T.J. v. Calhoun County Department of Human Resources

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 01/11/2013 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a 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, 2012-2013 2110794 T.J. v. Calhoun County Department o f Human Resources Appeal from Calhoun J u v e n i l e Court (JU-2012-32.01 and JU-2012-33.01) PER CURIAM. Following County an i n v e s t i g a t i o n Department conducted o f Human R e s o u r c e s J u v e n i l e C o u r t ("the by t h e Calhoun ("DHR"), t h e Calhoun j u v e n i l e court") entered a shelter-care o r d e r on J a n u a r y 24, 2012, awarding the l e g a l custody o f J o . J . 2110794 and J a . J . ("the c h i l d r e n " ) t o DHR, who immediately p l a c e d the c h i l d r e n i n t h e c a r e o f S . J . ("the f a t h e r " ) . the juvenile court entered an order T h a t same d a t e , authorizing law- e n f o r c e m e n t o f f i c i a l s t o a s s i s t DHR i n p r o c u r i n g f r o m t h e home of the children's personal items children. on A p r i l custody and mother, T.J. furniture ("the u s e d by mother"), certain or belonging to the The j u v e n i l e c o u r t s u b s e q u e n t l y e n t e r e d a j u d g m e n t 4, 2012, d e c l a r i n g t h e c h i l d r e n d e p e n d e n t , a w a r d i n g of the c h i l d r e n supervise the family to the f a t h e r , pending further and o r d e r i n g orders. 1 The DHR to mother appeals from t h a t judgment. Although numerous whether the mother g r o u n d s , we the evidence attacks t h e dependency judgment on f i n d one i s s u e r a i s e d b y t h e m o t h e r -¬ i s sufficient of dependency - d i s p o s i t i v e . r e c o r d does n o t c o n t a i n We to sustain a finding agree w i t h t h e mother t h a t t h e sufficient evidence indicating that the c h i l d r e n are dependent. Because t h a t judgment f a i l e d t o a d d r e s s the mother's r e q u e s t f o r v i s i t a t i o n , t h i s c o u r t remanded t h e c a s e t o t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t t o address t h a t r e q u e s t , which i t d i d , making t h e j u d g m e n t f i n a l so as t o s u p p o r t t h i s a p p e a l . 1 2 2110794 Section 12-15-102(8)a., A l a . Code 1975, defines " d e p e n d e n t c h i l d " as " [ a ] c h i l d who h a s b e e n a d j u d i c a t e d d e p e n d e n t b y a juvenile court and i s i n need of care or supervision a n d meets any of the following circumstances: "1. Whose p a r e n t , legal guardian, legal custodian, or other custodian s u b j e c t s t h e c h i l d o r any o t h e r c h i l d i n t h e h o u s e h o l d t o a b u s e , as d e f i n e d i n s u b d i v i s i o n (2) o f S e c t i o n 1 2 - 1 5 - 3 0 1 [ , A l a . Code 1975,] o r n e g l e c t as d e f i n e d i n s u b d i v i s i o n (4) o f S e c t i o n 12-15-301, o r a l l o w s t h e c h i l d t o be s o s u b j e c t e d . "2. Who i s w i t h o u t a p a r e n t , legal g u a r d i a n , o r l e g a l c u s t o d i a n w i l l i n g and able t o provide f o r the care, support, or education of the c h i l d . "3. Whose p a r e n t , legal guardian, legal custodian, or other custodian n e g l e c t s o r r e f u s e s , when a b l e t o do s o o r when t h e s e r v i c e i s o f f e r e d w i t h o u t c h a r g e , to provide or a l l o w medical, s u r g i c a l , or other care necessary f o r the health or well-being of the c h i l d . "4. Whose p a r e n t , legal guardian, l e g a l custodian, or other custodian f a i l s , r e f u s e s , or n e g l e c t s t o send t h e c h i l d t o s c h o o l i n accordance w i t h t h e terms o f t h e compulsory s c h o o l attendance laws o f t h i s state. "5. Whose p a r e n t , legal guardian, l e g a l c u s t o d i a n , o r o t h e r c u s t o d i a n has abandoned the c h i l d , as defined in s u b d i v i s i o n (1) o f S e c t i o n 12-15-301. 3 a 2110794 "6. Whose p a r e n t , legal guardian, l e g a l custodian, or other custodian i s unable or u n w i l l i n g t o discharge h i s or her 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 . "7. Who h a s b e e n p l a c e d f o r c a r e o r adoption i n v i o l a t i o n of the law. "8. Who, f o r any o t h e r c a u s e , i s i n need o f t h e c a r e and p r o t e c t i o n o f t h e state." In t h e dependency p e t i t i o n , DHR asserted that the children were d e p e n d e n t b e c a u s e i t " a p p e a r s " s e r i o u s mental not receiving health issues" t h a t t h e m o t h e r h a s "some f o r which any t r e a t m e n t . " We "[s]he i s currently interpret due t o t h e m o t h e r ' s t h e p e t i t i o n as alleging that, existing problems, t h e m o t h e r was " u n a b l e o r u n w i l l i n g t o d i s c h a r g e ... h e r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s t o a n d f o r t h e c h i l d [ r e n ] ." 