P.S. v. Jefferson County Department of Human Resources

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 06/28/2013 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, 2012-2013 2111222 P.S. v. J e f f e r s o n County Department o f Human Resources Appeal from J e f f e r s o n J u v e n i l e Court (JU-11-100184.01, f i l e d o r i g i n a l l y as JU-11-50981.01) THOMAS, J u d g e . P.S. ("the m o t h e r " ) a p p e a l s t h e judgment o f t h e J e f f e r s o n J u v e n i l e C o u r t t e r m i n a t i n g h e r p a r e n t a l r i g h t s t o M.S. ("the 2111222 child") on A u g u s t 2 3 , 2 0 1 2 . We 1 reverse t h e judgment remand t h e c a u s e f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h and this opinion. In 2008, Resources lost the Jefferson ("DHR") became custody of her County involved two older Department with of t h e mother, children, R.O. a n d she and (sometimes 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 s i b l i n g s " ) , DHR initiated siblings. 2 the s i b l i n g s belt, with proceedings relating K.F. after to the DHR r e p o r t e d t h a t t h e m o t h e r h a d f a i l e d t o p r o t e c t when t h e m o t h e r ' s t h e n b o y f r i e n d h i t K.F. w i t h a leaving back. dependency Human severe bruises on h i s l e g s , arms, face, and I n 2 0 1 1 , DHR became aware t h a t t h e m o t h e r was p r e g n a n t the c h i l d . I t h a d "an a l e r t " sent t o the U n i v e r s i t y of Alabama a t Birmingham H o s p i t a l f o r i t t o i n f o r m m o t h e r gave b i r t h to the c h i l d . DHR when t h e The c h i l d was b o r n on A p r i l 19, 2 0 1 1 . 1 also The p a r e n t a l terminated. r i g h t s o f t h e c h i l d ' s unknown f a t h e r were At the time of the t e r m i n a t i o n - o f - p a r e n t a l - r i g h t s t r i a l r e g a r d i n g t h e c h i l d , R.O. was i n f o s t e r c a r e and K.F. was i n the c u s t o d y of h i s f a t h e r . The m o t h e r ' s p a r e n t a l r i g h t s t o t h e s i b l i n g s were n o t t e r m i n a t e d . 2 2 2111222 On A p r i l court, 22, 2 0 1 1 , DHR f i l e d a l l e g i n g that the c h i l d a complaint i n the j u v e n i l e was d e p e n d e n t . DHR reported t h a t t h e m o t h e r h a d " f a i l e d t o i n f o r m h e r DHR w o r k e r t h a t she was p r e g n a n t , " t h a t h e r " p a s t i s s u e s s u g g e s t she w i l l able t o properly care and t h a t t h e mother had lost custody pickup order f o rthe c h i l d , " of the s i b l i n g s . on A p r i l The j u v e n i l e c o u r t n o t be issued 22, 2 0 1 1 , a n d , t h a t same d a y , DHR a took custody of the c h i l d . A shelter-care hearing in an o r d e r custody signed b y Judge W. of the c h i l d great-aunt and was h e l d on A p r i l was supervised Alan awarded Summers t h a t visitation was The o r d e r i n c l u d e d a s p e c i f i c efforts awarded t o prevent the removal of the c h i l d been unsuccessful. Those finding that efforts signed "preliminary hearing" attorney submitted to the reasonable were described as counseling; r e s o u r c e s ; [ a n d ] home e v a l u a t i o n . " An o r d e r her maternal from t h e mother " i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f a l l e g a t i o n s ; in-home s e r v i c e s ; relative same d a y , to the c h i l d ' s mother. had 25, 2 0 1 1 , a n d , were b y Judge E l i s e Barclay indicates that a was h e l d June 1, 2 0 1 1 . present. a "memorandum Apparently DHR agreement" r e g a r d i n g 3 The m o t h e r a n d and t h e mother the c h i l d and 2111222 R.O. The memorandum a g r e e m e n t i s n o t i n c l u d e d i n t h e r e c o r d 3 on a p p e a l . remained The c h i l d was a g a i n i n the custody adjudicated of h i s maternal mother r e t a i n e d a r i g h t t o s u p e r v i s e d required to participate parenting-skills employment. class, According in d e p e n d e n t , a n d he great-aunt. visitation, counseling, and t o o b t a i n a n d she was to stable The complete housing a and t o DHR, t h e c h i l d ' s m a t e r n a l g r e a t - a u n t r e l i n q u i s h e d c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d t o DHR on June 27, 2 0 1 1 . A d i s p o s i t i o n a l hearing