i f C.S. r e t u r n e d the visitation grandparents. and S t e w a r t about whether the l e v e l of the c h i l d would and return the child to the maternal S t e w a r t t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e m o t h e r was u p s e t a t and t h r e w up h e r a r m s . that t h e mother not also felt was Stewart t e s t i f i e d that understandably upset she b e l i e v e d because of the o f t h e v i s i t a t i o n , a n d S t e w a r t s t a t e d t h a t she h a d t h r e a t e n e d by t h e mother's c o n d u c t . acknowledged conduct before conduct that incident, objected A t t h a t p o i n t , t h e m o t h e r was a r r e s t e d disorderly conduct. termination be t o t h e m o t h e r ' s home, she e l e c t e d t o e n d the t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e v i s i t a t i o n and t h a t t h e mother for later that she was which she h a d n o t w i t n e s s e d arrived described was However, she on t h e scene, i n the p o l i c e admitted into evidence t h e mother's including report some of the at the custody hearing. Stewart t e s t i f i e d t h a t the son appeared f r i g h t e n e d during t h e c o n f r o n t a t i o n . The m o t h e r h a d n o t t a k e n t h e c h i l d inside or asked according her f r i e n d t o do so to Stewart, the c h i l d 9 during watched the incident, the e n t i r e and, incident 2100770 b u t d i d n o t seem c o n c e r n e d a b o u t i t . had that, the c h i l d ' s l a c k of r e a c t i o n to the i n c i d e n t , the given Stewart speculated child w i t n e s s e d a number o f s u c h i n c i d e n t s between the mother and t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s . We n o t e t h a t , f o l l o w i n g t h e m o t h e r ' s a r r e s t f o r d i s o r d e r l y conduct, part with hearing was placed first with his paternal i n s t i t u t e d by DHR. The r e l a t i v e s as son was t h o s e r e l a t i v e s a t t h e t i m e o f t h e May i n this matter. The m o t h e r a c k n o w l e d g e d still 9, 2011, that this was t i m e t h e s o n h a d b e e n removed f r o m h e r c a r e ; second the son of a s a f e t y p l a n living the the the t i m e o c c u r r e d a f t e r t h e F e b r u a r y 2010 i n c i d e n t i n which f a t h e r h e l d her hostage over a weekend. When a s k e d why C.S. was p r e s e n t d u r i n g t h e A p r i l 16, i n c i d e n t , the mother e x p l a i n e d visiting C.S. acknowledged and L.S., t h a t DHR has t h a t she h a d j u s t r e t u r n e d her an 2011, best friend. The from mother open i n v e s t i g a t i o n on L.S. and h e r f a m i l y , b u t t h e m o t h e r s t a t e d t h a t she u n d e r s t o o d t h a t t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n was is not that the the t o end s o o n . father father The m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t o f L . S . ' s c h i l d r e n , and of v i o l e n c e a g a i n s t L.S. L.S.'s The children had she C.S. acknowledged committed domestic f a t h e r o f L.S.'s c h i l d r e n had been 10 2100770 questioned occurred about the death o f L.S.'s a p p r o x i m a t e l y t w o months matter; according infant before the hearing The m o t h e r a l s o s t a t e d t h a t exposed t o the father the c h i l d testified weeks b e f o r e would son that the hearing However, often explained stayed she h a d n e v e r children. The C.S. a p p r o x i m a t e l y five he d i d d u r i n g the A p r i l t h e mother acknowledged t h a t overnight 16, 2 0 1 1 , she and t h e a t t h e home o f L . S . a n d C.S.; s h e t h a t when s h e d i d s o , s h e a n d t h e s o n s l e p t o n a b e d the night before i n this a n d t h a t s h e d i d n o t know t h a t C.S. i n t h e same room as C.S. a n d L . S . spent o f L.S.'s L.S. m a r r i e d a c t i n t h e manner incident. which t o t h e mother, however, t h a t d e a t h had been ruled