K.E. v. Marshall County Department of Human Resources

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 5-3-2013 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 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, 2012-2013 2120119 K.E. v. M a r s h a l l County Department o f Human Resources Appeal from M a r s h a l l J u v e n i l e (JU-11-300156.01) Court DONALDSON, J u d g e . K.E. ("the f a t h e r " ) appeals from a judgment ofthe M a r s h a l l J u v e n i l e C o u r t f i n d i n g h i s m i n o r d a u g h t e r , A.E. child"), ("the t o be d e p e n d e n t , p l a c i n g t h e c h i l d i n t h e p h y s i c a l 2120119 c u s t o d y o f r e l a t i v e s , and denying t h e f a t h e r v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s with the c h i l d . Facts and P r o c e d u r a l The e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d The Marshall County History below r e v e a l s the f o l l o w i n g f a c t s . Department o f Human Resources ("DHR") f i r s t became i n v o l v e d w i t h t h e c h i l d a f t e r r e c e i v i n g a r e p o r t o f d o m e s t i c abuse i n t h e c h i l d ' s m o t h e r ' s home i n June 2011 a f t e r t h e mother and c h i l d ' s s t e p f a t h e r had a v i o l e n t d o m e s t i c a l t e r c a t i o n . A t t h e time o f t h a t i n c i d e n t , t h e c h i l d and h e r s i b l i n g s l i v e d w i t h t h e m o t h e r . DHR's s u b s e q u e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n revealed significant alcohol abuse by t h e mother and t h e s t e p f a t h e r . The c h i l d a n d h e r s i b l i n g s were u l t i m a t e l y removed f r o m t h e m o t h e r ' s home a n d p l a c e d i n t o the custody o f DHR. DHR p l a c e d t h e c h i l d i n t o f o s t e r c a r e . DHR f i l e d a d e p e n d e n c y p e t i t i o n as t o t h e c h i l d The September The j u v e n i l e court i n August 2011. held a hearing on t h e p e t i t i o n 24, 2012. The f a t h e r was r e p r e s e n t e d juvenile court appointed c h i l d . Michelle Holland, a guardian by ad l i t e m t h e DHR f o s t e r - c a r e w o r k e r on counsel. for the assigned t o t h e c a s e , t e s t i f i e d t h a t DHR h a d i m p l e m e n t e d a v i s i t a t i o n plan f o r b o t h t h e f a t h e r a n d t h e m o t h e r . She s t a t e d t h a t t h e 2 2120119 f a t h e r r e g u l a r l y v i s i t e d w i t h t h e c h i l d and contact with provided DHR. the She child also with stated that money. She stayed the in regular father testified routinely that she had r e q u e s t e d t h a t t h e f a t h e r a t t e n d anger-management c l a s s e s but that that she and the he had believed child failed that was not so. Holland testified relationship the to between the healthy. do DHR requested that father i t be allowed to T.E., the r e t a i n l e g a l c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d and t h a t R.E. and child's lived the paternal K a n s a s , be The hearing, with uncle and a u n t who awarded p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y of the child, who was 13 years old the father and was not afraid of State of of the child. at t e s t i f i e d t h a t , a l t h o u g h she had in the time a good r e l a t i o n s h i p him i n general, she b e l i e v e d t h a t i t w o u l d be b e n e f i c i a l t o h e r future to l i v e i n Kansas w i t h had R.E. and T.E., with whom she p o i n t p r e v i o u s l y d u r i n g her childhood. f a t h e r had t h a t she violent witnessed a bad toward her brother. her father punch which scared testified t e m p e r and her that She caused her the father had 3 one the w i t n e s s e d him testified walls, and had at t e s t i f i e d that She scream, to f l e e sent lived that and she slam a text had doors, t h e h o u s e . The her being child message 2120119 indicating Kansas. t h a t he w o u l d " n o t be a l i v e " She t e s t i f i e d t h a t i f she r e l o c a t e d t o t h e f a t h e r had p r o v i d e d her with money when she a s k e d f o r i t . The father testified that he h a d begun p o u l t r y p l a n t a p p r o x i m a t e l y two weeks b e f o r e s t a t e d t h a t he h a d q u i t h i s j o b as a l o n g - h a u l order t o be closer t o home t o t a k e care working in a the hearing. He truck driver i n of the c h i l d . t e s t i m o n y i n d i c a t e s t h a t he e a r n e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y His l e s s