regarding the c h i l d was h e l d on September and t h e s i b l i n g s . An o r d e r 14, 2 0 1 1 , signed by Judge B a r c l a y a n d d a t e d September 14, 2 0 1 1 , i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e child remained dependent right to supervised order, DHR was and t h a t t h e mother retained her v i s i t a t i o n with the c h i l d . In that relieved of the responsibility reasonable e f f o r t s t o reunite the c h i l d with to t h e mother. same make At t h a t t i m e t h e c h i l d was f i v e months o l d . On November 18, 2 0 1 1 , DHR termination filed a petition seeking o f t h e 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 . t h a t time t h e c h i l d had been i n f o s t e r care f o r l e s s than the At five A p p a r e n t l y , some o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g s b e l o w were c o n d u c t e d in conjunction with the proceedings r e l a t i n g t o the s i b l i n g s . 3 4 2111222 months. for DHR t h e m a t e r i a l needs o f t h e c h i l d , s t a b l e housing to a s s e r t e d t h a t t h e mother had f a i l e d visit parental to t o o b t a i n and provide maintain and employment, t o a t t e n d p a r e n t i n g c l a s s e s , o r the c h i l d . was d e p e n d e n t , t h e m o t h e r was n o t a f i t and s u i t a b l e p a r e n t , DHR made should reasonable be f u r t h e r a s s e r t e d t h a t the mother's because the c h i l d had rights DHR 4 terminated efforts to reunite t h e mother and the c h i l d , w h i c h were u n s u c c e s s f u l , and no v i a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s t o the t e r m i n a t i o n of the mother's p a r e n t a l r i g h t s e x i s t e d . On F e b r u a r y 28, 2012, a p e r m a n e n c y Judge Sandra Storm. 5 An order dated h e a r i n g was h e l d b y February 28, 2012, DHR a l l e g e d t h a t t h e m o t h e r h a d n o t v i s i t e d t h e c h i l d s i n c e May 2011 and t h a t i t h a d b e e n d i f f i c u l t t o c o n t a c t t h e mother r e g a r d i n g v i s i t a t i o n . However, i n i t s r e p o r t d a t e d November 18, 2011, DHR r e p o r t e d t h a t t h e m o t h e r ' s v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s h a d b e e n " s u s p e n d e d " on May 18, 2011. In i t s report d a t e d F e b r u a r y 9, 2012, DHR r e p o r t e d t h a t t h e m o t h e r h a d e x e r c i s e d h e r v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s w i t h t h e c h i l d " a t l e a s t once p e r month a t t h e DHR B u i l d i n g . " We n o t e t h a t t h e September 14, 2011, o r d e r r e a d s : "The t e r m s o f v i s i t a t i o n may n o t be c h a n g e d i n an [ I n d i v i d u a l i z e d S e r v i c e P l a n ] " ; t h e r e c o r d does n o t c o n t a i n any c o u r t o r d e r s s u s p e n d i n g o r r e i n s t a t i n g v i s i t a t i o n . However, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t d i d n o t b a s e i t s t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e m o t h e r ' s p a r e n t a l r i g h t s on t h e m o t h e r ' s a l l e g e d f a i l u r e t o m a i n t a i n r e g u l a r v i s i t s w i t h t h e c h i l d . See § 12-153 1 9 ( a ) ( 1 0 ) , A l a . Code 1975. 4 T h e o r d e r i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e h e a r i n g was a p e r m a n e n c y h e a r i n g and a "TPR - p r e - T R I A L " r e g a r d i n g R.O. and t h e c h i l d . 5 5 2111222 indicates that counseling, maintain to mother on was required complete p a r e n t i n g suitable specifically Efforts the housing notes Sept. that participate and to obtain employment. was relieved of or order Reasonable and p r o g r e s s w i t h the [ I n d i v i d u a l i z e d S e r v i c e P l a n ] p r o c e s s . " The plan placement" or 2 0 1 1 [ , ] due The in to l a c k of cooperation permanency 15, classes, and "DHR to for the "adoption child with no was "permanent identified relative resource"; order i n d i c a t e s t h a t the c h i l d ' s f o s t e r p a r e n t s d i d not to pursue adoption. visitation The 19, 2012. judgment and was The not mother r e t a i n e d a r i g h t t o r e q u i r e d t o pay child A u g u s t 23, terminating 2012, the judgment