accidental. mother child, The m o t h e r a n d t h e s o n h a d i n t h e home o f L . S . a n d C.S. o n t h e n i g h t the incident that resulted i n t h e mother's being a r r e s t e d f o r d i s o r d e r l y conduct. The maternal grandfather testified that the mother's c o n d u c t d u r i n g t h e A p r i l 16, 2 0 1 1 , i n c i d e n t was s i m i l a r t o t h e c o n d u c t s h e h a d e x h i b i t e d when s h e was a t e e n a g e r . that he d i d not b e l i e v e significant testified improvement that that since t h e mother her s h e does n o t b e l i e v e 11 He s t a t e d h a d made adolescence. that t h e mother any Stewart and t h e 2100770 maternal grandparents without c o n f l i c t . court can meet for visitation exchanges S t e w a r t recommended t h a t , i f the j u v e n i l e d e c i d e d t o award c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d t o the maternal grandparents, t h e r e s h o u l d be no f u r t h e r c o n t a c t b e t w e e n t h e m o t h e r and t h e c h i l d . I n i t s May 16, 2011, j u d g m e n t , t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t f o u n d : "The c h i l d was removed f r o m t h e m o t h e r i n S e p t e m b e r 2008 and p l a c e d i n t h e l e g a l c u s t o d y o f DHR. The c h i l d has b e e n l i v i n g w i t h t h e m a t e r n a l grandparents s i n c e t h a t time w h i l e e f f o r t s t o r e u n i f y t h e m o t h e r w i t h t h e c h i l d have b e e n o n g o i n g . The m a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s and [ D H R ] have continually t r i e d t o work w i t h t h e m o t h e r and o f f e r s u p p o r t f o r her. However, t h e m o t h e r ' s s i t u a t i o n seems t o have d e t e r i o r a t e d o v e r t h e l a s t two and a h a l f y e a r s and e f f o r t s a t r e u n i f i c a t i o n have f a i l e d . "The m o t h e r c o n t i n u e s t o d e m o n s t r a t e flagrant and c o n s i s t e n t e m o t i o n a l d i s t u r b a n c e s i n t h e p r e s e n c e o f h e r c h i l d r e n and a p p a r e n t l y l a c k s e i t h e r t h e i n s i g h t t o r e c o g n i z e the n e g a t i v e impact her b e h a v i o r has on h e r c h i l d r e n o r t h e a b i l i t y t o c o n t r o l h e r actions. The m o t h e r h a s a l s o a s s o c i a t e d h e r s e l f and her c h i l d r e n w i t h persons of q u e s t i o n a b l e c h a r a c t e r who a l s o have o n g o i n g i s s u e s w i t h DHR and l a w enforcement. R e c e n t l y , t h e m o t h e r was a r r e s t e d f o r d i s o r d e r l y c o n d u c t as a r e s u l t o f h e r b e h a v i o r , and h e r o t h e r m i n o r c h i l d , a s o n , has b e e n removed f r o m her c a r e f o r a second time and p l a c e d w i t h r e l a t i v e s p u r s u a n t t o a s a f e t y p l a n i n s t i t u t e d b y DHR. The m o t h e r has f a i l e d t o d e m o n s t r a t e s t a b i l i t y i n h e r own l i f e and r e s p o n s i b l e d e c i s i o n m a k i n g , and t h e C o u r t does n o t f e e l t h a t she c a n a d e q u a t e l y p r o v i d e f o r h e r own c h i l d r e n a t t h i s t i m e . 12 2100770 "The C o u r t i s c l e a r l y c o n v i n c e d t h a t t h e m o t h e r i s n o t a f i t and s u i t a b l e c u s t o d i a n f o r t h e minor child. The c h i l d h a s now l i v e d w i t h t h e m a t e r n a l grandparents p r i m a r i l y throughout her e n t i r e l i f e . They have p r o v i d e d f o r h e r p h y s i c a l , e m o t i o n a l , a n d f i n a n c i a l n e e d s . The c h i l d h a s b o n d e d w i t h t h e m , a n d the Court f i n d s i t i s i n t h e best i n t e r e s t s o f the c h i l d 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 be a w a r d e d h e r l e g a l c u s t o d y . The C o u r t i s f u r t h e r c o n v i n c e d t h a t any 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 m i n o r c h