B.B.T. v. Houston County Department of Human Resources

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 11/10/2011 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 OCTOBER TERM, 2011-2012 2100795 B.B.T. v. Houston County Department o f Human Resources Appeal from Houston J u v e n i l e Court (JU-03-137.07) MOORE, Judge. B.B.T. ("the f a t h e r " ) Houston J u v e n i l e Court parental judgment. rights appeals from a ("the j u v e n i l e c o u r t " ) t o K.T. ("the c h i l d " ) . judgment ofthe terminating h i s We affirm the 2100795 Facts The father and Procedural has p r e v i o u s l y been B.B.T. v . H o u s t o n C n t y . Dep't (Ala. I n B.B.T., C i v . App. 2007) . background of this History before this court. See o f Human R e s . , 985 S o . 2 d 4 7 9 c a s e up t o t h a t this court point set forth the as f o l l o w s : "A.H. ( ' t h e [ c h i l d ' s b i r t h ] m o t h e r ' ) g a v e b i r t h t o t h e c h i l d o n F e b r u a r y 2 0 , 2 0 0 2 . T h e f a t h e r , who was l i v i n g w i t h , b u t n o t m a r r i e d t o , t h e [ c h i l d ' s birth] mother a t the time, signed the birth c e r t i f i c a t e a s t h e f a t h e r . The c o u p l e s u b s e q u e n t l y ended t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p ;t h e [ c h i l d ' s b i r t h ] mother r e t a i n e 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 . On J u n e 3 , 2003, t h e Houston County Department of Human Resources ('DHR') o b t a i n e d custody of the c h i l d , a l o n g w i t h t h r e e o f t h e c h i l d ' s h a l f s i b l i n g s . On O c t o b e r 2 1 , 2 0 0 5 , DHR f i l e d a p e t i t i o n t o t e r m i n a t e the [ c h i l d ' s b i r t h ] mother's p a r e n t a l r i g h t s t o t h e c h i l d and t o terminate t h e p a r e n t a l r i g h t s o f , as DHR p u t i t , t h e 'unknown f a t h e r ' o f t h e c h i l d . On April 25, 2006, DHR obtained DNA test results i n d i c a t i n g t h a t B.B.T. w a s t h e b i o l o g i c a l f a t h e r o f t h e c h i l d . The f a t h e r f i l e d a p e t i t i o n t o o b t a i n c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d on A u g u s t 3, 2006. A f t e r f o u r o r e t e n u s h e a r i n g s o c c u r r i n g on November 2 1 , 2006, D e c e m b e r 1 8 , 2 0 0 6 , F e b r u a r y 1, 2 0 0 7 , a n d M a r c h 1 3 , 2007, the juvenile court entered a judgment t e r m i n a t i n g t h e [ c h i l d ' s b i r t h ] mother's and t h e f a t h e r ' s p a r e n t a l r i g h t s t o t h e c h i l d . The f a t h e r appeal[ed], a s s e r t i n g that the evidence presented t o t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t was i n s u f f i c i e n t t o s u p p o r t t h e termination of h i sparental rights." 985 held S o . 2 d a t 480 ( f o o t n o t e that the record omitted). d i d not contain On a p p e a l , clear and this convincing e v i d e n c e o f t h e s o l e g r o u n d r e l i e d upon by t h e j u v e n i l e 2 court court 2100795 in terminating 483. the father's parental Therefore, judgment of parental on November 3 0 , 2007, t h i s the rights. After juvenile a period Department toward family child custody care, DHR f i l e d court appeal since. apparently placed t h e same m a r r i e d of the c h i l d parental rights. on through a i n foster couple The 4, and filed i n September 2010. the father's parental May rights thej u v e n i l e 2011, t e r m i n a t i n g father of regained S.G., t h e f a t h e r ' s e m p l o y e r , custody judgment custody DHR l a t e r was t h e n efforts filed h i s notice the of on May 1 7 , 2 0 1 1 . In court's parental Res., 1 1 The c h i l d made on O c t o b e r 1 4 , 2 0 1 0 . A f t e r a t r i a l , a father's and t h e Houston regained 3, 2 0 0 8 ; h o w e v e r , a p e t i t i o n to terminate entered father's the father she has r e s i d e d w i t h to obtain the c h i l d the ("DHR") on A u g u s t 6, 2 0 0 9 , proceeding. a petition the father Resources reunification, of the c h i l d where court reversed the terminating which o f Human t h e i r c h i l d r e n ever to during on S e p t e m b e r dependency court 985 S o . 2 d a t Id. 1 County the rights. a separate appeal, t h i s court affirmed the j u v e n i l e judgment terminating the child's birth mother's rights. S e e A.D.B.H. v . H o u s t o n C n t y . D e p ' t o f Human S o . 3 d 53 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 2 0 0 8 ) . 