A.M.F. v. Tuscaloosa County Department of Human Resources
2011 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 188
Ala. Civ. App.2011Background
- Child born May 26, 2004; mother previously convicted of armed robbery and was on probation before birth.
- Mother imprisoned for parole violations for 17 months; no contact with child during incarceration.
- DHR became involved July 2008; child placed in foster care after investigations of father and relatives.
- Trial placement with mother at Lovelady Center; mother allegedly completed program but remained due to lack of housing.
- In March 2009, Lovelady Center asked mother to leave; she did so, leaving child at day-care and later consenting to a private adoption without DHR involvement.
- Mother moved across Alabama, with intermittent, supervised contact with the child; housing and employment remained unstable; DHR offered services and sought contact with relatives.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHR offered reasonable reunification efforts | Mother: DHR failed to provide adequate services addressing housing and employment. | DHR offered counseling, drug screens, visitation, and housing/employment planning; reasonable efforts were made given circumstances. | No reversible error; DHR's efforts were reasonable under the circumstances. |
| Whether termination of parental rights was supported by clear and convincing evidence | Mother contends her improvements indicated unlikely to change; argues for ongoing potential. | Court appropriately considered past and current conditions; improvements were last-minute and insufficient. | Termination supported by clear and convincing evidence; condition unlikely to improve. |
Key Cases Cited
- R.B. v. State Dep’t of Human Res., 669 So.2d 187 (Ala.Civ.App.1995) (factual findings reviewed ore tenus; substantial evidence required)
- Ex parte T.V., 971 So.2d 1 (Ala.2007) (standard for reversal on parental-rights termination)
- J.B. v. Jefferson Cnty. Dep’t of Human Res., 869 So.2d 475 (Ala.Civ.App.2008) (reasonableness of reunification efforts fact-dependent)
- H.H. v. Baldwin Cnty. Dep’t of Human Res., 989 So.2d 1094 (Ala.Civ.App.2007) (parental-reunification plan and reasonable efforts discussed)
- K.P. v. Etowah Cnty. Dep’t of Human Res., 43 So.3d 602 (Ala.Civ.App.2010) (child welfare termination standards and evidence review)
- A.D.B.H. v. Houston Cnty. Dep’t of Human Res., 1 So.3d 53 (Ala.Civ.App.2008) (permanency planning and reunification considerations)
- Ex parte Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 721 So.2d 1135 (Ala.1998) (the word 'shall' is mandatory)
- Ex parte Beasley, 564 So.2d 950 (Ala.1990) (protects parental rights while ensuring process integrity)