reads, i n p e r t i n e n t supervised h e l d on J u n e the j u v e n i l e c o u r t mother's intend support. t e r m i n a t i o n - o f - p a r e n t a l - r i g h t s t r i a l was On parental entered rights. part: "The c o u r t does f i n d , p u r s u a n t t o T i t l e 12-15-319, Code o f A l a b a m a , 1975, t h a t [ t h e m o t h e r i s ] u n a b l e 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 and f o r t h e c h i l d [ ] ; t h a t t h e c o n d u c t and c o n d i t i o n o f [ t h e m o t h e r i s ] s u c h as to render [ h e r ] unable to 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 s u c h c o n d u c t and c o n d i t i o n [ i s ] u n l i k e l y to change i n the foreseeable future. "[The mother has] failed to adjust [her] c i r c u m s t a n c e s t o meet t h e c h i l d ' s n e e d s , p u r s u a n t t o 6 the a The 2111222 T i t l e 12-15-319, Code o f A l a b a m a , 12-15-301, Code o f A l a b a m a , 1975. 1975 and Title "The c o u r t a l s o f i n d s t h a t t h e r e a r e no s u i t a b l e relative resources willing or able to receive c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d [ ] . The c o u r t f i n d s t h e r e i s no v i a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e 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 in this case." The mother f i l e d a motion to a l t e r , j u d g m e n t on A u g u s t 28, 2012, had n o t provided mother's p a r e n t a l r i g h t s s h o u l d be s t a t u s quo was granting 29, the correcting denied 2012, mother's the 6 The an court postjudgment date of the mother f i l e d 2012. juvenile trial; the mother's motion. termination or t h a t m a i n t a i n i n g The rendered motion i n a l l other o r d e r was the a l s o argued t h a t i n c o r r e c t l y s t a t e d i n the the State J u d i c i a l Information The terminated n o t a v i a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e ; she t h e d a t e o f t h e t r i a l was August a r g u i n g t h a t DHR the c o n v i n c i n g evidence d e m o n s t r a t i n g t h a t the c l e a r and On amend, o r v a c a t e in judgment. an order part respects, i t not e n t e r e d on the S y s t e m ("SJIS") Case D e t a i l S h e e t . amended p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n s e e k i n g of her p a r e n t a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s juvenile by court rendered an on order September denying the 6, the S e e Ex p a r t e M.D.C., 39 So. 3d 1117 ( A l a . 2009) ( h o l d i n g t h a t a j u d g m e n t t e r m i n a t i n g a p a r e n t ' s p a r e n t a l r i g h t s does not a l s o e x t i n g u i s h t h a t p a r e n t ' s p a r e n t a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , such as, f o r example, the d u t y t o s u p p o r t the c h i l d ) . 6 7 2111222 m o t h e r ' s amended p o s t j u d g m e n t motion t h a t o r d e r was n o t e n t e r e d i n S J I S . of on S e p t e m b e r 11, 2 0 1 2 ; The m o t h e r f i l e d a n o t i c e a p p e a l on S e p t e m b e r 10, 2012. The motions Ala. j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s o r d e r s on t h e m o t h e r ' s were n o t e n t e r e d i n S J I S as r e q u i r e d b y R u l e 5 8 ( c ) , R. C i v . P. because postjudgment See R u l e the j u v e n i l e 1 ( A ) , A l a . R. c o u r t had t i m e l y J u v . P. rendered However, i t s orders p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 58(a) ( 1 ) - ( 4 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., t h e o r d e r s on the mother's postjudgment of m o t i o n s were n o t d e n i e d b y o p e r a t i o n l a w on t h e 1 4 t h d a y a f t e r Comments t o t h e Amendment e f f e c t i v e October juvenile-court t o Rule 24, 2008. clerk their filing. See C o m m i t t e e 5 9 . 1 , A l a . R. On remand f r o m t h i s entered the August S e p t e m b e r 6, 2012, p o s t j u d g m e n t C i v . P., court, the 29, 2012, a n d t h e orders i n SJIS. The m o t h e r ' s a p p e a l became e f f e c t i v e when t h e j u v e n i l e - c o u r t c l e r k e n t e r e d t h e r u l i n g s i n S J I S on May 22, 2013. R. App. P. of See ("A n o t i c e o f a p p e a l f i l e d Rule 4 ( a ) ( 4 ) , A l a . a f t e r t h e announcement a d e c i s i o n o r o r d e r b u t b e f o r e t h e e n t r y o f t h e judgment o r order date shall be t r e a t e d as f i l e d thereof."). 