3 2100795 Issues On appeal, the father terminating his parental DHR present did not f o r the reunite the all (2) father with viable r i g h t s should clear termination, argues and DHR the be d i d not use and the reversed convincing child, a l t e r n a t i v e s to that judgment because evidence of (1) grounds reasonable e f f o r t s to (3) DHR d i d not explore termination. Analysis Section pertinent 12-15-319(a), Ala. Code 1975, provides, in part: "If the juvenile court finds from clear and convincing evidence, competent, material, and r e l e v a n t i n nature, t h a t the p a r e n t s 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 , or t h a t the c o n d u c t or c o n d i t i o n of the p a r e n t s r e n d e r s them u n a b l e t o 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 t h e conduct or c o n d i t i o n i s u n l i k e l y t o change i n the foreseeable f u t u r e , i t may terminate the parental r i g h t s of the parents." Pursuant to terminate that statute, parental shows t h a t a parent rights a juvenile i f clear i s unable or health care, education, 4 has grounds convincing the c h i l d food, nurturing, and to evidence u n w i l l i n g t o meet the parental r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s to provide shelter, and court basic clothing, protection. 2100795 Section court or 12-15-319 l i s t s must c o n s i d e r unwilling a v a r i e t y of i n determining to responsibilities. father his or been record contains abandoned has terminated. the no points see child, maltreated the has been the f a t h e r has § father evidence a mental i l l n e s s problems, The see § out that is parental many o f correct that 12-15-319(a)(1); see of a § the 12-15-319(a)(3); felony, c o m m i t t e d any that see § the that that while care, that father's parental failed the rights see to other § 12-15-319(a) (8); t h a t to provide 12-15-319(a)(9); father's f o r the or that material the § 12-15-319(a)(10) & (11). 5 father has that § 12- unexplained 12-15-319(a) (6); the f a t h e r has the failed child, to r e g u l a r v i s i t s or c o n s i s t e n t communication w i t h the § ever c h i l d r e n have been needs of father drug has c h i l d r e n , see injuries see father the e v e r r e c e i v e d any extinguished, father the father 15-319(a) ( 5 ) ; t h a t t h e c h i l d has the the 12-15-319(a)(4); crime against not because or mental d e f i c i e n c y , or a l c o h o l or child, in those rights should indicating 12-15-319(a) (2); convicted juvenile her statutory factors indicate that his parental have a whether a parent i s unable discharge The factors ever see § maintain child, see 2100795 Nevertheless, after the September wife 10:00 to C.M. 6, that left required p.m. and the father mother, whose of her at the time s i n c e become i n v o l v e d w i t h as a r e s u l t children. DHR child who p.m. t o 9:00 T.P., the the a woman who o f one according child child after to the had child. been DHR 2 The father has s e r v e d that, i n order to she has prison o f h e r c h i l d r e n and c u s t o d y o v e r any o f h e r father or w o r k e r , on rights of the t r i a l . to exercise advised to the the parental was h i s 6 d a y s a week foster-care returned on f a t h e r worked a 4:00 of that, i n a f o s t e r - c a r e home, w h e r e of the death has not been a l l o w e d from danger was time The him t o work a DHR had the c h i l d residing on C.M., custody immediately placed still the t h e f a t h e r i n March 2009, and, regained because of f o r the c h i l d . DHR that birth 1:00 indicating custody of Judy C l a r k , 2009, discovering terminated to care schedule the testimony child's regained a.m. 10:00 p.m. August evidence 3, 2 0 0 8 , he d e p e n d e d p r i m a r i l y at the time, from presented had father split-shift to DHR who other regain T h e f a t h e r d e n i e d t h a t he t o o k t h e c h i l d t o l i v e w i t h t h e c h i l d ' s b i r t h mother, but i t appears from the p a r t i e s ' b r i e f s to t h i s court that DHR relied s o l e l y on t h a t g r o u n d i n o b t a i n i n g a dependency judgment. T h a t judgment has n o t been a p p e a l e d , s o we c o n s i d e r t h a t f a c t u a l i s s u e t o have been resolved adversely to the father. 