102(8)a.6., The evidence developed a See § 12-15- A l a . Code 1975. investigation McNeal, mental-health i n t h e r e c o r d shows t h a t , d u r i n g an i n i t i a l regarding a report against the father, child-abuse-and-neglect investigator for a s u s p i c i o n t h a t t h e m o t h e r was s u f f e r i n g m e n t a l - h e a l t h problem. Robin 2 DHR, from a When M c N e a l q u e s t i o n e d t h e m o t h e r on DHR r e c e i v e d a r e p o r t t h a t t h e f a t h e r was g i v i n g t h e c h i l d r e n a c c e s s t o m a r i j u a n a a n d a l c o h o l , w h i c h r e p o r t DHR c o n c l u d e d was u n f o u n d e d . 2 4 2110794 t h a t p o i n t , the mother i n f o r m e d she had McNeal t h a t , r e c e i v e d c o u n s e l i n g from " a t one "the mental time," health center" b u t t h a t she had s t o p p e d g o i n g b e c a u s e she d i d n o t b e l i e v e she needed i t . The mother c l a r i f i e d a t the a d j u d i c a t o r y h e a r i n g t h a t e i g h t or nine years earlier she had voluntarily sought c o u n s e l i n g i n J a c k s o n v i l l e at a m e n t a l - h e a l t h center because, she said, " I thought d i d n ' t work o u t . " been diagnosed medication that, The with for a not time of the DHR a mother t e s t i f i e d mental-health receiving any talk t o , and i t t h a t she problem problem. or had concluded mental-health never taken McNeal w i t h t h e m o t h e r , she any testified that treatment at the the investigation. initially attempted testimony McNeal's somebody t o mental-health a f t e r meeting m o t h e r was I needed regarding to present i t s basis evidence through for questioning the mother's c u r r e n t m e n t a l - h e a l t h s t a t u s , but the j u v e n i l e c o u r t sustained a hearsay o b j e c t i o n to t h a t testimony. t e s t i f i e d as follows: "Q. (By [ c o u n s e l f o r DHR]) t h a t you i d e n t i f i e d , Ms. McNea m o t h e r t o have a m e n t a l h e a l t h you b a s e t h a t on? TT/-,m Vs ^ ^ -I- Vs -I- /-,T-sO 5 What w McNeal then 2110794 "A. B e h a v i o r s o f t h e m o t h e r t o t h e c h i l d a n d t h e child's reaction. "Q. D i d y o u have an o p p o r t u n i t y t o o b s e r v e b e h a v i o r s by t h e mother? "A. Those b e h a v i o r s those to the child? "Q. D i d y o u have an o p p o r t u n i t y t o o b s e r v e t h e b e h a v i o r o f t h e mother? "A. I have. "Q. When y o u o b s e r v e d the behavior m o t h e r , what c o n c e r n s d i d y o u h a v e ? of the "A. Denial. She d e n i e d t h a t a n y o f t h a t h a p p e n e d , a n d h e r e x p l a n a t i o n f o r what o c c u r r e d was n o t f e a s i b l e , i n t h a t s h e e x p l a i n e d ... t h e h o l e i n t h e w a l l a t t h e b o t t o m o f t h e f l o o r [as] b e i n g f r o m her t r y i n g t o g e t t o t h e p i p e s approximately three and a h a l f t o f o u r f e e t up t o t i g h t e n p i p e s t o p r e v e n t a s i n k f r o m f a l l i n g t h a t was on t h e o t h e r s i d e o f t h e w a l l , a n d t h i s was n o t f e a s i b l e . You w o u l d have t o go i n f r o m t h r e e a n d a h a l f f e e t t o -¬ a p l u m b e r w o u l d have t o do t h a t . " DHR removed the children from t h e mother's home based p r i m a r i l y on t h e m o t h e r ' s r e f u s a l t o s u b m i t v o l u n t a r i l y t o a mental-health assessment. McNeal t e s t i f i e d as f o l l o w s : "Q. [By c o u n s e l f o r DHR] Was t h e r e a n y o t h e r c o n c e r n [ ] w h i l e y o u were i n v e s t i g a t i n g t h i s case t h a t you had w i t h t h e mother t h a t would, i n your opinion, put the children at risk? "A. Her r e f u s a l i n sharing mental health information [and] i n h a v i n g an e v a l u a t i o n was concerning." 6 2110794 According to "concerns" and request McNeal, after after custody the mother of the mother r e f u s e d t o consent for a mental-health protective informing of the assessment, children." she At "had that t o DHR's to the continued to separate the mother and the b a s e d s o l e l y on t h e m o t h e r ' s r e f u s a l t o v o l u n t a r i l y w i t h DHR a mental-health Service which custody children cooperate by p r o v i d i n g m e n t a l - h e a l t h r e c o r d s and by s u b m i t t i n g assessment. McNeal f o l l o w i n g t h e s h e l t e r - c a r e h e a r i n g , DHR mother DHR children. DHR to assume point, i n s t i t u t e d s h e l t e r - c a r e p r o c e e d i n g s and o b t a i n e d l e g a l of her Plan agree meeting to a at which the mother r e f u s e d . h e l d an i t again DHR-sponsored testified Individualized requested mental-health McNeal t e s t i f i e d as that, that assessment, follows: "Q. [By c o u n s e l f o r DHR] Now, i n y o u r o p i n i o n , as t h e [ c h i l d - a b u s e / n e g l e c t ] i n v e s t i g a t o r r e g a r d i n g s a f e t y o f [ t h e c h i l d r e n ] , w o u l d [DHR] recommend t h a t t h o s e c h i l d r e n be p l a c e d b a c k w i t h o u t t h e n e c e s s a r y mental h e a l t h assessment? "A. "Q. No. Why i s that? "A. Due t o t h e -- t h e m o t h e r has n o t c o o p e r a t e d i n any way w i t h m e n t a l h e a l t h a s s e s s m e n t s . [DHR] wants t o ensure the c h i l d r e n ' s s a f e t y t h r o u g h those mental h e a l t h assessments. 