working a t t h e p o u l t r y p l a n t t h a n as a t r u c k d r i v e r . He d e n i e d h a v i n g a bad temper, a n d he child's brother. denied The f a t h e r ever being abusive t e s t i f i e d that toward the the t e x t message i n d i c a t i n g t h a t he w o u l d " n o t be a l i v e " i f t h e c h i l d moved to Kansas He was not a threat to commit harm to himself. t e s t i f i e d t h a t he h a d p r e v i o u s l y l o s t c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d a n d her brother when he was living with them i n the State K a n s a s . The t r a n s c r i p t o f t h e f a t h e r ' s t e s t i m o n y r e v e a l s of that h i s r e s p o n s e s t o q u e s t i o n i n g were o f t e n c o m b a t i v e a n d e v a s i v e , which the t r i a l The court n o t e d i n t h e f i n a l judgment. c h i l d ' s guardian t h a t t h e c h i l d be p l a c e d a d l i t e m recommended to the court i n t h e p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y o f R.E. a n d T.E. i n K a n s a s . He a l s o recommended t h a t t h e c h i l d r e t a i n t h e 4 2120119 d i s c r e t i o n t o d e t e r m i n e any v i s i t a t i o n w i t h t h e m o t h e r and the father. The 2012, 102, j u v e n i l e court f i n d i n g the Ala. Code c h i l d t o be 1975. f i n d i n g s of f a c t , entered The a j u d g m e n t on September 25, d e p e n d e n t p u r s u a n t t o § 12-15¬ judgment contained the following among o t h e r s : "8. The r e s p o n d e n t f a t h e r , [ K . E . ] , has f a i l e d t o m a i n t a i n a s t a b l e home w h i c h w o u l d be s u i t a b l e f o r t h e c a r e and u p b r i n g i n g o f t h e s u b j e c t j u v e n i l e ; "9. The r e s p o n d e n t f a t h e r , [ K . E . ] , i s u n a b l e o r u n w i l l i n g to p r o v i d e f o r the f i n a n c i a l support of the s u b j e c t j u v e n i l e ; "10. The respondent f a t h e r has difficulty c o n t r o l l i n g h i s a n g e r and e m o t i o n s , and does n o t possess a temperament which is suitable for p r o v i d i n g t h e n e c e s s a r y c a r e and s u p e r v i s i o n o f t h e subject j u v e n i l e ; "11. The subject juvenile, [A.E.], testimony which, based upon this o b s e r v a t i o n , was c o m p l e t e l y and e n t i r e l y and w o r t h y o f b e l i e f ; provided Court's credible "12. F u r t h e r m o r e , t h i s C o u r t w o u l d n o t e t h a t [A.E.], the subject juvenile, demonstrated r e m a r k a b l e m a t u r i t y , p o i s e and h o n e s t y i n t h e f a c e o f d i f f i c u l t c i r c u m s t a n c e s ; and t h e r e f o r e , s h o u l d be commended on h e r l e v e l o f m a t u r i t y and f o r t h r i g h t testimony; "13. The r e s p o n d e n t f a t h e r p r o v i d e d testimony w h i c h , b a s e d upon t h i s C o u r t ' s observation, was e v a s i v e , n o t c r e d i b l e and o t h e r w i s e n o t w o r t h y o f belief; 5 2120119 "14. F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e r e s p o n d e n t f a t h e r a p p e a r e d t o t h i s C o u r t t o have t r o u b l e c o n t r o l l i n g h i s a n g e r w h i l e on t h e s t a n d , a n d f r e q u e n t l y d i r e c t e d a n g r y comments a n d a h o s t i l e attitude towards other p a r t i e s and/or a t t o r n e y s , which d i d not r i s e t o t h e level o f contempt, but i s worthy of mention considering the Court's f i n d i n g contained w i t h i n p a r a g r a p h 10, a b o v e . " C o n c e r n i n g c u s t o d y a n d v i s i t a t i o n , t h e c o u r t r u l e d as f o l l o w s : "18. juvenile, That legal custody of the subject [ A . E . ] , i s h e r e b y v e s t e d w i t h DHR; "19. That p h y s i c a l custody of the subject j u v e n i l e , [ A . E . ] , i s h e r e b y v e s t e d w i t h [R.E.] a n d [ T . E . ] , who r e s i d e i n t h e S t a t e o f K a n s a s ; "20. U n d e r t h e p a r t i c u l a r c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h i s c a s e , t h e p a r e n t s a r e a w a r d e d no v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s ; h o w e v e r , [A.E.] may, a t h e r s o l e d i s c r e t i o n , c h o o s e to v i s i t w i t h h e r p a r e n t s upon s u c h t e r m s a n d c o n d i t i o n s , a n d a t s u c h t i m e s a n d p l a c e s as she deems f i t a n d p r o p e r . " The father October 18, a motion 9, 2012, w h i c h failed to alter, the juvenile 2012. The f a t h e r f i l e d