B.K.H. v. Cullman County Department of Human Resources

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Rel: 10/04/2013 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 be 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 SPECIAL TERM, 2013 2120581 B.K.H. v. Cullman County Department of Human Resources Appeal from Cullman J u v e n i l e Court (JU-09-465.04) PER CURIAM. On December Human R e s o u r c e s 2, 2011, t h e C u l l m a n County Department of ("DHR") f i l e d a p e t i t i o n s e e k i n g t o 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 o f T.M.S. ( " t h e f a t h e r " ) a n d B.K.H. ( " t h e mother") to their minor child, A.L.S. ("the c h i l d " ) . The 2120581 C u l l m a n J u v e n i l e C o u r t ("the tenus hearing over admitted evidence March into 6, 2013, terminating the the mother t i m e l y of two numerous juvenile which the c o n d u c t e d an days, during documentary court which i t exhibits. entered The a judgment denied. This and opinion has attend not the The 27, on March Circuit the a p p e a l e d the March r e f e r s to the i n d i c a t e s t h a t the 2009, DHR Court ("the c i r c u i t court") child's safety. child, and, received an order issues court i n d o i n g so, u s i n g methamphetamine. he f o r an had January testified from the t h a t the Cullman award of on father had custody of the a l l e g e d t h a t the mother Y a r b r o u g h t e s t i f i e d t h a t a DHR was social worker, C o r t n i M i l l e r , l o c a t e d the c h i l d i n the custody of 2 that r e q u i r i n g i t to check Yarbrough explained circuit b o r n on supervisor, 18, the 6, facts pertaining c h i l d was C o n n i e Y a r b r o u g h , a DHR petitioned The mother. record 2009. a termination- t o t h e f a t h e r o n l y as t h e y i m p a c t t h e d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e the On mother f i l e d j u v e n i l e court f a t h e r d i d not rights hearing judgment. r a i s e d by ore appealed. note t h a t the of-parental 2013, course the p a r e n t s ' p a r e n t a l r i g h t s . postjudgment motion, We j u v e n i l e court") the 2120581 father and t h a t , involving the next the parents day, M i l l e r and t h e c h i l d attended a i n the c i r c u i t Yarbrough t e s t i f i e d that, a t that hearing, negative father tested f o r t h e use of i l l e g a l positive benzodiazepine. f o r the of court The m o t h e r substances, use court. the c i r c u i t o r d e r e d each p a r e n t t o submit t o a drug screen. tested hearing and t h e marijuana and Y a r b r o u g h t e s t i f i e d t h a t , a f t e r c o n d u c t i n g an i n v e s t i g a t i o n t o ensure the s a f e t y of the c h i l d , to c l o s e t h e case a t t h a t DHR d e c i d e d time. DHR a g a i n became i n v o l v e d w i t h t h e f a m i l y i n A u g u s t 2009 as t h e r e s u l t o f an i n c i d e n t alone with Martin, i n which t h e c h i l d a n d was d r i n k i n g a DHR i n v e s t i g a t o r , t e s t i f i e d August 29, 2009, she r e c e i v e d family at the l o c a l t h e m o t h e r was home "Wild Turkey." that a telephone e m e r g e n c y room. mother broken into first h e r home However, a c c o r d i n g she told Martin that a t 1:54 p.m. on call t o meet t h e The m o t h e r a d m i t t e d t o M a r t i n t h a t s h e h a d been d r i n k i n g h e a v i l y . the Martin stated she t h o u g h t t h e mother l a t e r that someone h a d and had c u t h e r l e g w i t h to Martin, Carrie a knife. admitted that h a d c u t h e r s e l f b u t h a d n o t i n t e n d e d f o r t h e c u t t o be s o deep. The m o t h e r ' s b r o t h e r , B.H., came t o t h e h o s p i t a l , a n d 3 2120581 the child safety was placed with B.H. and his wife w i t h the the social w o r k e r who had f a m i l y i n M a r c h 2009, was F e b r u a r y 2010. At that time, plan. Miller meeting to formulate mother a d m i t t e d screen weeks because the meeting, she used were stepfather pursuant to a that, at a February I n d i v i d u a l i z e d Service Plan that had child w o u l d be 2010 ("ISP"), unable to pass a