7 the 2110794 II "Q. L a s t q u e s t i o n . I s the mother's r e f u s i n g t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n any s e r v i c e s t o a l l e v i a t e [DHR's] involvement a remaining concern today? "A. Fagan Yes." Ponder, t h e DHR foster-care w o r k e r who took over the c a s e f r o m M c N e a l as o f J a n u a r y 26, 2012, t e s t i f i e d as f o l l o w s : "Q. [By Ponder, from i d e n t i f y that be r e m o v e [ d ] t h e mom? "A. c o u n s e l f o r DHR] L e t me a s k y o u , Mr. reviewing t h e c a s e , what w o u l d you w o u l d be b a r r i e r s t h a t w o u l d n e e d t o i f t h e c h i l d r e n were p l a c e d b a c k w i t h First off, just the cooperation with DHR " Ponder additionally testified visitation that the mother had sought w i t h t h e c h i l d r e n t h r o u g h h e r a t t o r n e y b u t t h a t , as a condition to "getting v i s i t s , " t h e m o t h e r w o u l d have h a d t o comply " w i t h s e r v i c e s or comply w i t h m e n t a l h e a l t h , " w h i c h t h e mother refused t o do. ensure the s a f e t y mental health Ponder testified that of the c h i l d r e n without assessments to address the DHR "the could not appropriate stability of the mother." The m o t h e r requested that testified t h a t DHR's r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s she u n d e r g o a mental-health r a t h e r , had t o l d her t h a t , u n l e s s 8 had not assessment but, she d i d , she c o u l d n o t see 2110794 the children. The mother t e s t i f i e d "the way that employees." The a mental-health they have would not agree a s s e s s m e n t b e c a u s e , she t o a DHR-sponsored m e n t a l - h e a l t h said, done t h a t she trust their m o t h e r s t a t e d t h a t she w o u l d a g r e e t o having a s s e s s m e n t by me, I a doctor don't of her own choosing. The m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t she had s o u g h t an a s s e s s m e n t t h r o u g h a mental-health facility in Tulloma, Tennessee, but the f a c i l i t y w o u l d n o t a c c e p t h e r method o f payment, i . e . , A l a b a m a Medicaid; as a r e s u l t , 3 h e a l t h assessment. T e n n e s s e e on t h e and t h e m o t h e r had not o b t a i n e d The m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t she had moved t o Saturday f o l l o w i n g the t h a t her medical insurance has shelter-care soon hearing, as her allowed. the mother m a i n t a i n e d mental-health take insurance place t h a t she a s s e s s m e n t t h a t was hearing s i n c e been " f r o z e n . " m o t h e r s t a t e d t h a t she w o u l d o b t a i n a m e n t a l - h e a l t h as a mental- At the assessment adjudicatory would not s p o n s o r e d by The DHR agree to a and would i n Calhoun County. The m o t h e r r e f u s e d t o s i g n an a u t h o r i z a t i o n t o a l l o w DHR t o o b t a i n any records from t h a t v i s i t , but the mother t e s t i f i e d t h a t she d i d n o t r e c e i v e any f o r m o f e v a l u a t i o n o r treatment at t h a t time. 3 9 2110794 The record e s t a b l i s h e s t h a t , when i t i n i t i a l l y the c h i l d r e n and t h e r e a f t e r p r e v e n t e d m o t h e r a n d t h e c h i l d r e n , DHR o n l y m i g h t have a m e n t a l - h e a l t h those any c o n t a c t b e t w e e n t h e suspected problem. removed t h a t t h e mother Regarding the basis f o r s u s p i c i o n s , McNeal d i d n o t p r o v i d e the j u v e n i l e court w i t h any i n f o r m a t i o n she h a d o b t a i n e d f r o m o t h e r s o u r c e s how a hole created. i n the w a l l o f t h e mother's residence McNeal t e s t i f i e d o n l y t h a t t h e mother had as t o had been "denied" t h a t some unknown e v e n t h a d o c c u r r e d , apparently referring to how created. McNeal the hole testified that i n the w a l l had been she h a d d i s b e l i e v e d t h e m o t h e r ' s also explanation f o r how t h e h o l e was c r e a t e d , i n d i c a t i n g t h a t she h a d b e l i e v e d some o t h e r unstated v e r s i o n o f e v e n t s t o be more p l a u s i b l e . However, DHR d i d n o t p r o v i d e regarding that the j u v e n i l e court with alternative version of events 4 evidence or supply the j u v e n i l e c o u r t w i t h any b a s i s f o r i n f e r r i n g t h a t t h e u n s t a t e d i