84 So. 3d 68
Ala. Civ. App.2011Background
- Mother appeals termination of parental rights as to the child.
- Child born March 29, 2009; DHR became involved May 7, 2009 for neglect.
- DHR safety plan placed child with maternal grandmother; mother lived there too.
- ISP created May 11, 2009; safety plan terminated June 2009 after violations; child adjudicated dependent and placed in foster care.
- DHR petitioned to terminate parental rights on September 7, 2010; ore tenus hearing held; judgment entered December 8, 2010; mother timely appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the evidence supports termination by clear and convincing evidence | M.W. argues DHR failed to prove unfitness | DHR contends facts show failure to rehabilitate and likely no change | Yes; evidence supports termination. |
| Whether termination was premature given ISP goals | Relying on cases noting premature terminations when goals not fully feasible | DHR asserts no viable alternatives and goals unmet or incomplete | No; permanency outweighed ongoing efforts and goals were not met. |
| Whether DHR made reasonable efforts to rehabilitate the mother | Mother unable to achieve goals; efforts argued as sufficient | DHR showed continued, though imperfect, efforts toward rehabilitation | Yes; reasonable efforts proven and lacking progress supports termination. |
| Whether the mother's intellectual/mental capacity and drug use justified removal | Mother argues capacity and plan were overly burdensome | Record shows limited capacity and ongoing drug use; impedes care | Yes; limited ability and drug use justify termination. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte State Dep't of Human Res., 624 So. 2d 589 (Ala. 1993) (termination review standard; trial court's ore tenus findings reviewed for correctness)
- Ex parte Fann, 810 So. 2d 631 (Ala. 2001) (demeanor credibility; trial court's position to observe witnesses)
- Bowman v. State Dep't of Human Res., 534 So.2d 304 (Ala. Civ. App. 1988) (presumption of best interest in custody; need clear and convincing evidence)
- S.F. v. Dep't of Human Res., 680 So.2d 346 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996) (child dependency necessary for termination decision)