122 So. 3d 846
Ala. Civ. App.2013Background
- DHR filed three petitions in 2012 seeking termination of parental rights of A.H. and J.W.M., Jr. and declaring the children dependent.
- Mother and father had divorced in 2007; DHR involved since 2010 after removal from the mother’s home.
- Mother was under a two-year house-arrest in Florida, with probation violations and potential early release dates discussed.
- Children had been moved multiple times; the father moved with the children to Florida without informing DHR, triggering a pickup order.
- Mother admitted substance-abuse history and incomplete treatment; drug tests mostly passed, but she failed one test due to time constraints under house arrest.
- Trial court found the children dependent and terminated parental rights; mother timely appealed; issues consolidated.
- Mother had recently made progress, including housing arrangements and consistent visitation since May 2012; DHR recommended custody petition to allow rehabilitation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the children are dependent. | Mother neglected stability and care (frequent moves, limited employment). | Mother showed progress and could provide a stable home with further rehabilitation. | Yes, the juvenile court did not err in finding dependency. |
| Whether there were viable alternatives to termination. | No viable alternative; termination necessary to protect child welfare. | Maintaining status quo (foster care during rehabilitation) could be viable. | No; termination was not warranted given current evidence; reverse and remand. |
| Whether clear and convincing evidence supported termination under §12-15-319. | Evidence showed inability/unwillingness to provide stable care. | Evidence did not prove ongoing drug/addiction or that conditions would not change; progress shown. | The evidence did not meet required level to terminate; remand for reconsideration. |
Key Cases Cited
- J.C. v. State Dep’t of Human Res., 986 So.2d 1172 (Ala.Civ.App.2007) (trust of trial findings; deference to fact-finding; de novo for law)
- J.A. v. C.M., 93 So.3d 953 (Ala.Civ.App.2012) (de novo review of questions of law)
- S.F. v. Dep’t of Human Res., 680 So.2d 346 (Ala.Civ.App.1996) (clear and convincing standard for dependency)
- L.A.G. v. State Dep’t of Human Res., 681 So.2d 596 (Ala.Civ.App.1996) (no viable alternative required for termination)
- A.K. v. Henry Cnty. Dep’t of Human Res., 84 So.3d 68 (Ala.Civ.App.2011) (evidence-based assessment of parental ability)
- D.O. v. Calhoun Cnty. Dep’t of Human Res., 859 So.2d 439 (Ala.Civ.App.2003) (termination requires clear and convincing evidence; ongoing conditions implicit)
- Ex parte Beasley, 564 So.2d 950 (Ala.1990) (balancing child welfare and parental rights)
- AS., 73 So.3d 1223 (Ala.2011) (reversal where no viable alternative shown)