n f o r m a t i o n n e c e s s a r i l y i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e mother had c r e a t e d the hole while i n the throes o f some b i z a r r e , e r r a t i c , or L a t e r i n her testimony, M c N e a l s t a t e d t h a t she h a d l e a r n e d o f t h e h o l e i n t h e w a l l f r o m " t h e c h i l d , " b u t she d i d n o t i d e n t i f y w h i c h c h i l d o r what i n f o r m a t i o n t h e c h i l d h a d provided her regarding the hole. 4 10 2110794 impulsive behavior such evidence, reached due t o a m e n t a l - h e a l t h p r o b l e m . any c o n c l u s i o n s t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t may as t o what h a d h a p p e n e d a n d how t h o s e e v e n t s to t h e mother's h a v i n g a m e n t a l - h e a l t h problem o n l y on s p e c u l a t i o n a n d c o n j e c t u r e . Without have pointed c o u l d be b a s e d See I n r e J e r t r u d e O., 56 Md. App. 83, 466 A . 2 d 885 (Md. C t . Spec. App. 1983) ( h o l d i n g t h a t j u v e n i l e c o u r t c a n n o t remove c h i l d f r o m home a n d c o n t i n u e s h e l t e r c a r e b a s e d upon s p e c u l a t i v e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t c h i l d h a d b e e n o r w o u l d be a b u s e d o r harmed b y p a r e n t ) . In the adjudicatory hearing, psychological suspicions problem. or that Rather psychiatric DHR d i d not present evidence t h e mother itself avail Ala. confirm i t s a mental-health of the l e g a l s e c u r e a m e n t a l - h e a l t h assessment, see R u l e P., a n d R u l e to s u f f e r e d from than any process to 1A, A l a . R. J u v . 35, A l a . R. C i v . P.; s e e a l s o § 12-15-130(c), Code 1975, o r t o c o m p e l p r o d u c t i o n o f any o f t h e m o t h e r ' s m e n t a l - h e a l t h r e c o r d s , s e e R u l e 1A, A l a . R. J u v . P., a n d R u l e 34, A l a . R. C i v . P., 5 DHR e l e c t e d t o p r e s e n t no e v i d e n c e i n the form o f e x p e r t o p i n i o n s o r o t h e r w i s e t o s u b s t a n t i a t e i t s We make no comment as t o w h e t h e r DHR w o u l d have b e e n e n t i t l e d t o such d i s c o v e r y because t h a t i s s u e i s n o t b e f o r e us. 5 11 2110794 claim that condition. upon t h e mother visitation, that i t could or presented a l l a y e d i t s "concerns" to from a mental-health to the adjudicatory hearing withhold from t h e mother u n t i l assessment The suffering I n s t e a d , DHR p r o c e e d e d the theory health was custody, and even she s u b m i t t e d t o a m e n t a l mental-health records t h a t she h a d a m e n t a l - h e a l t h that problem. l a w , h o w e v e r , does n o t p l a c e t h e b u r d e n on a p a r e n t prove h i s or her mental-health fitness t o the State i n order t o s u s t a i n h i s or her custody rights. See I n r e M.L., 210 C a l . App. 4 t h 1457, 1470, 148 C a l . R p t r . 3d 911, 922 (2012) ("Mother h a d no d u t y t o p r o v e she d i d n o t have a m e n t a l health case to issue."). that DHR h a s n o t c i t e d to this court a single s t a t e s t h a t a p a r e n t h a s an o b l i g a t i o n t o r e s p o n d i t s extrajudicial requests o r demands f o r m e n t a l - h e a l t h i n f o r m a t i o n , much l e s s a n y a u t h o r i t y s t a t i n g t h a t a j u v e n i l e court c a n make an a d v e r s e refusing to Generally speaking, custody So. cooperate of t h e i r inference against the parent f o r with parents those have a f u n d a m e n t a l natural children. 3d 634, 639 ( A l a . 2 0 1 1 ) . that a c u s t o d i a l parent requests or demands. right to the See Ex p a r t e E.R.G., 73 A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e law presumes i s f i t i n every 12 respect t o care f o r 2110794 his or her children. So. 2d 910 ( 1 9 5 5 ) . See G r i g g s In order v . B a r n e s , 262 A l a . 357, 78 for the State t o intrude i n t o the s o l i c i t u d e o f a f a m i l y and t o a l t e r t h e c u s t o d i a l r i g h t s o f a parent, the State convincing child. bears the burden by c l e a r and evidence t h a t the parent i s u n f i t t o care Ex p a r t e E.R.G., supra. b u r d e n , DHR h a d no l a w f u l b a s i s comply of proving with Until review that i n order to regain her rights. Our i t discharged f o r r e q u i r i n g t h e mother t o any o f i t s c o n d i t i o n s custody f o r the of the record reveals that, at best, DHR proved o n l y t h a t i t s workers had formed a s u s p i c i o n t h a t t h e m o t h e r may have a m e n t a l - h e a l t h problem. that the evidence r a i s e s only a question of a c h i l d . I t i s n o t enough as t o t h e d e p e n d e n c y T.H. v. J e f f e r s o n C n t y . Dep't o f Human Res., 70 So. 3d 1236, 1247 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2010) (Per Moore, J . , w i t h two judges concurring the child evidence; ... be a real one "The f e a r o f harm t o predicated upon hard i t may n o t be s i m p l y g u t r e a c t i o n o r e v e n a d e c i s i o n to e r r - i f - a t - a l l 56 must i n the r e s u l t ) . on t h e s i d e o f c a u t i o n . " Md. App. a t 100, 466 A . 