marijuana with her drug mother two a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t , d u r i n g t h e F e b r u a r y 2010 ISP the mother s t e p f a t h e r had years foster she an case i n earlier. Miller 11 a involved to the m o t h e r and the testified b r i e f l y been reassigned l i v i n g w i t h t h e m o t h e r ' s m o t h e r and the to plan. Miller, safety pursuant accusation, to Miller that s e x u a l l y a b u s e d h e r when she was o l d and care disclosed that, i n Georgia. o f w h i c h she as a result, Miller she had testified the mother's approximately been p l a c e d that, after d i d not b e l i e v e the p r e v i o u s in that social w o r k e r had been aware, t h e m o t h e r ' s m o t h e r and s t e p f a t h e r were no longer considered appropriate relative resources for c h i l d and a s a f e t y p l a n t h a t i n c l u d e d t h e m o t h e r and t h e 4 the child 2120581 living with them was a l s o no l o n g e r appropriate. Therefore, t h e m o t h e r a n d t h e c h i l d went t o l i v e w i t h B.H. Miller stated that m o t h e r was no l o n g e r child i n April living 2010 she l e a r n e d i n t h e home w i t h a n d t h a t B.H. i n f o r m e d h e r t h a t with her father. Miller t e s t i f i e d t h a t , when s h e went t o t h e who h a d b e e n r e c e n t l y r e l e a s e d that the father, f r o m i n c a r c e r a t i o n , was a l s o l i v i n g i n t h a t home. M i l l e r described and stated Miller B.H. a n d t h e t h e m o t h e r was l i v i n g home o f t h e m o t h e r ' s f a t h e r , s h e d i s c o v e r e d messy. that the that, t h e house a s c l u t t e r e d when asked, t h e mother i n f o r m e d h e r t h a t n e i t h e r t h e mother n o r t h e f a t h e r c o u l d pass a drug screen, and, i n f a c t , screen. Also at that divorcing h i s wife home f o r t h e c h i l d . time, both B.H. a n d was u n a b l e parents was failed a drug i n the process t o continue of to provide a When t h e m o t h e r i n f o r m e d M i l l e r t h a t s h e c o u l d n o t i d e n t i f y any o t h e r p o s s i b l e r e l a t i v e r e s o u r c e s , t h e c h i l d was p l a c e d On A p r i l foster the care, mother. intoxicated i n f o s t e r care on A p r i l 22, 2010. 23, 2010, t h e d a y a f t e r t h e c h i l d was p l a c e d i n the father Miller during that committed domestic v i o l e n c e testified that confrontation. 5 the parents Miller also against were stated 2120581 t h a t t h e m o t h e r had informed her t h a t the reason f o r the 23, that 2010, dispute led to domestic violence April was the f a t h e r ' s f r u s t r a t i o n w i t h t h e m o t h e r f o r what he p e r c e i v e d her conduct r e s u l t i n g i n the submit to drug t e s t i n g ; the reported the a u t h o r i t i e s again asking f a t h e r had Miller v i o l a t e d the stated that terms of h i s i n May 2010 the d i d d r u g s , d r a n k a l c o h o l , and that mother the attempting however, conversation, importance she of that, at a observation believe that alcohol at relationship of the the that with June changing her 2010 against under the hearing. domestic-violence father that, circumstances hearing The Miller on 6 mother's father, her of drugs remained f o r more t h a n a y e a r incident. and demeanor l e d h e r influence the testified, the the mother her they u s u a l l y Miller testified m o t h e r ' s c o n d u c t and the whether attempted t o emphasize t o petition m o t h e r was been mother i n f o r m e d t o meet t h e needs o f t h e c h i l d . protection-from-abuse the fought. to probation. t h a t when t h e m o t h e r and t h e f a t h e r were t o g e t h e r during him r e s u l t s o f t h a t t e s t i n g had to the p o l i c e f o r the purpose of d e t e r m i n i n g was in to or a following 2120581 Miller t e s t i f i e d t h a t DHR o f f e r e d t h e m o t h e r a number o f s e r v i c e s i n order to a s s i s t her i n s t a b i l i z i n g her l i f e . The m o t h e r was o f f e r e d s e r v i c e s t h r o u g h a p r o g r a m r e f e r r e d t o as "Family V a