The that filed amend, or vacate c o u r t d e n i e d on on October a t i m e l y appeal t o t h i s court. f a t h e r r a i s e s f o u r a r g u m e n t s on a p p e a l : ( 1 ) t h a t DHR t o make r e a s o n a b l e the juvenile court efforts toward allowed reunification; (2) testimony concerning an u n a u t h e n t i c a t e d document b e f o r e r u l i n g t h a t t h e document was i n a d m i s s i b l e ; ( 3 ) that the juvenile physical custody of the c h i l d 6 c o u r t e r r e d by t o R.E. and T.E. awarding without 2120119 r e c e i v i n g e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h a t r e l a t i v e p l a c e m e n t was suitable; and ( 4 ) t h a t awarding v i s i t a t i o n the j u v e n i l e court erred by not to the father. Standard o f Review " I n Ex p a r t e A l a b a m a D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s , 682 So. 2d 459 ( A l a . 1 9 9 6 ) , t h e A l a b a m a Supreme Court s t a t e d the a p p l i c a b l e p r i n c i p l e s of a p p e l l a t e review i n the context of a challenge t o a j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s c u s t o d i a l d i s p o s i t i o n o f a dependent c h i l d : "'Appellate review i s l i m i t e d i n cases where t h e e v i d e n c e i s p r e s e n t e d to the t r i a l court ore tenus. In a c h i l d custody c a s e , an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t p r e s u m e s t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s t o be c o r r e c t a n d w i l l n o t r e v e r s e w i t h o u t p r o o f o f a c l e a r abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n or p l a i n e r r o r . R e u t e r v. N e e s e , 586 So. 2d 232 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 1 ) ; J . S . v . D.S., 586 So. 2d 944 ( A l a . Civ. App. 1 9 9 1 ) . This presumption i s e s p e c i a l l y a p p l i c a b l e where t h e e v i d e n c e i s c o n f l i c t i n g . Ex p a r t e P.G.B., 600 So. 2d 259, 261 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) . An a p p e l l a t e c o u r t w i l l n o t r e v e r s e t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment b a s e d on t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s o f f a c t u n l e s s t h e f i n d i n g s a r e so p o o r l y s u p p o r t e d b y t h e e v i d e n c e as t o be p l a i n l y a n d p a l p a b l y wrong. See Ex p a r t e W a l t e r s , 580 So. 2d 1352 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) . ' "682 So. 2d a t 460." J.J. v. J.H.W., 27 So. 3d 519, 522 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 8 ) . Discussion 7 2120119 The father reversible contends error by that the j u v e n i l e court not ordering DHR committed t o make reasonable e f f o r t s t o w a r d r e u n i t i n g t h e c h i l d and t h e f a t h e r . The f a t h e r f a i l e d t o a s s e r t t h a t argument b e f o r e it c a n n o t be p r o p e r l y Thus, we a r e p r e c l u d e d State Dep't t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t , and r a i s e d f o r the f i r s t time on appeal. f r o m a d d r e s s i n g t h i s i s s u e . See E.M. v. o f Human R e s . , 612 So. 2d 486 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1992). The father next contends that the juvenile committed r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r by a l l o w i n g t e s t i m o n y unauthenticated inadmissible. a record County, document that c o n c e r n i n g an subsequently The f a t h e r a r g u e s t h a t a document, from Kansas, a proceeding was i n the D i s t r i c t not properly R u l e 4 4 ( a ) ( 1 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., 1 was R u l e 44(a)(1) 1 deemed purportedly Court authenticated court of pursuant t o and, t h u s , t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e provides: "An o f f i c i a l r e c o r d k e p t w i t h i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s , o r any s t a t e , d i s t r i c t , commonwealth, t e r r i t o r y , o r i n s u l a r possession thereof, or w i t h i n a t e r r i t o r y subject to the administrative or judicial jurisdiction of the United States o r an e n t r y t h e r e i n , when a d m i s s i b l e f o r any p u r p o s e , may be e v i d e n c e d b y an o f f i c i a l p u b l i c a t i o n t h e r e o f o r b y a c o p y a t t e s t e d b y a p e r s o n p u r p o r t i n g t o be t h e o f f i c e r having the l e g a l custody of the record, or 8 Ellis 2120119 c o u r t s