2 d a t 894. " c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e , " 13 In re Jertrude Unless DHR O., presents t h e d e p e n d e n c y p e t i t i o n must 2110794 be dismissed. convincing against the § 1 2 - 1 5 - 3 1 0 ( b ) , A l a . Code 1975. evidence" i s "'[e]vidence evidence i n o p p o s i t i o n , w i l l trier element of fact a firm of the claim that, " C l e a r and when weighed produce i n t h e mind o f c o n v i c t i o n as t o e a c h e s s e n t i a l and a high probability as correctness of the conclusion.'" Human Res., 40 So. 3d 747, 749 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009) L.H. v . L e e C n t y . Dep't o f M.E. v. S h e l b y C n t y . Dep't o f Human Res., ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 7 ) ) . to the (quoting 972 So. 2d 89, 92-93 This c o u r t can a f f i r m a f i n d i n g a p a r e n t has a m e n t a l - h e a l t h problem t h a t prevents that that parent from r e n d e r i n g p r o p e r care and s u p e r v i s i o n t o a c h i l d o n l y i f the juvenile convinced record. court of that reasonably fact from appellate have the evidence See Ex p a r t e M c I n i s h , (explaining could been clearly contained i n the 47 So. 3d 767, 778 ( A l a . 2008) standard of review of judgments c o n t a i n i n g f i n d i n g s o f f a c t r e q u i r e d t o be p r o v e n b y c l e a r a n d convincing evidence). In a v e r y similar admissible expert disability, this situation, testimony court when DHR f a i l e d or other reversed a evidence judgment to present of a mental terminating a p a r e n t ' s p a r e n t a l r i g h t s b e c a u s e t h e e v i d e n c e was i n s u f f i c i e n t 14 2110794 to prove the mental disability s u f f e r e d from c e r e b r a l p a l s y . Human R e s . , 26 So. 3d 426 case, a majority court could incoherent of t h i s recognize ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009) . court recognized that a In that juvenile an o b v i o u s m e n t a l d i s a b i l i t y f r o m t h e inference a c u i t y t o p r o p e r l y care that direct and c r o s s - 95 So. 3d 26 Appeals t h e mother the mental More r e c e n t l y , i n W a s h i n g t o n v. (Ala. Crim. held lacked f o r h e r c h i l d such t h a t h e r p a r e n t a l s h o u l d be t e r m i n a t e d . Criminal child but that the j u v e n i l e court could not extrapolate from t h a t bare State, whose See C.S.B. v. A l a b a m a Dep't o f responses o f t h e mother d u r i n g examination rights of the parent that App. 2 0 1 2 ) , a trial court the Court of could u s e i t s own o b s e r v a t i o n s t o r e s o l v e a c o n f l i c t among e x p e r t s r e g a r d i n g t h e m e n t a l competency o f a d e f e n d a n t t o s t a n d trial for capital murder, b u t t h e c o u r t d i d n o t h o l d t h a t t h e t r i a l decide t h e competency o f t h e w i t n e s s court based s o l e l y could on i t s own observations. In evidence this as case, to the record the mental categorically denied DHR p r e s e n t e d no e v i d e n c e does health any e x i s t i n g of conflicting t h e mother. mental-health indicating 15 not contain She problem, and t h a t she s u f f e r e d from 2110794 such a condition. The mother responses to the questions court. also gave p e r f e c t l y r a t i o n a l from the a t t o r n e y s and t h e j u v e n i l e The j u v e n i l e c o u r t may n o t have b e l i e v e d some o f t h o s e r e s p o n s e s , b u t i t c o u l d n o t l a w f u l l y have d e t e r m i n e d f r o m i t s mere o b s e r v a t i o n s problem children, that o f t h e m o t h e r t h a t she h a d a prevented her or that threatened from properly mental-health caring f o r the t h e c h i l d r e n w i t h harm, w i t h o u t the b e n e f i t of a c t u a l evidence t o t h a t e f f e c t . The r e c o r d i s d e v o i d o f any 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 h a d e v e r a c t u a l l y harmed o r e v e n t h r e a t e n e d children, who were adjudicatory hearing. evidence that would ages 12 and 15 at the t o harm t h e time of The r e c o r d a l s o does n o t i n c l u d e lead a reasonable fact-finder c o n v i n c e d t h a t the mother s u f f e r s from a m e n t a l - h e a l t h t h a t c o u l d endanger the s a f e t y of the c h i l d r e n . the clear to be problem Because the evidence i n the record i s i n s u f f i c i e n t to support the j u v e n i l e court's finding of dependency, 6 we reverse the juvenile DHR d i d n o t i n c l u d e i n i t s p e t i t i o n any o t h e r b a s i s f