l u e s , " as w e l l as t r a i n i n g i n p a r e n t i n g budgeting. counseling during with not Miller f o r issues the i n i t i a l continued issues other that than DHR offered substance abuse t h e mother and t h a t , session, t h e mother was n o t f o r t h c o m i n g Miller the counselor. with testified s k i l l s and stated that that because t h e mother counseling was was n o t y e t r e a d y t o d e a l from h e r c h i l d h o o d . DHR a l s o r e q u e s t e d t h a t t h e m o t h e r s u b m i t t o a s u b s t a n c e abuse assessment, counseling. drug The m o t h e r screens, and substance-abuse was i n t e r m i t t e n t i n h e r c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e d r u g s c r e e n s u n t i l l a t e summer 2 0 1 1 . I n a d d i t i o n t o the issues addressed by the services DHR offered, i d e n t i f i e d as r e u n i f i c a t i o n g o a l s f o r t h e m o t h e r t h a t o b t a i n i n g employment and e a r n i n g two t o t h r e e goals, periods, that months t o w a r d t h e i d e n t i f i e d t h e mother but that would make progress t h e mother would then stop 7 included a GED. M i l l e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e mother had a p a t t e r n for DHR of working reunification during those cooperating or 2120581 disappear. Miller appearing explained f o r appointments and t h a t l o c a t e t h e mother. in that t h e mother would stop s h e w o u l d be u n a b l e t o M i l l e r b e l i e v e d t h a t some o f t h e p e r i o d s w h i c h t h e m o t h e r " d i s a p p e a r e d " were r e l a t e d t o times i n w h i c h t h e f a t h e r was n o t i n c a r c e r a t e d . I n A p r i l 2011, t h e mother s t o p p e d v i s i t i n g t h e c h i l d . August 2011, t h e mother was a r r e s t e d served 90 d a y s i n j a i l . Miller on d r u g testified In charges and that when Miller l e f t h e r employment w i t h DHR i n S e p t e m b e r 2011 t h e c h i l d h a d b e e n i n f o s t e r c a r e f o r 19 months a n d t h a t , d u r i n g the mother stability h a d n o t made any s i g n i f i c a n t progress toward from September 2011 u n t i l w o r k e r , was a s s i g n e d t o t h e June 2012. When Webb was a s s i g n e d i n S e p t e m b e r 2 0 1 1 , t h e m o t h e r was s t i l l as time, a n d h a d r e c e n t l y b e e n i n c a r c e r a t e d on new c h a r g e s . C h r i s t y Webb, a DHR s o c i a l case that a result o f h e r A u g u s t 2011 a r r e s t . incarcerated Webb t e s t i f i e d that f o l l o w i n g t h e m o t h e r ' s A u g u s t 2011 i n c a r c e r a t i o n DHR d e c i d e d to seek t o t e r m i n a t e filed i t s petition the mother's p a r e n t a l rights, a n d DHR i n December 2 0 1 1 . Webb t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e m o t h e r c o n t a c t e d h e r when t h e m o t h e r was r e l e a s e d f r o m j a i l i n December 2 0 1 1 ; a t t h a t t i m e , t h e m o t h e r h a d b e e n s e r v e d 8 with 2120581 the termination petition. the mother obtained m e e t i n g DHR a r r a n g e d Webb testified exception Webb s t a t e d t h a t i n J a n u a r y 2012 employment, and a t a F e b r u a r y f o r s u p e r v i s e d v i s i t a t i o n t o resume. that i n the spring o f 2012, w i t h t h e o f a p o s i t i v e t e s t f o r t h e use o f a l c o h o l i n March 2012, t h e m o t h e r made g o o d p r o g r e s s goals and maintaining toward the r e u n i f i c a t i o n stability. s u b s t a n c e - a b u s e c l a s s e s , was d o i n g The mother drug screens c o u r t , a n d was v i s i t i n g t h e c h i l d r e g u l a r l y . moved 2012 I S P the juvenile court scheduled t o postpone attended through I n May 2012, DHR the hearing i t had on DHR's t e r m i n a t i o n p e t i t i o n i n o r d e r t o a l l o w t h e m o t h e r more t i m e t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t s h e c o u l d p r o p e r l y the c h i l d , June and t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t g r a n t e d 2012, unsupervised time, DHR expanded the v i s i t s on S a t u r d a y s . parent that request. mother's visitation At approximately In to t h a t same t h e mother c o m p l e t e d substance-abuse c l a s s e s . In her testimony, characterization t h e mother July cooperate 2011, she l a c k e d with agreed o f h e r c o m p l i a n c e w i t h DHR's g o a l s b e t w e e n 2009 a n d J u l y 2011. until drug DHR f o r only Miller's reunification The m o t h e r a d m i t t e d stability and t h a t a f e w months 9 with that, she would a t a time. The 2120581 mother t e s t i f i e d , in her l i f e h o w e v e r , t h a t she made s i g n i f i c a n t i n July 2 0 1 1 , when r o m a n t i c r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h him. she met G.D. changes a n d began a I n September 2011, t h e m o t h e r m a r r i e d G.D. ( h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o as " t h e h u s b a n d " ) . The m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d relationship encouraged that t h e husband had s t a y e d i n t h e a f t e r t h e m o t h e r ' s A u g u s t 2011 a r r e s t h e r t o do b e t t e r . The m o t h e r stated and had that the h u s b a n d h a d shown h e r how t o l i v e a s t a b l e l i f e s t y l e a n d meet her obligations and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . I n d e e d , as already i n d i c a t e d , Webb's t e s t i m o n y i n d i c a t e s t h a t , a f t e r h e r r e l e a s e f r o m j a i l i n December 2011, t h e m o t h e r made g o o d a n d c o n t i n u a l progress toward r e u n i f i c a t i o n . In June DHR, and M e l i s s a behalf o f DHR. stability 2012 2012, Webb was t r a n s f e r r e d t o a n o t h e r Welch Welch t h e mother continued was a s s i g n e d testified t o h a n d l e t h e c a s e on that the progress had demonstrated i n the f i r s t a f t e r Welch was a s s i g n e d m o t h e r ' s v i s i t a t i o n was i n c r e a s e d part of and h a l f of t o the case. The i n t h e summer o f 2 0 1 2 , a n d i n O c t o b e r 2012 t h e m o t h e r began e x e r c i s i n g weekend v i s i t a t i o n with the c h i l d . Welch testified 10 that, at that time, the 2120581 m o t h e r was c o o p e r a t i v e w i t h DHR's s e r v i c e s , was w o r k i n g a t a fast-food restaurant, The stated a n d was p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n d r u g h u s b a n d was a l s o i n v o l v e d i n d r u g c o u r t . that controlled he had been substance prescription charged after he medication. was The h u s b a n d was c o m p l y i n g w i t h with The h u s b a n d possession found record court. with a h i s son's indicates the requirements of that of drug the court. W e l c h t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e h u s b a n d was v e r y g o o d w i t h t h e c h i l d and that the c h i l d c a l l s Welch e x p l a i n e d m o t h e r h a d shown t h e husband "Dad." that, as a r e s u l t i n 2012, DHR decided of the progress the t o attempt a "trial v i s i t " o f p l a c i n g t h e c h i l d i n t h e m o t h e r ' s home t o d e t e r m i n e whether custody testified that, could during be returned t o t h e mother. the meetings leading up Welch to the p l a c e m e n t o f t h e c h i l d w i t h t h e m o t h e r , DHR w o r k e r s e m p h a s i z e d to t h e mother t h e n e c e s s i t y c h i l d was p l a c e d that she remain s o b e r when t h e i n h e r home. On November 27, 2012, DHR p l a c e d w i t h t h e mother and t h e husband. the c h i l d i n t h e home W e l c h v i s i t e d t h e home a f t e r a few d a y s a n d s t a t e d t h a t e v e r y t h i n g seemed t o be g o i n g w e l l . 