2 6 2100795 custody with of the c h i l d , T.P. Although he w o u l d have the father t o end h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p testified at t r i a l that he w o u l d e n d t h a t r e l a t i o n s h i p , t h e f a t h e r a d m i t t e d t h a t T.P. h a d lived end with him f o r a long period a f t e r DHR h a d a d v i s e d the r e l a t i o n s h i p . Based could on that have been danger evidence, clearly See § the juvenile convinced of maltreatment father. that i f returned 12-15-319(a)(3). reasonably could had failed to meet t h e needs reunification point, have been the of clearly See § totality of the convinced the juvenile court T.P. h a d done not and c o u l d all times. anything finding that not assure that The e v i d e n c e the father responsibility basic wrong parental to adjust with More have DHR's to the clearly was u n a b l e imprisonment, that would w o u l d be p r o t e c t e d supports the juvenile or u n w i l l i n g to the c h i l d 7 the father t h e f a t h e r , who d e n i e d the c h i l d responsibilities also h i s circumstances could to warrant to protect of the court that i n accordance evidence thus w o u l d be i n juvenile 12-15-319(a)(12). that reasonably to the custody convinced the c h i l d plan. court the c h i l d The t o make a n y r e a l e f f o r t his him t o -- at court's discharge one o f t h e most owed t o t h e c h i l d . 2100795 The father services maintains to assist considering whether rights, a juvenile efforts by public rehabilitation 319(a)(7). and grounds court exist shall with to consider of Human care agencies the parents have record indicates 2008, efforts during the period initially succeeded t h e home at f i r s t , of the DHR reasonable or licensed toward § fact, i n 2007 the reversal the the 12-15- did, i n rights. f o rthe c h i l d however, In parental to the father h i s parental allowing father; "[t]hat failed." following terminating terminate leading that him any the child. Resources family-reunification services judgment to d i d not provide child of The DHR i n reuniting t h e Department or p r i v a t e provide him that of the Those to return juvenile court r e a s o n a b l y c o u l d have been c l e a r l y c o n v i n c e d from t h e e v i d e n c e that, a f t e r C.M. independently left care the family f o r the c h i l d home, t h e f a t h e r and t h a t r e t u r n the c h i l d t o the c h i l d ' s b i r t h mother. presence of T.P. reunification, with T.P. any s e r v i c e presented but the father As C l a r k that the primary refused testified, he could not attempted to Thereafter, the barrier to family t o end h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p DHR c o u l d not o f f e r the father would have l e d t o h i s r e u n i f i c a t i o n w i t h t h e 8 2100795 child so l o n g a s he m a i n t a i n e d "Although aimed generally, the that appear individual reunification DHR unadvisable case or that of the family." father consider employer. last placing argues the child See Ex p a r t e (requiring j u v e n i l e court before terminating would reunification avoid lead to Cnty. the j u v e n i l e court i n the custody of 564 S o . 2 d 950 rights). i s not reasonably that not the Dep't d i d not S.G., h i s ( A l a . 1990) a l l viable alternatives O r d i n a r i l y , when foreseeable, a parent family cannot h i s o r h e r p a r e n t a l r i g h t s on t h e some f i t p e r s o n e x i s t s who h a s v o l u n t e e r e d assume c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d . of ( A l a . C i v . App. 2010). to consider a judgment t e r m i n a t i n g sole basis that to offer the circumstances K.C. v . J e f f e r s o n Beasley, parental services that are i s not required under Human R e s . , 54 S o . 3 d 4 0 7 , 414 The hazardous r e l a t i o n s h i p . DHR i s t o p r o v i d e at reuniting the family, services of that A.E.T. v . L i m e s t o n e C n t y . o f Human R e s . , 49 S o . 3 d 1 2 1 2 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 2 0 1 0 ) . Dep't However, "if, notwithstanding the unfitness of a parent, t h e r e remains a s i g n i f i c a n t e m o t i o n a l bond between a child a n d an u n f i t parent, and i t has been demonstrated that some alternative-placement resource would allow the c h i l d t o v i s i t p e r i o d i c a l l y w i t h t h e u n f i t p a r e n t so as t o r e a p t h e b e n e f i t o f partially preserving that relationship without i n c u r r i n g t h e harm o f t h e c h i l d b e i n g r a i s e d on a 9 to 2100795 d a y - t o - d a y b a s i s by an u n f i t p a r e n t , t h e c o u r t w o u l d be required t o weigh t h e advantage of that arrangement against t h e advantage o f t e r m i n a t i o n and placement f o r a d o p t i o n w i t h permanent f i t p a r e n t s , and t o d e c i d e w h i c h o f t h e s e a l t e r n a t i v e s w o u l d be in the c h i l d ' s best i n t e r e s t . " D.M.P. v . S t a t e (Ala. this Dep't o f Human R e s . , 8 7 1 S o . 2 d 7 7 , 95 n.17 C i v . A p p . 2003) court 2011] stated So. 3d (plurality opinion). i n T.D.K. v . L.A.W., , (Ala. Civ. Citing D.M.P., [Ms. 2 1 0 0 5 5 1 , A u g . 