8 after t h e e n t r y a n d on t h e 2111222 The mother seeks o u r r e v i e w o f two i s s u e s : w h e t h e r t h e j u v e n i l e court's f i n d i n g s of f a c t are supported by c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e and whether t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t f a i l e d t o consider a continuation of the status quo as a viable 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 mother's p a r e n t a l r i g h t s to the child. A juvenile court's must be s u p p o r t e d judgment t e r m i n a t i n g p a r e n t a l by c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g evidence. S t a t e Dep't o f Human Res., 1988). 534 So. 2d 304, " C l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e " rights Bowman v. 305 ( A l a . C i v . App. i s "'[e]vidence 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 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 171, 179 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2002) 6-11-20(b)(4)). At c o n v i c t i o n as t o e a c h L.M. v. D.D.F., 840 So. ( q u o t i n g A l a . Code 1975, § 7 the termination-of-parental-rights t r i a l , testified as t o t h a t she had c o m p l e t e d a p a r e n t i n g t h e mother c l a s s i n 2009, S e e a l s o Ex p a r t e M c I n i s h , 47 So. 3d 767 ( A l a . 2008) ( e x p l a i n i n g t h e s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w t o be u s e d i n e v a l u a t i n g whether t h e c l e a r - a n d - c o n v i n c i n g - e v i d e n c e burden o f p r o o f has been m e t ) . 7 9 2111222 t h a t she had s u b m i t t e d t o a p s y c h o l o g i c a l e v a l u a t i o n , and she had maintained housing provided by "the participated government." i n , but a d m i t t e d t h a t she for had three The never years t e s t i f i e d t h a t she d i d n o t have any not able income b e c a u s e she was According 8 t h a t she t h a t she to the mother, was was The she mother a d m i t t e d pregnant with the b e e n unaware t h a t she p r e g n a n t b e c a u s e symptoms o f a s e v e r e a b d o m i n a l h e r n i a had child, but masked t h e she i n f o r m e d DHR She and disabled. not had child, c o u l d n o t w o r k b e c a u s e she was had she counseling. support f o r the she t o o b t a i n employment. apartment mother s a i d t h a t completed, d i d not p r o v i d e i n an that t e s t i f i e d that signs she of pregnancy. t h a t u n t i l M a r c h 2012 had The mother f u r t h e r testified she had v i s i t e d t h e c h i l d t w i c e a month, b u t she a d m i t t e d t h a t she had n o t v i s i t e d t h e c h i l d s i n c e time. According to the supervised visitation number and a d d r e s s f o r DHR DHR's c o n t a c t mother with the had she child had not because c h a n g e d and she exercised the that her telephone d i d not have information. The mother o f f e r e d documentary e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t she had a p p l i e d f o r d i s a b i l i t y b e n e f i t s , b u t she t e s t i f i e d t h a t she had n o t y e t b e e n a p p r o v e d t o r e c e i v e d i s a b i l i t y benefits. 8 10 2111222 H e a t h e r S h u g a r t , a DHR mailed 2012 a letter to inform to the the t e l e p h o n e number as m o t h e r had the not mother d u r i n g mother of DHR's o f May 10, the t r i a l ; she w i t h the c h i l d o c c u r r e d child the on May m o t h e r had last change week o f April address and Shugart s a i d that the i n the of had s i x weeks preceding s a i d t h a t the mother's l a s t t h e m o t h e r had c o m p l e t e d one although the 2012. visited termination e m p l o y e e , t e s t i f i e d t h a t DHR 8, 2012. visit Shugart admitted that s e r i e s of p a r e n t i n g c l a s s e s , but, been r e q u i r e d t o "redo i t a f t e r the b i r t h o f [ t h e c h i l d ] , " she had n o t c o m p l e t e d t h e s e c o n d s e r i e s of p a r e n t i n g that she classes. had counseling. She confirmed participated but mother's had never testimony completed t h a t t h e m o t h e r had s u b m i t t e d to a p s y c h o l o g i c a l e v a l u a t i o n and t h a t t h e m o t h e r ' s a p a r t m e n t was organized had Shugart admitted in the and also lived born. clean, i n two although she unsuitable t e s t i f i e d that was S h u g a r t t e s t i f i e d t h a t she had b r o u g h t t h e c h i l d t o the apartment explained that at those v i s i t s and her teach for appropriate "therapeutic she ways t o s a i d t h a t c h i l d w o u l d c r y and visits." Shugart would "coach" the mother care need c a r e . 