11 2120581 Welch noted t h a t t h e c h i l d had a " r e a l l y s t r o n g bond" w i t h t h e m o t h e r a n d was p o s s i b l y e v e n more b o n d e d t o t h e h u s b a n d . On December 8, 2012, t h e m o t h e r was a r r e s t e d f o r d r i v i n g under the influence testified that person's drink ("DUI"). The m o t h e r and t h e husband t h e mother had taken a f e w s i p s f r o m another at a family gathering, that t h e husband had been a n g r y w i t h h e r f o r d o i n g s o , a n d t h a t , when t h e y home after the gathering, t h e two h a d f o u g h t mother's t a k i n g those d r i n k s . left at approximately t h e house alcohol with some f r i e n d s . After that about t h e fight, 9:00 p.m., returned t h e mother a n d she d r a n k As t h e m o t h e r was d r i v i n g home f r o m h e r f r i e n d s ' home a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 10:10 p.m., s h e l o s t control of her vehicle and wrecked. arrest, t h e mother's b l o o d - a l c o h o l A t the time l e v e l was .23. of her Following t h e December 8, 2012, DUI i n c i d e n t , t h e c h i l d was r e t u r n e d t o foster care terminate a n d DHR the parents' decided t o proceed parental with seeking to rights. The m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e r e g r e t t e d t h e DUI i n c i d e n t and that testified occasions she was that disappointed he h a d s e e n i n herself. t h e mother drink The on o n l y d u r i n g t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p , and t h e f a m i l y 12 husband two gathering 2120581 was one of those o c c a s i o n s . B o t h t h e h u s b a n d and the mother t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e y d i d not b e l i e v e the mother would behave i n t h a t manner a g a i n . The mother long-term accepted The that to one that stated she was would on allow one mother her testified her time list live there to she applied that to she several had been to b r i n g the of termination the f o r two with halfway the r e t u r n e d to her child. houses child. She to l i v e with her I n response to q u e s t i o n i n g , the did a l c o h o l , but, not rather, believe that that she she a engaged had had in behavior. M.F.R., t h e could the and waiting c h i l d be that had allow at of the h a l f w a y houses. problem with stupid d i d not the she facilities that, r e q u e s t e d t h a t the in that rehabilitation mother hearing, testified tell a child's foster difference i n the mother, mother testified in m o t h e r c l e a r l y i n t e n d e d t o do b e t t e r i n h e r she i n that 2012 that the life. m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e c h i l d i n f o r m s h e r t h a t he m o t h e r and that the child still 13 speaks to the The foster loves the m o t h e r on the 2120581 telephone. When a s k e d how 1 mother's p a r e n t a l mother s t a t e d : she believed a termination r i g h t s would a f f e c t the " I can see presented relatives child. willing hearing, evidence or the on that able i n d i c a t i n g that to provide issue. e v i d e n c e on the mother's b r o t h e r . B.H., resource this child. f o r the d i v o r c e and truthful. I a there were placement for no the However, the testified that However, B.H. was I n December 2012, she asked at going call her B.H., the c h i l d and back and that so t h e c h i l d had time i f B.H. t h a t B.H. wife. he through B.H. that t h a t he w o u l d d i s c u s s i t w i t h h i s new not termination i s s u e t e n d e d t o f o c u s on c o u l d n o t t a k e t h e c h i l d i n 2010, i n f o s t e r care. did at e x p r e s s e d an i n t e r e s t i n s e r v i n g as s e r v e as a p l a c e m e n t f o r t h e B.H. already. D u r i n g the pendency of t h i s a c t i o n , mother's b r o t h e r , Welch foster No u s e f u l p u r p o s e w o u l d be s e r v e d by d e t a i l i n g most o f evidence placed down, I ' l l be the do." DHR the the some b e h a v i o r d i f f e r e n c e B u t I t h i n k i t ' s g o i n g t o t e a r him really child, of not a was remarried. had could told Welch s t a t e d did a return her that two I t a p p e a r s t h a t t h e m o t h e r ' s v i s i t a t i o n was discontinued a f t e r the child returned to f o s t e r care a f t e r the DUI incident. 