i l d a t t h i s t i m e w o u l d be d e t r i m e n t a l t o t h e m i n o r c h i l d . " On a p p e a l , t h e m o t h e r does n o t c h a l l e n g e t h e award o f custody t o the maternal grandparents. that the j u v e n i l e with the c h i l d . suspension The m o t h e r a r g u e s c o u r t e r r e d by suspending The m o t h e r a r g u e s of her v i s i t a t i o n only her v i s i t a t i o n that the juvenile court's rights i n this case was t o o restrictive. The d e t e r m i n a t i o n w h e t h e r t o g r a n t v i s i t a t i o n i s a m a t t e r w i t h i n t h e d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t , and t h e j u v e n i l e court's p r i n c i p l e best 1975; 76 objective i n determining v i s i t a t i o n of the c h i l d . § 12-15-314(a)(4), A l a . Code Y.N. v. J e f f e r s o n C n t y . Dep't o f Human Res., 67 So. 3d interests ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 1 ) ; (Ala. C i v . App. 2 0 1 0 ) ; Human Res., P r a t t v. P r a t t , 56 So. 3d 638, 641 a n d Minchew v . M o b i l e C n t y . Dep't o f 504 So. 2d 310, 311 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 7 ) . c o u r t has e x p l a i n e d : 13 i s the This 2100770 "[T]he g u i d i n g p r i n c i p l e i n determining visitation w i t h a d e p e n d e n t c h i l d , o r w i t h a c h i l d who i s t h e s u b j e c t of a v i s i t a t i o n d i s p u t e between p a r e n t s , i s the c h i l d ' s best i n t e r e s t s . Alabama s t a t u t o r y law and c a s e l a w p r e c e d e n t e s t a b l i s h t h a t a j u v e n i l e c o u r t may s u s p e n d a p a r e n t ' s r i g h t s o f v i s i t a t i o n w i t h h i s or her dependent c h i l d i f v i s i t a t i o n w i t h the p a r e n t i s d e m o n s t r a t e d t o be not i n the child's best interests." Y.N. v. J e f f e r s o n C n t y . Dep't o f Human Res., In this case, the evidence supports factual determinations, from e m o t i o n a l the child. The confrontations visitation t h a t she manner e x c h a n g e s , and refuses that the has engaged maternal she expose in i n d i c a t e d d u r i n g her the child friends who have had impact to problems on consistent during testimony grandparents i n a less conflict. j u v e n i l e c o u r t a l s o d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e m o t h e r has with suffered grandparents to d e a l w i t h the maternal would 83. the j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s t h a t have h a d a n e g a t i v e mother with 3d a t i n c l u d i n g t h a t t h e m o t h e r has disturbances 4 67 So. with DHR The associated and law The mother p o i n t s out i n her b r i e f s u b m i t t e d t o t h i s c o u r t t h a t the c h i l d "appeared unconcerned" d u r i n g the A p r i l 2011 c o n f r o n t a t i o n t h a t r e s u l t e d i n the mother's being a r r e s t e d f o r d i s o r d e r l y conduct. S t e w a r t t e s t i f i e d t h a t she b e l i e v e d t h a t t h e c h i l d was somewhat a c c u s t o m e d t o c o n f l i c t b e t w e e n t h e m o t h e r and the maternal grandparents. The j u v e n i l e c o u r t c o u l d have p r o p e r l y c o n c l u d e d t h a t i t was n o t i n the c h i l d ' s best i n t e r e s t s to witness such c o n f l i c t s or to be a c c u s t o m e d t o them. 4 14 2100770 e n f o r c e m e n t , and t h e m o t h e r ' s t e s t i m o n y exposed the child record consistently visited in the visitations continued the early from indicates that that mother has for a significant period, and of 2011, through visitation during the indicates that child Wednesdays was between the visitation indication in visitations d i d n o t go the also part confrontations grandparents has to those f r i e n d s . However, t h e that, i n d i c a t e s t h a t she record she the enjoyed Sundays. The decreased because m o t h e r and after the record the