o r a s s e r t i n g t h e d e p e n d e n c y o f t h e c h i l d r e n . A t t r i a l , DHR d i d n o t a t t e m p t t o p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e r e l a t i n g t o any o t h e r b a s i s . I n r e s p o n s e t o a s i n g l e q u e s t i o n , a DHR w i t n e s s t e s t i f i e d t h a t he h a d no i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e m o t h e r ' s c u r r e n t r e s i d e n c e , and t h e m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d a t one p o i n t t h a t she d i d n o t have any income a t t h e t i m e o f t h e h e a r i n g ; h o w e v e r , DHR 6 16 2110794 c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t a n d remand t h e c a s e f o r t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t t o enter a judgment d i s m i s s i n g t h e dependency p e t i t i o n . See § 1 2 - 1 5 - 3 1 0 ( b ) , A l a . Code 1975. The mother a l s o argues t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t l a c k e d t h e authority t o enter property from juvenile court furniture and an o r d e r h e r home. allowing In i t s ordered a l i s t DHR t o remove shelter-care o f 22 i t e m s , accessories, games, personal order, i n c l u d i n g bedroom toys, clothing, m e d i c a t i o n s t o be removed f r o m t h e home o f t h e m o t h e r . list a l s o i n c l u d e d t h e f a m i l y dog, a g l a s s - t o p e x e r c i s e machine. and the and That t a b l e , a n d an The j u v e n i l e c o u r t s u b s e q u e n t l y o r d e r e d DHR t h e C a l h o u n C o u n t y s h e r i f f t o o b t a i n t h e dog a n d i s s u e d a d i d n o t t r y t o p r o v e o r a r g u e t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n were d e p e n d e n t b a s e d on t h e m o t h e r ' s c u r r e n t h o u s i n g s i t u a t i o n o r l a c k o f income. A l t h o u g h we have h e l d t h a t t h i s c o u r t c a n a f f i r m a f i n d i n g o f d e p e n d e n c y on l e g a l g r o u n d s o t h e r t h a n t h o s e s t a t e d i n t h e p e t i t i o n , s e e T.H. v. J e f f e r s o n C n t y . Dep't o f Human Res., 70 So. 3d a t 1245, we may do s o o n l y c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e due-process r i g h t s of the parent. See L i b e r t y N a t ' l L i f e I n s . Co. v . U n i v e r s i t y o f A l a b a m a H e a l t h S e r v s . Found., P.C., 8 81 So. 2d 1013, 1020 ( A l a . 2003) ( n o t i n g t h a t j u d g m e n t c a n n o t be a f f i r m e d on a g r o u n d o f w h i c h l i t i g a n t h a d no n o t i c e ) . The m o t h e r h a d no n o t i c e t h a t DHR was a s s e r t i n g t h e d e p e n d e n c y o f the c h i l d r e n f o r any reason o t h e r than h e r a l l e g e d mental u n f i t n e s s , and the p a r t i e s d i d n o t l i t i g a t e t h e i s s u e s whether her p o v e r t y o r c u r r e n t r e s i d e n t i a l c o n d i t i o n s rendered h e r incapable of properly caring f o rthe c h i l d r e n . Under t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , t h i s c o u r t c a n n o t a f f i r m t h e j u d g m e n t b a s e d on those grounds. 17 2110794 w r i t of assistance d i r e c t e d to the s h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e to obtain the other items. On A p r i l 5, 2012, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t found the mother i n contempt and i s s u e d a w r i t f o r h e r a r r e s t based on h e r n o n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e f o r e g o i n g Because they orders. are not c o n s t i t u t i o n a l courts, juvenile c o u r t s o n l y have power as i s c o n f e r r e d upon them b y s t a t u t e . Ex parte The K.L.P., 868 So. 2d 454, 456 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 3 ) . mother argues that no statute expressly j u v e n i l e c o u r t t o order t h e removal of items a parent. The m o t h e r further points authorizes a f r o m t h e home o f out that t h e Alabama C o n s t i t u t i o n o f 1901 p r o h i b i t s t h e S t a t e f r o m t a k i n g p r i v a t e p r o p e r t y w i t h o u t t h e owner's c o n s e n t , s e e A l a . C o n s t . o f 1901, art. I , § 23, a n d t h a t State agencies taking private Therefore, § 18-1B-1, A l a . Code 1975, p r e v e n t s i n v e s t e d w i t h t h e power o f e m i n e n t domain f r o m property t h e mother f o r the p r i v a t e contends, use o f the j u v e n i l e court have j u r i s d i c t i o n t o e n t e r a n y o f t h e o r d e r s removal of the p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y DHR 314(a)(4), authority responds that A l a . Code to enter §§ another. d i d not r e l a t i n g tothe f r o m t h e m o t h e r ' s home. 12-15-314(a)(3)c. any o r d e r s 18 12-15- courts broad "as t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t 1975, and inits give juvenile 2110794 d i s c