1 14 2120581 additional returned calls to s h e made t o h i m a f t e r foster care. B.H. the c h i l d had been d i d not appear at the t e r m i n a t i o n h e a r i n g , a n d t h e m o t h e r d i d n o t t e s t i f y t h a t B.H. was w i l l i n g Welch foster and a b l e t o serve testified home during that as a p l a c e m e n t f o r t h e c h i l d . the c h i l d the time that h a d been he was However, t h e f o s t e r m o t h e r was n o t g o i n g and planned DHR p o t e n t i a l adoptive time of visiting At to gradually family. the termination the c h i l d court i n foster care. t o adopt t h e c h i l d , introduce the c h i l d to a Welch a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t , a t t h e hearing, t h e husband was still on some weekends. the conclusion juvenile i n t h e same stated of that the termination the decision hearing, the t o terminate was d i f f i c u l t b e c a u s e i t was c l e a r t h a t , d u r i n g c e r t a i n p e r i o d s , t h e m o t h e r h a d done w e l l . that the c h i l d that, given had been However, the j u v e n i l e court i n f o s t e r care t h e h i s t o r y o f t h e case, f o r three noted years and t h e r e was no g u a r a n t e e t h a t an i n c i d e n t s i m i l a r t o t h e December 8, 2012, DUI i n c i d e n t would not occur again. The j u v e n i l e c o u r t c o n c l u d e d that i t was n o t i n t h e c h i l d ' s b e s t i n t e r e s t s t o s p e n d f u r t h e r t i m e i n foster care. See S.B.L. v. C l e b u r n e 15 Cnty. Dep't o f Human 2120581 Res., 881 So. 2d 1029, 1032 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2003) ("The paramount c o n c e r n of a c o u r t i n 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 proceedings i s the best i n t e r e s t s of the c h i l d . " ) . In i t s M a r c h 6, 2013, t e r m i n a t i o n j u d g m e n t , t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t f o u n d t h a t t h e c h i l d was d e p e n d e n t and t h a t b o t h t h e m o t h e r and t h e f a t h e r had f a i l e d needs o f t h e The to adjust their circumstances t o meet t h e child. grounds for terminating parental f o r t h i n § 12-15-319, A l a . Code 1975. rights are set Our j u v e n i l e c o u r t s u s e a two-pronged t e s t t o determine whether t o terminate parental rights: "A j u v e n i l e c o u r t i s required to apply a two-pronged t e s t i n d e t e r m i n i n g whether t o terminate p a r e n t a l r i g h t s : (1) c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e must s u p p o r t a f i n d i n g t h a t t h e c h i l d i s d e p e n d e n t ; and (2) t h e c o u r t must p r o p e r l y c o n s i d e r and r e j e c t a l l v i a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s to a t e r m i n a t i o n of p a r e n t a l rights." B.M. v. State, ( c i t i n g Ex p a r t e Clear and of essential So. the 2d Beasley, convincing weighed a g a i n s t mind 895 of 564 331 ( A l a . C i v . App. So. 2d 950, evidence evidence trier 319, is 954 fact a firm ( A l a . 1990)). "'[e]vidence i n opposition, w i l l that, when produce i n the conviction as to e l e m e n t 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 16 2004) each as t o 2120581 the c o r r e c t n e s s 2d of the conclusion.'" 1 7 1 , 179 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2002) Ala. L.M. v. D.D.F., 840 So. (quoting § 6-11-20(b)(4), Code 1 9 7 5 ) . On a p p e a l , t h e mother support the termination testimony, until foster rights. I n h e r own t h a t she e x h i b i t e d i n s t a b i l i t y any c o n s i s t e n t e f f o r t t o r e u n i t e w i t h t h e t h e summer o f 2 0 1 1 , when t h e c h i l d care f o r over a year. s i g n i f i c a n t changes i n h e r l i f e which the evidence d i d not of her parental t h e mother a d m i t t e d and d i d n o t m a i n t a i n child argues t h a t coincided with However, h a d been i n t h e mother made a f t e r h e r A u g u s t 2011 a r r e s t , her meeting and m a r r y i n g t h e husband. Upon h e r r e l e a s e f r o m i n c a r c e r a t i o n f o l l o w i n g t h e A u g u s t 2011 arrest, t h e mother began, i n early circumstances t o meet the c h i l d ' s however, DHR had terminate her parental r i g h t s . already filed 2012, t o a d j u s t needs. At that the p e t i t i o n Given the progress her time, seeking being to made b y t h e m o t h e r i n t h e s p r i n g o f 2 0 1 2 , DHR a g r e e d t o p o s t p o n e the hearing additional continued on t h a t time to petition i n order achieve t o a f f o r d t h e mother reunification. h e r r e u n i f i c a t i o n e f f o r t s and completed abuse c l a s s e s a n d a t t e n d e d counseling. 