Ex parte A.P.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 02/27/2015 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter. SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2014-2015 _________________________ 1140270 _________________________ Ex parte A.P. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS (In re: A.P. v. Tuscaloosa County Department of Human Resources) (Tuscaloosa Juvenile Court, JU-12-425.02 and JU-12-426.02; Court of Civil Appeals, 2130791) WISE, Justice. WRIT DENIED. NO OPINION. Stuart, Bolin, Parker, Murdock, Shaw, Main, and Bryan, JJ., concur. Moore, C.J., dissents. 1140270 MOORE, Chief Justice (dissenting). I respectfully dissent. The petition before us presents the issue whether the Tuscaloosa County Department of Human Resources ("DHR") resources and met its placement burden options to investigate before family petitioning to terminate A.P.'s parental rights when the record indicates otherwise. relatives DHR did because not of consider their three failure to willing paternal provide certain documents. "Inasmuch as the termination of parental rights strikes at the very heart of the family unit, a court should terminate parental rights only in the most egregious of circumstances." Ex parte Beasley, 564 So. 2d 950, 952 (Ala. 1990). In addition, "the court must inquire as to whether all viable alternatives to a termination of parental rights have been considered." Id. I would grant the writ of certiorari to determine 1) whether the "most egregious of circumstances" standard as outlined above was met when A.P.'s parental rights were terminated, and 2) whether DHR properly excluded the three willing paternal relatives from taking custody of the children. 2

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.