exchanges. that, extended of maternal There is exchanges, w e l l o r t h a t t h e y were d e t r i m e n t a l no the to child. We recognize conduct has the d i f f i c u l t p o s i t i o n i n which the mother's placed the juvenile j u v e n i l e court for i t s mother's emotional However, the court, and we e f f o r t s to p r o t e c t the outbursts juvenile and inappropriate court's discretion commend child from the the acquaintances. in awarding v i s i t a t i o n " s h o u l d be e x e r c i s e d w i t h a v i e w t o w a r d s t h e p o l i c y of preserving relationships whenever p o s s i b l e . " (Ala. Civ. App. 2008) between M.R.D. v. T.D., (concluding 15 parents 989 that, So. given and 2d children 1111, the facts 1118 of 2100770 that case, the restrictive"). not use an suspension This of c o u r t has visitation h e l d t h a t "the overbroad [ v i s i t a t i o n ] at 641. determining best As always, a noncustodial i n t e r e s t s of the the c h i l d ; our reiterated that privileges for a noncustodial interests and appropriate, as that protect "[a] t r i a l of in this case, this So. consideration in visitation rights is supreme c o u r t has the recently in establishing visitation the minor set parte child conditions the and, on Thompson, 51 c a s e , we conclude t h a t the best where visitation So. 3d j u v e n i l e court suspending the mother's v i s i t a t i o n e n t i r e l y . c o u r t has for Ex 56 265, ( A l a . 2010). In in child." may t h a t does more p a r e n t must c o n s i d e r welfare the 272 court court P r a t t v. P r a t t , primary parent's "overly trial restriction than n e c e s s a r y to p r o t e c t the c h i l d . " 3d was 5 The j u v e n i l e a v a i l a b l e t o i t a number o f l e s s r e s t r i c t i v e fashioning a visitation award that could erred options adequately We f u r t h e r note t h a t the j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g of u n f i t n e s s , w h i c h t h e m o t h e r d i d n o t c h a l l e n g e on a p p e a l , does n o t p r e c l u d e an a w a r d o f v i s i t a t i o n t o t h e m o t h e r . See, e.g., A.M.B. v. R.B.B., 40 So. 3d 468 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2007) ( a f f i r m i n g a c u s t o d y j u d g m e n t b a s e d on a f i n d i n g o f u n f i t n e s s , but r e v e r s i n g t h a t p a r t of the judgment t h a t f a i l e d to s e t f o r t h a s p e c i f i c schedule of v i s i t a t i o n f o r the mother). 5 16 2100770 p r o t e c t the c h i l d w h i l e p r o m o t i n g the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the m o t h e r and t h e c h i l d . explored before suspended. the as the c h i l d , and we award mother the restrictions 303 child."); i t deems the Bryan, See 1994) the and child juvenile under such protect C a r r v. B r o y l e s , 652 ("[T]he p r i m a r y rights accorded interests and So. was court's with court to circumstances to not the 2d and best 299, consideration in a noncustodial welfare of the supra. REMANDED. Thomas, J J . , c o n c u r . J . , concurs Moore, J . , c o n c u r s i n the r e s u l t , the cause f o r the j u v e n i l e best Ex p a r t e Thompson, Pittman with the appropriate visitation always REVERSED AND reverse visitation of the c h i l d . is we remand t h i s as establishing visitation i t suspends the mother's v i s i t a t i o n ( A l a . C i v . App. parent mother's Accordingly, judgment i n s o f a r interests Those l e s s r e s t r i c t i v e o p t i o n s were with specially. i n the writing. 