11 s i n c e the mother child mother's places the f o r the child. She When a s k e d how much 2111222 she had t o c o a c h t h e m o t h e r , S h u g a r t s a i d : "Not Shugart said required the six the care of and months initiative" that child an that had a orthopedic the genetic physician mother had t o become i n v o l v e d i n t h e S h u g a r t a d m i t t e d t h a t she dates of the Shugart had child's medical testified s h o u l d be t e r m i n a t e d that not a whole l o t . " disorder that every three not to "take[n] the c h i l d ' s treatment, but i n f o r m e d the mother of the appointments. the mother's b e c a u s e t h e c h i l d had parental rights medical issues and b e c a u s e t h e m o t h e r l a c k e d f i n a n c i a l s t a b i l i t y and d i d n o t have transportation. She s a i d she was had b e e n a w a r d e d o n l y s u p e r v i s e d and c o n c e r n e d because the mother v i s i t a t i o n w i t h the b e c a u s e t h e m o t h e r ' s c r e d i b i l i t y was unwillingness to inform close of DHR that she siblings "skewed" due was to her pregnant with the child. At orally the the trial, the juvenile-court judge stated: " A l l r i g h t . I want t o t h a n k you a l l and I w i l l g e t an o r d e r t o you. I w i l l -- I want t o say s o m e t h i n g a b o u t t h i s c a s e . I h a v e n ' t q u i t e made up my mind, b u t I w i l l s a y t h a t I t h i n k i t w o u l d have h e l p e d me t o have some m e d i c a l r e c o r d s on your c l i e n t , i f t h e r e a r e any. And i t w o u l d have h e l p e d me t o have a p s y c h o l o g i c a l e v a l u a t i o n . I d i d n ' t have any o f t h a t . 12 2111222 " J u d g e s we r u l e on what we g e t . I have t r i e d t o s i t h e r e and t h i n k what w o u l d be g o i n g on w i t h y o u . I t l o o k s t o me l i k e i n c r e d i b l e p a s s i v i t y l i k e j u s t -- I d o n ' t know. I d o n ' t u n d e r s t a n d i t , b u t t h e children a r e g e t t i n g o l d e r and o l d e r . I t ' s an u n u s u a l c a s e . B u t n o t -- you know, i t i s . I t ' s j u s t k i n d o f -- v e r y o f t e n , I t r y t o u n d e r s t a n d w h a t ' s g o i n g on w i t h a p a r e n t . I j u s t d o n ' t g e t i t h e r e . " The out in grounds § f o r 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 12-15-319(a), Ala. Code 1975, which provides f a c t o r s t h a t a j u v e n i l e c o u r t must c o n s i d e r when whether a parent her i s unable or u n w i l l i n g parental responsibilities. court terminated exclusively on § the mother's In this 12 determining case, which the juvenile rights, relying provides in i t s entirety: "(a) I f t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t f i n d s f r o m c l e a r 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 , 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 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 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 of the p a r e n t s . I n d e t e r m i n i n g whether or not the p a r e n t s are unable or 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 p a r e n t a l r i g h t s , the j u v e n i l e c o u r t s h a l l c o n s i d e r the f o l l o w i n g f a c t o r s i n c l u d i n g , but not l i m i t e d t o , the f o l l o w i n g : 13 set t o d i s c h a r g e h i s or parental 12-15-319(a)(12), are 2111222 II "(12) L a c k o f e f f o r t by 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 r e a c h e d w i t h l o c a l d e p a r t m e n t s 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." T h u s , we presented must d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e