17 The mother substance- 2120581 Over t h e c o u r s e o f 2 0 1 2 , i n r e c o g n i t i o n o f t h e p r o g r e s s t h e m o t h e r was m a k i n g , DHR i n c r e a s e d t h e m o t h e r ' s v i s i t a t i o n substantially the child and e v e n t u a l l y t o t h e mother. attempted The c h i l d to return custody of was r e t u r n e d t o DHR's c u s t o d y f o l l o w i n g t h e m o t h e r ' s DUI a r r e s t i n December 2012. DHR argues, i n support of affirming the termination j u d g m e n t , t h a t t h e c h i l d h a d been o u t o f t h e m o t h e r ' s c u s t o d y for an e x t e n d e d p e r i o d a n d t h a t t h e c h i l d n e e d e d p e r m a n e n c y . We a r e n o t u n s y m p a t h e t i c concerns child's t o t h a t a r g u m e n t , a n d we s h a r e t h e e x p r e s s e d b y DHR a n d t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t about t h e need f o r permanency. However, i n this case, t h e mother made significant progress, a l b e i t l a t e i n the a c t i o n , toward r e u n i f i c a t i o n . response t o t h e mother's e f f o r t s , DHR p o s t p o n e d In prosecuting i t s t e r m i n a t i o n a c t i o n t o a f f o r d t h e mother a d d i t i o n a l time t o achieve her reunification significant goals. p r o g r e s s t h a t DHR p l a c e d The mother made such t h e c h i l d i n h e r home. A l s o , t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h i s case i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e mother and t h e c h i l d have a s t r o n g e m o t i o n a l b o n d a n d t h a t t h e c h i l d s h a r e s a s i m i l a r bond w i t h t h e mother's husband. indicates that the child would 18 be The e v i d e n c e devastated by the 2120581 termination o f t h e mother's parental rights. m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t i t w o u l d " t e a r h i m down." The f o s t e r The h u s b a n d and t h e m o t h e r e a c h t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e i n c i d e n t l e a d i n g t o t h e DUI a r r e s t was o u t o f c h a r a c t e r testified s h e was a t t e m p t i n g f o r t h e mother, and t h e mother t o seek p r o f e s s i o n a l assistance to address h e r conduct t h a t r e s u l t e d i n t h a t i n c i d e n t . The paramount c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n any a c t i o n i n v o l v i n g t h e termination child. App. of parental r i g h t s i s the best A.J.H.T. v . K.O.H., i n t e r e s t s of the 983 So. 2d 394, 399 ( A l a . Civ. 2007). " A l t h o u g h a c h i l d ' s p a r e n t s have a p r i m a f a c i e r i g h t t o c u s t o d y , t h e paramount c o n c e r n i n t h e s e proceedings i sthe c h i l d ' s best i n t e r e s t s . Mitchell v. S t a t e Dep't o f Human R e s o u r c e s , 513 So. 2d 647 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 7 ) . In determining the c h i l d ' s b e s t i n t e r e s t s , t h e c o u r t must e x a m i n e w h e t h e r t h e p a r e n t s a r e p h y s i c a l l y , f i n a n c i a l l y , and m e n t a l l y able t o provide f o r the c h i l d . Mitchell. I f clear and c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e r e v e a l s t h a t t h e p a r e n t s cannot, or are u n w i l l i n g t o , discharge these r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , p a r e n t a l r i g h t s may be t e r m i n a t e d . M i t c h e l l ; § 26-18-7 [now § 12-19-319, A l a . ] Code 1975." J.V. v. S t a t e Dep't o f Human Res., 656 So. 2d 1234, 1235 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 5 ) . This record, c o u r t has c a r e f u l l y considered e s p e c i a l l y the evidence 19 the evidence i n the concerning t h e c h i l d ' s bond 2120581 with t h e mother termination and the possible o f t h e mother's c o u r t has