r e t i o n s h a l l deem t o be f o r t h e w e l f a r e a n d b e s t interests of t h e c h i l d . " However, t h o s e subsections solely to the disposition of the custody o f "dependent c h i l d r e n . " the time the orders were e n t e r e d , relate At t h e c h i l d r e n had n o t been d e c l a r e d t o be d e p e n d e n t , a n d , as h e l d a b o v e , t h e s u b s e q u e n t f i n d i n g o f d e p e n d e n c y was e r r o n e o u s . Subsections ( a ) ( 3 ) c . and ( a ) ( 4 ) o f § 12-15-314 d i d n o t a u t h o r i z e t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t t o order the the removal of the p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y f r o m t h e home o f mother. In 952, I n r e K.P.R., 197 O h i o App. 3d 193, 195, 966 N.E.2d 953 ( 2 0 1 1 ) , father when thereafter based a child h i s mother with h i s noncustodial unexpectedly died. r e m a i n e d i n h i s f a t h e r ' s home. on an o r d e r Ohio, subsequently furniture was v i s i t i n g from subsequently of the j u v e n i l e court Id. The child The f a t h e r , o f Warren County, o b t a i n e d some o f t h e c h i l d ' s b e l o n g i n g s a n d t h e mother's home. The c h i l d ' s stepfather moved t h e c o u r t t o o r d e r t h e f a t h e r t o r e t u r n t h e i t e m s , a n d t h e c o u r t o r d e r e d t h e f a t h e r t o r e t u r n some o f t h e items. that I d . On a p p e a l , t h e f a t h e r a r g u e d , among o t h e r t h i n g s , the j u v e n i l e court property dispute lacked and, t h e r e f o r e , 19 any j u r i s d i c t i o n that over the i t d i d n o t have t h e 2110794 a u t h o r i t y to permit place the f a t h e r t o take the items or the a u t h o r i t y t o l a t e r items. the r e q u i r e him t o r e t u r n 197 O h i o App. 3d a t 199-200, vacating the order Ohio "[W]e Court i n the f i r s t those 966 N.E.2d a t 957. I n r e q u i r i n g the f a t h e r t o r e t u r n the items, of Appeals f o r the Twelfth District stated: c a n n o t l o c a t e any a u t h o r i t y g i v i n g t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t jurisdiction t o order the d i s p o s i t i o n m o t h e r a n d s t e p f a t h e r ' s home." of property from t h e 197 O h i o App. 3d a t 200, 996 N.E.2d a t 958. No l a n g u a g e AJJA"), i n t h e Alabama read b r o a d l y t o i m p l y t h a t j u v e n i l e c o u r t s have j u r i s d i c t i o n over property e t s e q . , A l a . Code A c t ("the 1975, c a n be personal § 12-15-101 Juvenile Justice owned b y a p a r e n t , especially i n l i g h t of the g e n e r a l c o n s t i t u t i o n a l and s t a t u t o r y p r o h i b i t i o n s a g a i n s t a government's cannot juvenile locate courts disposition taking any of private property. authority i n the AJJA t h e power t o d e c i d e of personal property, Likewise, that grants issues relating even i f that we to to the personal p r o p e r t y may be c o n s i d e r e d t h a t o f t h e c h i l d r e n a t i s s u e a n d even i f the d i s p o s i t i o n interests. would serve the children's best Thus, we h o l d t h a t j u v e n i l e c o u r t s do n o t have t h e a u t h o r i t y t o order the removal o f p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y home o f a p a r e n t . 20 from t h e 2110794 We therefore jurisdiction conclude that t o enter the orders items of personal property order entered without the j u v e n i l e court lacked a l l o w i n g the removal of the f r o m t h e home o f t h e m o t h e r . jurisdiction N.M.N., 69 So. 3d 868, 870 i s void. An See B.L.R. v. ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 1 ) . "'This c o u r t i s r e q u i r e d t o d i s m i s s an a p p e a l f r o m a v o i d j u d g m e n t . ' " R.T. v. B.N.H., 66 So. 3d 807, 812 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2011) ( q u o t i n g Owens v . Owens, 51 So. 3d 364, 367 2010)). the ( A l a . C i v . App. Thus, we d i s m i s s t h e m o t h e r ' s a p p e a l as i t r e l a t e s t o orders entered mother's p e r s o n a l by the property, juvenile court albeit with regarding instructions the to the j u v e n i l e c o u r t t o v a c a t e t h o s e v o i d o r d e r s , R.T., 66 So. 3d a t 812, i n c l u d i n g t h e judgment f i n d i n g t h e mother i n contempt f o r violating Powers, that those 140 A l a . void orders. See O l d D o m i n i o n 220, 227, 37 So. 195, 197 a d e f e n d a n t c a n n o t be p u n i s h e d T e l . Co. v. (1904) by contempt (holding proceedings for disregarding a void order). APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART; REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. B r y a n a n d Moore, J J . , c o n c u r s . Pittman, J . , concurs i n the r e s u l t , without writing. Thompson, P . J . , d i s s e n t s , w i t h w r i t i n g , w h i c h Thomas, J . , joins. 