with c l e a r and convincing j u v e n i l e court was evidence to support the judgment t e r m i n a t i n g the mother's p a r e n t a l r i g h t s to the based upon terminate § 12-15-319(a)(12). parental rights evidence t h a t the parent "The must p r e s e n t i s not capable party child seeking c l e a r and to convincing of or i s u n w i l l i n g to d i s c h a r g e h i s o r h e r p a r e n t a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . " K.W. v. J.G., 856 v. State So. Dep't 2d 859, of 874 ( A l a . C i v . App. Human Res., 710 So. 2d 2003) ( c i t i n g V.M. 915, 919 (Ala. Civ. 1998)). "This c o u r t f u l l y r e c o g n i z e s the d i f f i c u l t y of c a s e s s u c h as t h i s . N e v e r t h e l e s s , t h e t e r m i n a t i o n o f a l r i g h t s i s a d r a s t i c m e a s u r e , and we know no means by w h i c h t h o s e r i g h t s , once t e r m i n a t e d , can be r e i n s t a t e d . The e v i d e n c e i n t h e s e c a s e s 'does n o t r i s e t o t h e l e v e l o f b e i n g so c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g as t o s u p p o r t t e r m i n a t i o n o f 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 u c h a c t i o n b e i n g t h e l a s t and most e x t r e m e d i s p o s i t i o n p e r m i t t e d by s t a t u t e . ' E a s t v. Meadows, 529 So. 2d 1010, 1012 (Ala. Civ. App. 14 App. 2111222 1988) . See a l s o L.A.T. v . S t a t e Dep't o f Human R e s o u r c e s , 588 So. 2d 471 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 1 ) . " V.M., 710 So. 2d a t 921; s e e a l s o A.H. v. H o u s t o n C n t y . Dep't o f Human Res., (Ala. [Ms. 2 1 2 0 0 6 1 , M a r c h 8, 2013] C i v . App. 2013.) We conclude with evidence, from which mother that the j u v e n i l e court i t could was u n a b l e have been clearly presented her unlikely or condition future. that the her parental or t h a t her conduct or c o n d i t i o n care foreseeable convinced or u n w i l l i n g t o discharge rendered her unable t o p r o p e r l y conduct was n o t "competent, m a t e r i a l , and r e l e v a n t i n n a t u r e , " r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to the c h i l d was f o rthe c h i l d and t h a t t o change i n the See § 1 2 - 1 5 - 3 1 9 ( a ) . DHR f a i l e d t o p r e s e n t was So. 3d 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 mother u n w i l l i n g t o parent the c h i l d or d e s c r i b i n g the conduct o r c o n d i t i o n t h a t made t h e m o t h e r u n a b l e t o p a r e n t t h e c h i l d . o t h e r w o r d s , DHR n e v e r r e v e a l e d t h e m o t h e r ' s p a r e n t i n g A l t h o u g h we u n d e r s t a n d t h a t , a c c o r d i n g defect. t o DHR, a t some p o i n t i n 2008 t h e m o t h e r f a i l e d t o p r o t e c t K.F., o u r r e v i e w record reveals that supports that DHR's no e v i d e n c e presented to the juvenile DHR's a s s e r t i o n r e g a r d i n g assertion i s correct, 15 In K.F. the record Even ofthe court assuming contains no 2111222 evidence presented b y DHR r e g a r d i n g unwillingness t o discharge child. mother DHR failed had f a i l e d protect the c h i l d , t h e mother's i n a b i l i t y o r her parental r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to the to present evidence to protect i n d i c a t i n g that the the c h i l d , o r had a c o n t i n u i n g was u n w i l l i n g t o r e l a t i o n s h i p with the man who h a d a l l e g e d l y harmed K.F. i n 2 0 0 8 . 9 L i k e w i s e , we have n o t d i s c o v e r e d e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t any c o n d u c t o r c o n d i t i o n o f t h e m o t h e r w o u l d r e n d e r h e r u n a b l e to parent indicating the c h i l d . that Accordingly, any c o n d u c t there or condition i s no that evidence renders the mother u n a b l e t o p a r e n t t h e c h i l d , i f such e x i s t s , 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 future. We have a f f i r m e d j u d g m e n t s t e r m i n a t i n g t h e p a r e n t a l r i g h t s o f a p a r e n t when a p a r e n t h a s f a i l e d o r r e f u s e d t o remove h i m s e l f o r h e r s e l f from a l i v i n g situation that p r e s e n t e d a d a n g e