Ex parte D.C. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS (In re: D.C. v. Mobile County Department of Human Resources) (Mobile Juvenile Court: JU-08-64.01; Civil Appeals : 2111242). Writ Denied. No Opinion.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 08/23/2013 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 o f Decisions, 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 ( ( 3 3 4 ) 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 . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA SPECIAL TERM, 2013 1121166 Ex p a r t e D.C. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS (In r e : D.C. v. Mobile County Department o f Human Resources) (Mobile J u v e n i l e Court, JU-08-64.01; Court o f C i v i l Appeals, 2111242) WISE, Justice. WRIT DENIED. Stuart, Bolin, JJ., NO OPINION. Parker, concur. Moore, C . J . , d i s s e n t s . M u r d o c k , Shaw, M a i n , a n d B r y a n , 1121166 MOORE, C h i e f J u s t i c e ( d i s s e n t i n g ) . I r e s p e c t f u l l y d i s s e n t to the d e n i a l of the p e t i t i o n f o r certiorari review f i l e d by a p p e a r t o be " s p e c i a l and Ala. P., D.C. R. App. c a s e s s u c h as important f o r reviewing this one ("the f a t h e r " ) because reasons" the f u l l i n v o l v i n g the there under Rule 39, record i n sensitive State's termination of p a r e n t s ' r i g h t s to t h e i r c h i l d r e n . In t h i s that he case, shared the f a t h e r ' s c e r t i o r a r i p e t i t i o n a good interacted lovingly visitation. The with petition problem with drugs claims, was he r e l a t i o n s h i p with and the on a few child during supervised had never been incarcerated, although, charged occasions and with any crimes. f a t h e r ' s a r g u m e n t s , I b e l i e v e we of the the a he His him f r o m v i s i t i n g w i t h h i s from attending the hearing r e g a r d i n g t h e t e r m i n a t i o n o f h i s p a r e n t a l r i g h t s . B a s e d on review and a l s o c o n c e d e s t h a t t h e f a t h e r had i n c a r c e r a t i o n a l l e g e d l y prevented child child his alleges s h o u l d g r a n t the p e t i t i o n the to r e c o r d r e g a r d i n g t h e f a t h e r ' s a l l e g e d abandonment child incarceration as well as h i s t o r y . The m e r i t , at the v e r y least, his alleged f a c t s presented drug in this a c l o s e r look at the 2 problem and petition record.

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.