21 2110794 THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e , d i s s e n t i n g . I believe determined totality Ala. that that the j u v e n i l e court t h e c h i l d r e n were of the evidence presented dependent to i t . have properly based on t h e § 12-15-102(8), Code 1975; A.L.D. v . C a l h o u n C n t y . Dep't o f Human R e s . , 2 So. 3d 855, 861 ( A l a . C i v . 'must a l s o c o n s i d e r the best App. 2008) J.M. v. S t a t e Dep't o f Human Res., C i v . App. 1 9 9 6 ) . " ) ; 2d 114, 120 action, Ex p a r t e ( A l a . 2004) including that ("The t r i a l i n t e r e s t s of the c h i l d f i n d d e p e n d e n c y b a s e d on t h e t o t a l i t y So. could a n d may of the circumstances.' 686 So. 2d 1253, State court 1255 ( A l a . Dep't o f Human Res., (same). 890 The e v i d e n c e i n this p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e mother's conduct d u r i n g t h e p e n d e n c y o f t h i s a c t i o n a n d some o f h e r r e s p o n s e s during her testimony, w o r k e r s were mental h e a l t h . observe 2004) correct i n having as she J.S.M. v. P . J . , (citing concerns about t h e mother's The j u v e n i l e c o u r t was i n t h e b e s t p o s i t i o n t o t h e mother demeanor. s u p p o r t a c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e DHR s o c i a l Hall testified and t o assess her 902 So. 2d 89, 96 ( A l a . C i v . App. v. Mazzone , 486 So. 2d 408, 410 1986)). "The cold record before matter how meticulous an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t , no i t s transcription, is 22 (Ala. 2110794 i n c a p a b l e o f t r u l y r e f l e c t i n g c e r t a i n human a c t i o n s and reactions that occur during a trial. The s p e c i a l n u a n c e s o f t h e human v o i c e a n d t h e i n f i n i t e number o f human f a c i a l e x p r e s s i o n s a r e i n c a p a b l e o f transcription, a n d , y e t , we r e c o g n i z e them as f r e q u e n t l y h i g h l y i n d i c a t i v e of c r e d i b i l i t y [or demeanor]." Lilly v. P a l m e r , 495 So. 2d 522, 525 ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) . When, as h e r e , findings assume support 1324 of fact that a trier of fact fails i n i t s judgment, t h e a p p e l l a t e i t made i t s judgment. ( A l a . 1996). those factual Ex p a r t e A finding findings Bryowsky, that DHR's m o t h e r ' s m e n t a l h e a l t h were w a r r a n t e d c o u r t ' s judgment, and i t i s u n d i s p u t e d to cooperate with concern. The m o t h e r r e f u s e d to to 676 So. 2d 1322, concerns supports about t h e the juvenile goals t o address allowing that DHR a n d s t a t e d t h a t she w o u l d Tennessee. hearing, t h e mother moved t o T e n n e s s e e w i t h o u t providing her contact information t o t h e DHR s o c i a l w o r k e r s . The m o t h e r a d m i t t e d no contains income, whether mental-health must in Immediately a courts necessary to sign a release records specific t h a t t h e mother r e f u s e d DHR's r e u n i f i c a t i o n access t o her mental-health submit t o make evaluation following the shelter-care and t h e r e c o r d her residence i s adequate 23 no t h a t she has evidence or appropriate regarding f o r the 2110794 children. the "Because t h i s evidence witnesses, on appeal court i s p r o h i b i t e d from or determining reweighing the c r e d i b i l i t y [we] c a n n o t c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t of erred when i t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e c h i l d was d e p e n d e n t . " B.R.G. v. G.L.M., 57 So. 3d 137, 142 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 0 ) . Given the totality this of the evidence presented case, determining I cannot turn over the j u v e n i l e court erred i n t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n were d e p e n d e n t I also dissent reverses say that to the j u v e n i l e court i n from t h a t p a r t the j u v e n i l e court's c e r t a i n property. mother d i s p u t e d o f t h e main o p i n i o n orders r e q u i r i n g t h e mother t o The r e c o r d indicates that the a l l o w i n g the c h i l d r e n t o take personal property, including property that some o f t h e i r t h a t DHR s o c i a l w o r k e r s i n d i c a t e d was n e e d e d t o c a l m one o f t h e c h i l d r e n , who h a s b e e n diagnosed with a condition on j u v e n i l e court had t o i s s u e orders obtain that property. the autism best The authorizing the s h e r i f f to See § 1 2 - 1 5 - 3 1 4 ( a ) ( 4 ) , A l a . Code 1975 (A j u v e n i l e c o u r t may "make any o t h e r court spectrum. order as t h e j u v e n i l e i n i t s d i s c r e t i o n s h a l l deem t o be f o r t h e w e l f a r e a n d i n t e r e s t s of the c h i l d . " ) . Thomas, J . , c o n c u r s . 24

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.