r t o t h e p a r e n t ' s c h i l d . See C.W. v . S t a t e Dep't o f Human R e s . , 826 So. 2d 1 7 1 , 173-74 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 2 ) . However, b e c a u s e t h e r e i s no 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 i s i n a c o n t i n u i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e man who a l l e g e d l y harmed K.F., we f i n d no c o n f l i c t b e t w e e n t h e h o l d i n g s i n t h i s o p i n i o n and p r e v i o u s d e c i s i o n s o f t h i s c o u r t . See L.M. v . S h e l b y C n t y . Dep't o f Human R e s . , 86 So. 3d 377, 387-88 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 1 ) ( d e t e r m i n i n g that the record d i d not c o n t a i n evidence s u f f i c i e n t t o support a f i n d i n g t h a t t h e f a t h e r was u n w i l l i n g t o p r o t e c t t h e c h i l d r e n from t h e p o t e n t i a l harm p r e s e n t e d b y a n o t h e r p e r s o n ) . 9 16 2111222 Furthermore, opportunity have been DHR d i d not to correct a barrier provide any conduct with that the might the c h i l d ; the o f any " c i r c u m s t a n c e " she needed t o a d j u s t i n o r d e r t o meet t h e needs o f t h e c h i l d . 15, mother or condition to reunification m o t h e r was n o t i n f o r m e d the On S e p t e m b e r 2 0 1 1 , when t h e c h i l d was f i v e months o l d a n d h a d n e v e r l i v e d with t h e m o t h e r , Judge B a r c l a y reasonable e f f o r t s to rehabilitate relieved DHR o f m a k i n g t h e mother. "A p a r e n t ' s p a r e n t a l r i g h t s c a n n o t be t e r m i n a t e d on the ground t h a t t h e parent d i d n o t 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 r e n , o r on t h e g r o u n d that efforts to r e h a b i l i t a t e the parent had f a i l e d , when the sole barrier to r e u n i f i c a t i o n was n o t c o m m u n i c a t e d t o t h e p a r e n t b y DHR. See H.H. v . B a l d w i n C n t y . Dep't o f Human R e s . , 989 So. 2d 1094, 1105 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2007) ( o p i n i o n on r e t u r n t o remand) (Per Moore, J . , w i t h two j u d g e s concurring i n the result) ('The n a t u r a l s t a r t i n g point i n any fair and serious attempt to r e h a b i l i t a t e t h e p a r e n t and t o r e u n i t e t h e p a r e n t with the child is identification of that characteristic, conduct, or circumstance that renders the parent u n f i t or unable t o discharge h i s o r h e r p a r e n t a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s t o t h e c h i l d . Once DHR i d e n t i f i e s t h e s o u r c e o f p a r e n t a l u n f i t n e s s , t h e overarching goal of family r e u n i f i c a t i o n requires DHR t o c o m m u n i c a t e i t s c o n c e r n s t o t h e p a r e n t a n d t o develop a reasonable plan with the parent that i s t a i l o r e d toward the p a r t i c u l a r problem(s) p r e v e n t i n g the p a r e n t from assuming a p r o p e r p a r e n t a l r o l e . ' ) . " L.M. v. S h e l b y C n t y . (Ala. Dep't o f Human Res., C i v . App. 2 0 1 1 ) . 17 86 So. 3d 377, 388 2111222 DHR f a i l e d to present c l e a r and convincing evidence would s a t i s f y the requirements of § 12-15-319(a). the j u v e n i l e court subsection on which (12) to could base the termination The judgment reversed, and the argument on have p r o p e r l y o f t h a t s t a t u t e was rights. Because not we of the determined the juvenile mother's court the r e s o l u t i o n of appeal determinative of the the appeal, status Store v. quo was Waldrop, So. 2d 719, 723 parental therefore proceedings. we first pretermit continuation a v i a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e . See 924 that provision mother's d i s c u s s i o n of the mother's argument t h a t the the is c a u s e i s remanded f o r f u r t h e r find Therefore, an a p p r o p r i a t e of that Favorite ( A l a . C i v . App. of Mkt. 2005) ( s t a t i n g t h a t t h i s c o u r t would 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 REVERSED AND of another i s s u e ) . REMANDED. Thompson, P . J . , and Pittman, concur. 18 M o o r e , and Donaldson, 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.