h o u l d n o t have e n t e r t a i n e d any the contents concluded not of the t h a t the properly Nonetheless, document. The document was authenticated cited juvenile authority court erred before Accordingly, we 1222, will (Ala. propositions c o u r t has The to are concerning support allowing determining ( A l a . C i v . App. 1224 to in not 28(a) ( 1 0 ) , A l a . R. App. 945 i n a d m i s s i b l e because i t Rule was 44(a)(1). t h e f a t h e r has n o t d e m o n s t r a t e d t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e any document p e r t a i n i n g to j u v e n i l e court u l t i m a t e l y pursuant c o u r t c o n s i d e r e d the testimony he testimony his i t to this the concerning the inadmissible. argument. See M u l l i n s v. S e l l e r s , 80 So. 2 0 1 1 ) ; and Asam v. D e v e r e a u x , 686 Civ. not App. 1996) supporting next contends ("Inapplicable a u t h o r i t y , and that legal the an Rule 3d 935, So. 2d general appellate research."). juvenile c o m m i t t e d r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r by o r d e r i n g t h e c h i l d t o l i v e by t h e o f f i c e r ' s d e p u t y . I f t h e o f f i c i a l r e c o r d i s kept without the state, the copy shall be a c c o m p a n i e d by a c e r t i f i c a t e u n d e r o a t h o f s u c h person t h a t such person i s the l e g a l c u s t o d i a n of s u c h r e c o r d and t h a t t h e l a w s o f t h e s t a t e r e q u i r e t h e r e c o r d t o be k e p t . " 9 has that be no d u t y t o p e r f o r m a l i t i g a n t ' s father argument testimony consider P.; t h e document n o r court with 2120119 her paternal sufficient uncle and evidence aunt in Kansas concerning the r e l a t i v e placement. The f a t h e r has a u t h o r i t y to support h i s a r g u m e n t on without receiving suitability p r o v i d e d no 2d a t P.; Mullins, 80 So. t h i s matter. 3d a t 945; Thus, to we 28(a)(10), and Asam, 686 So. f a t h e r contends t h a t the j u v e n i l e c o u r t e r r e d by not 1224. The awarding visitation instead, granting between the the child f a t h e r and the 2 the discretion v i s i t a t i o n w i t h the f a t h e r . Concerning has that citations d e c l i n e t o f u r t h e r c o n s i d e r t h i s a r g u m e n t . See R u l e A l a . R. App. of child, to but, determine visitation, this court s t a t e d as f o l l o w s : "'"'The determination of proper visitation ... is within the sound d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t , and t h a t court's determination should not be r e v e r s e d a b s e n t a s h o w i n g o f an abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n . ' Ex p a r t e B l a n d , 796 So. 2d 340 (Ala. 2000). '[C]ases i n Alabama have consistently held that the primary consideration in setting v i s i t a t i o n rights i s t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s and w e l f a r e o f t h e i c h i l d . Furthermore, each c h i l d v i s i t a t i o n c a s e must be d e c i d e d on i t s own f a c t s and circumstances.' F a n n i n g v. F a n n i n g , 504 The j u v e n i l e c o u r t a l s o a l l o w e d the c h i l d t o d e c i d e i f she w o u l d v i s i t w i t h t h e m o t h e r , b u t t h e m o t h e r has not appealed the judgment. 2 10 2120119 So. 2d 737, 739 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1987) (citations omitted). 'When t h e i s s u e o f visitation i s determined after oral proceedings , the trial court's determination o f t h e i s s u e w i l l n o t be d i s t u r b e d a b s e n t an a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n o r a showing t h a t i t i s p l a i n l y i n e r r o r . Andrews v. A n d r e w s , 520 So. 2d 512 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1987) .' D o m i n i c k v . D o m i n i c k , 622 So. 2d 402, 403 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 3 ) . " ' "L.L.M. v. S.F., 919 So. 2d 307, 314 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2005) ( q u o t i n g K.L.U. v. M.C., 809 So. 2d 837, 840-41 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 1 ) ) . " V.G. v. M a d i s o n C n t y . 555-556 In ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 8 ) . this visitation denied D e p ' t o f Human R e s . , 989 So. 2d 550, case, judgment concerning i s ambiguous a n d i n c o n s i s t e n t . The j u v e n i l e c o u r t the father visitation the juvenile court's with visitation rights, yet i t authorized the father at the child's discretion. This c o u r t a n d o u r supreme c o u r t have h e l d t h a t p e r m i t t i n g a c h i l d to d e t e r m i n e i f a n d when v i s i t a t i o n w i l l is o r d i n a r i l y i n a p p r o p r i a t e and u n f a i r t o b o t h t h e c h i l d and the p a r e n t . 