r e c e n t l y effect parental on rights. him of a Our supreme explained: "'"[T]he 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 i s a d r a s t i c m e a s u r e , a n d we know o f 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 , c a n be r e i n s t a t e d . The e v i d e n c e i n [ t h i s ] c a s e [ ] '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 a n d c o n v i n c i n g as t o s u p p o r t termination of the parental r i g h t s of the 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 a n d most extreme disposition permitted by statute.'"' "D.O. v. C a l h o u n C o u n t y Dep't o f Human Res., 859 So. 2d 439, 445 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 3 ) ( q u o t i n g V.M. v. S t a t e Dep't o f Human Res., 710 So. 2d 915, 921 ( A l a . C i v . App. 19 9 8 ) ) . " Ex p a r t e A.S., 73 So. 3d 1223, We c o n c l u d e t h a t , g i v e n the j u v e n i l e court erred 1230 ( A l a . 2 0 1 1 ) . the unique i n determining facts of this case, t h a t a t the time o f t h e t e r m i n a t i o n j u d g m e n t t h e e v i d e n c e was c l e a r a n d c o n v i n c i n g that t h e mother parental was was u n a b l e responsibilities or u n w i l l i n g to discharge and t h a t h e r conduct o r c o n d i t i o n 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 1 9 - 3 1 9 ( a ) , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 . case, we note that we her do In reaching future. See § 12- our h o l d i n g n o t condone i n this or minimize the s i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e mother's conduct r e s u l t i n g i n h e r a r r e s t 20 2120581 in December concerning reaching 2012 on that i t s holding an o p p o r t u n i t y mistake reunification destructive for charges. conduct c o n s i d e r a t i o n , we time DUI that I t i s with this court i n t h i s appeal. has the evidence struggled However, a f t e r c a r e f u l b e l i e v e t h a t t h e m o t h e r s h o u l d be afforded t o d e m o n s t r a t e w h e t h e r t h a t c o n d u c t was in an or a to her stability. otherwise return to excellent a pattern relationship with In the circumstances in of the effort conduct child of t h i s and a one¬ toward that is his need case, the best i n t e r e s t s o f t h e c h i l d w o u l d be s e r v e d by a f f o r d i n g t h e m o t h e r that opportunity. I n so h o l d i n g , we that, at the convincing of the of the evidence d i d not mother's interests. DHR time note t h a t t h i s court i s simply parental the hearing, demonstrate t h a t the was in termination This c o u r t i s not f o r e c l o s i n g the p o s s i b i l i t y that circumstances the t h a t have seek the t e r m i n a t i o n of m o t h e r ' s p a r e n t a l r i g h t s i f t h e m o t h e r ' s s i t u a t i o n and such that the occurred appeal or might occur a f t e r r e l e a s e of t h i s o p i n i o n , to again deteriorate and best pendency of t h i s rights clear child's m i g h t p r o c e e d , b a s e d on during termination holding c h i l d ' s best 21 the the conduct i n t e r e s t s would be 2120581 served by the termination of her parental rights. See R.L.M.S. v . Etowah C n t y . Dep't o f Human R e s . , 37 So. 3 d 805, 808 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009) terminate parental ("[W]hen d e c i d i n g w h e t h e r g r o u n d s t o rights exist, of current the j u v e n i l e court limited t o evidence conditions; consider the past h i s t o r y of the parent."); i s not i t may also T.D.K. v . L.A.W., 78 So. 3d 1006, 1010 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2011) ("We have a l s o h e l d t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t may p r o p e r l y c o n s i d e r p a s t h i s t o r y a n d present circumstances i n a termination proceeding."). REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, P.J., and Pittman a n d Thomas, J J . , c o n c u r . Moore, J . , c o n c u r s i n t h e r e s u l t , w i t h o u t w r i t i n g . Donaldson, J . , d i s s e n t s , without w r i t i n g . 22

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.