19, App. 2011): "Our caselaw has recognized that removing t h e child from [an] a b u s i v e parent's custody but allowing that parent r e s t r i c t e d v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s can be a v i a b l e alternative to termination of parental r i g h t s when i t a p p e a r s that a wayward p a r e n t c a n n o t be r e h a b i l i t a t e d b u t s t i l l s h a r e s a deep a n d b e n e f i c i a l e m o t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h h i s o r h e r c h i l d r e n . ... I n s u c h c a s e s , permanently d e p r i v i n g c h i l d r e n of a s s o c i a t i o n with a parent by 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 c o u l d do m o r e h a r m t h a n good t o t h e c h i l d r e n . " In t h i s case, Clark testified emotional attachment t o t h ef a t h e r . testify did two theparties t h ec h i l d has a strong To a v o i d h a v i n g t h e c h i l d s t i p u l a t e d that n o t know t h e n a t u r e o f t h e t e r m i n a t i o n testify that at t r i a l , that that she loves t h ef a t h e r . 10 who proceedings, would The e v i d e n c e f u r t h e r shows t h e f a t h e r has c o n s i s t e n t l y v i s i t e d weeks f o r one h o u r a n d t h a t thechild, with thechild t h ec h i l d enjoys those every visits. 2100795 S.G. that testified she c o n s i d e r e d person. lose she had long association order with f o rcustody to qualify the of the c h i l d of those testified that she had housed students could with still same t i m e , a child. provide significant financial her association protective guidelines of only trial. 3 In B.S. minor She h a d of t r i a l . relatives and c u l t u r a l and S.G. foreign she had never she b e l i e v e d advantages. At the she would a s s u r e t h a t t h e c h i l d with the father, only Cullman subject by t h e j u v e n i l e a few times or s i x hours with v. classes f o rthe c h i l d . that evidence, the j u v e n i l e court five husband taking and began by t h e time established S.G. h a d met t h e c h i l d total and a good a l o v i n g , s p a c i o u s home f o r t h e c h i l d , maintained that and her S.G. t e s t i f i e d t h a t S.G. t e s t i f i e d t h a t Against and i n h e r home, b u t , s h e s a i d , p l a n n e d on a d o p t i n g she classes employee she as f o s t e r p a r e n t s most the father t h e f a t h e r may p e r m a n e n t l y child, completed exchange known h i m t o be a r e l i a b l e When s h e b e c a m e a w a r e t h a t petitioned in that the child County heard t o any court. testimony and had spent a by t h e time o f Department of Human T h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t S.G. a t t e m p t e d t o v i s i t w i t h t h e c h i l d b u t t h a t DHR w o u l d n o t a l l o w a n y v i s i t a t i o n b e c a u s e i t s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s m a i n t a i n e d t h a t S.G. w o u l d h a v e n o c h a n c e to obtain custody of the c h i l d . The f a t h e r does n o t argue i n 3 11 2100795 Resources, court 865 So. c i t e d the little to juvenile child no fact had potential custodian J.B. (Ala. juvenile not an the v. event of juvenile reasonably person presented would pursue a termination court would not to advantages on assume fact and the the custody the to with for 991 the the foster foster have arrangement c h i l d with was child. child in rights. determined a the parents family a So.2d evidence, father's parental could of p l a c i n g the her the whether care of a best evidence i n d i c a t i n g t h a t the b e n e f i t s of such a permanent c u s t o d i a l the that c o u l d h a v e d e t e r m i n e d t h a t S.G. adoption reasonably of receive Based attachment of serve D e p ' t o f Human R e s . , 2008). emotional DHR custodian had t h a t placement of to has that in finding this resource child in deciding is qualified App. 2003), custodial i s a question DHR strong the Cleburne Cnty. appropriate ( A l a . C i v . App. It Additionally, a with erred child. Civ. court 1196 a potential that potential of 273 that not interests child. 1188, relationship court with 2d that and the The the outweighed S.G. h i s b r i e f t o t h i s c o u r t t h a t DHR acted inappropriately i n d e n y i n g S.G. c o n t a c t w i t h t h e c h i l d o r t h a t DHR was required t o f o s t e r a r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n S.G. and t h e c h i l d as p a r t o f its general duty to explore a l l viable alternatives to t e r m i n a t i o n of p a r e n t a l r i g h t s . 12 2100795 For court the foregoing reasons, t h e judgment of the juvenile i s affirmed. AFFIRMED. Thompson, P . J . , and Pittman, concur. 13 Bryan, and Thomas, J J . ,

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.