A.D.G. v. D.O.
160 So. 3d 783
Ala. Civ. App.2014Background
- DHR filed a dependency petition alleging the mother used illegal drugs; the child was placed with maternal grandparents and the mother was given supervised visitation.
- The juvenile court held dispositional hearings and entered a December 16, 2013 order scheduling a compliance/dispositional hearing for March 24, 2014; the form order required DHR to prepare a prehearing report.
- The notice the mother received described the March 24, 2014 hearing as a dispositional (review) hearing, not a permanency hearing.
- The March 24 hearing proceeded (no transcript in record) and on March 26, 2014 the juvenile court entered a standardized-form order leaving custody with the grandparents, imposing conditions on the mother, ordering child support, relieving DHR of further supervision, and closing the case to further review.
- The mother moved to alter/vacate, arguing she lacked notice the hearing would be a permanency hearing and thus was denied due process; her postjudgment motion was denied by operation of law and she timely appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether holding and concluding a permanency hearing when notice said dispositional hearing violated mother’s due-process rights | Mother: she was not given notice the hearing would be permanency; thus deprived of procedural due process before losing custody and case closure | Juvenile court/DHR/grandparents: (implicit) the hearing and order were proper; record contains no refutation that mother lacked notice | Court: The March 24 hearing functioned as a permanency hearing without adequate notice; mother was denied due process — reversed and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- M.E. v. Jefferson Cnty. Dep’t of Human Res., 148 So.3d 737 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014) (held lack of notice that hearing would be permanency hearing deprived parent of due process)
- N.J.D. v. Madison Cnty. Dep’t of Human Res., 110 So.3d 387 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012) (applied Thorne three-factor test to due-process claim in dependency/permanency context)
- Thorne v. Thorne, 344 So.2d 165 (Ala. Civ. App. 1977) (articulated three-factor test for assessing deprivation of due process in custody proceedings)