17 rationale i n p a r t and concurs 2100770 BRYAN, J u d g e , c o n c u r r i n g specially. I a g r e e w i t h t h e m a i n o p i n i o n i n s o f a r as i t c o n c l u d e s the juvenile visitation the court's judgment r i g h t s does n o t s t r i k e a b a l a n c e r e l a t i o n s h i p between the adequately visitation w i t h t h e m o t h e r . ___ mother p r o t e c t i n g the c h i l d conclusion should visitation award s i m i l a r enjoyed before suspending her not the be a s u c c e s s f u l method of the of v i s i t a t i o n animosity rights. cases, my child However, rights that of the a judgment c e r t a i n cases, this s u p e r v i s e d v i s i t a t i o n c a n be a r e l a t i o n s h i p between with h i s or her parent. the of t h e mother s u b j e c t i n g the c h i l d to the between and aspects approval entered In of m a i n t a i n i n g and a c h i l d w i t h o u t aspects So. 3d a t ___ . court mother's the from the harmful to the v i s i t a t i o n visitation the between p r o m o t i n g and i n t e r p r e t e d as juvenile p e r h a p s b e i n g one o f t h o s e parent suspending that mother 6 and a harmful A l s o , because the maternal I r e c o g n i z e t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t o r d e r e d t h e Etowah 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 ("DHR") t o c l o s e i t s c a s e i n t h i s m a t t e r , b u t , on remand, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t c o u l d c o n s i d e r o r d e r i n g DHR t o r e m a i n i n v o l v e d i n t h e c a s e f o r p u r p o s e s o f a d m i n i s t e r i n g s u p e r v i s e d v i s i t a t i o n . The j u v e n i l e court could also consider whether the c h i l d ' s paternal r e l a t i v e s or a counselor could serve as an appropriate v i s i t a t i o n supervisor. 6 18 2100770 grandparents, visitation the j u v e n i l e court could consider o r d e r i n g exchanges occur at station. 19 a law-enforcement office that or 2100770 MOORE, Judge, concurring in the rationale i n part and concurring i n the r e s u l t . A l t h o u g h I agree t h a t t h e main o p i n i o n reaches t h e c o r r e c t result, I do disagree with juvenile not concur t h e main court entirely opinion with that i t s reasoning. Alabama t o "'suspend a parent's rights I law allows a of v i s i t a t i o n w i t h h i s o r h e r dependent c h i l d i f v i s i t a t i o n w i t h t h e p a r e n t is demonstrated So. interests.'" Dep't o f Human R e s . , 67 So. 3d 76, 83 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 1 ) ) . Rather, I explained So. (quoting best Y.N. v. J e f f e r s o n C n t y . as 3d a t t o be n o t i n t h e c h i l d ' s thoroughly i n my special writing i n Y.N., 3d a t 84-88 (Moore, J . , c o n c u r r i n g i n t h e r e s u l t ) , A l a b a m a law a l l o w s a j u v e n i l e c o u r t t o suspend a n o n c u s t o d i a l right to visit reasonably with h i s or her interests parent's child only Obviously, parent's when c e r t a i n t h a t no l e s s d r a s t i c a c t i o n w i l l p r o t e c t t h e c h i l d f r o m p a r e n t a l harm. best 67 i tis adequately i t i s i n the of a c h i l d t o suspend h i s or her n o n c u s t o d i a l v i s i t a t i o n rights harm o n l y b y c o m p l e t e l y , when t h e c h i l d w i l l be s a f e from even i f o n l y t e m p o r a r i l y , e n d i n g h i s or her contact w i t h t h a t parent; 20 t h e Y.N. s t a n d a r d , however, 2100770 erroneously allows less compelling juvenile courts to suspend v i s i t a t i o n main o p i n i o n correctly situations. Ultimately, I b e l i e v e the the Y.N. standard use an o v e r b r o a d [ v i s i t a t i o n ] r e s t r i c t i o n by holding that necessary to p r o t e c t the c h i l d . ' " Pratt Pratt, That v. language visitation that a safeguard 56 So. restriction when the 3d implicitly juvenile visitation in 641 recognizes exceeds more child. ___ 21 c o u r t may 3d a t ___ (quoting ( A l a . C i v . App. that tailored not t h a t does more t h a n the purpose 2010)). of any f r o m harm child i t s discretion narrowly Therefore, trial So. i s to p r o t e c t the court a 638, "'the limits and in suspending restriction I concur i n the would 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.