467, Parker 471 (1959) v. P a r k e r , occur with a parent 269 A l a . 299, 303, 112 So. 2d ( r e v e r s i n g a judgment p l a c i n g v i s i t a t i o n a t t h e d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e c h i l d a n d s t a t i n g t h a t "a d e c i s i o n as t o what i s b e s t f o r t h e c h i l d " s h o u l d be made b y t h e t r i a l r a t h e r t h a n t h e c h i l d ) ; B r y a n t v. B r y a n t , 11 court 739 So. 2d 53, 56-57 2120119 (Ala. C i v . App. visitation unjust"); 2012] 1999)(characterizing a judgment a t t h e d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e c h i l d r e n as and H.H.J. v. K . T . J . , So. 3d [Ms. 2110583, ( A l a . C i v . App. 2012) placing "manifestly December 14, (holding that to allow the c h i l d t o determine the t i m i n g of v i s i t a t i o n w i t h the father b a s e d on t h e f a c t s c h i l d ' s best i n t e r e s t ) ; o f t h e c a s e w o u l d n o t be see a l s o Moore v. Moore, 57 A l a . App. 735, 737, 331 So. 2d 742, 744 the cultivation of (1976) ("The [the p a r e n t - c h i l d ] r i g h t f u l l y be upon t h e [ p a r e n t s ] , so p l a c e i n the responsibility relationship for should ... n o t upon t h e c h i l d . i t i s to probably destroy i t , not p r o t e c t To it."). A l t h o u g h t h e f a t h e r was n o t a w a r d e d c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d , the juvenile between the court d i d n o t make a father and the child finding that w o u l d be visitation detrimental d a n g e r o u s t o t h e c h i l d . The r e c o r d i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e reveals t h a t t h e c h i l d had a good r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h h e r f a t h e r , the f a t h e r had v i s i t e d the c h i l d without i n c i d e n t during pendency of t h e dependency p r o c e e d i n g s , and t h a t was the record not abusive to the c h i l d . As such, support a f i n d i n g that the father should as visitation should be completely 12 have no denied the or that the father does n o t visitation, i n "unusual and 2120119 extreme cases." 67 So. in 3d 76, the Y.N. 86 (Ala. This See, C i v . App. with a parent has may not e.g. 1986) may the child father solely in this Accordingly, judgment c o n c e r n i n g and (2) that is Because of m a t t e r has the specific not specific in So. 2d c h i l d to left amount o f a l l 102 visit interest). i n the of the But child's part of the 13-year-old best interests. juvenile court's v i s i t a t i o n w i t h t h e f a t h e r , and we j u d g m e n t t h a t awards no father 18-year-old discretion that the award 494 c h i l d ' s best t h i s cause t o the j u v e n i l e c o u r t to a a finding that leaving v i s i t a t i o n i n the reverse that Shires, Res., concurring appropriate v. i n the c a s e w o u l d be we be ( f o r c i n g an n o t be (Moore, J . , recognized Shires t h e r e c o r d does n o t s u p p o r t with 2011) court schedule circumstances. J e f f e r s o n C n t y . Dep't o f Human ( A l a . C i v . App. result). visitation v. (1) t o d e l e t e t h a t p o r t i o n o f visitation visitation to the time remand to the between the discretion that b e e n p e n d i n g on a p p e a l , rights has the of elapsed father child the and child. while 3 this j u v e n i l e c o u r t i s not The j u v e n i l e c o u r t i s i n the b e s t p o s i t i o n to s e t the s p e c i f i c t e r m s and c o n d i t i o n s o f v i s i t a t i o n , s u c h as w h e t h e r s u c h v i s i t a t i o n s h o u l d be s u p e r v i s e d a n d / o r w h e t h e r i t s h o u l d be c o n d i t i o n e d on t h e f a t h e r ' s c o m p l e t i n g anger-management counseling. 3 13 2120119 prohibited from conducting a hearing, i f i t deems i t a p p r o p r i a t e , b e f o r e e n t e r i n g t h e judgment awarding visitation to the f a t h e r . AFFIRMED I N PART; REVERSED I N PART; AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, P . J . , a n d P i t t m a n , J . , c o n c u r . Thomas a n d Moore, J J . , concur writings. 14 i n the r e s u l t , without

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.