236 So. 3d 81
Ala. Civ. App.2015Background
- Children A.C. (born 2009) and F.C. (born 2011) were removed from the mother in 2011 and placed in DHR foster care.
- Mother identified the father as the children's biological parent in Sept. 2012; paternity testing in Nov. 2012 confirmed; father moved to Alabama in Mar. 2013.
- October 2013: juvenile court found the children dependent and that the mother's rights could be terminated, but invited services to the father to attempt reunification.
- July 2014: court denied termination of the father, noting progress on ISP goals but lack of housing and long-term employment; no relative resources available.
- Sept. 2014–Feb. 2015: DHR renewed petitions; father’s ISP progress stagnated with drug/alcohol issues, unstable housing, and employment problems; multiple positive tests and job/ housing setbacks.
- March 11, 2015: juvenile court terminated the father’s parental rights; the order was affirmed on appeal where the court found no viable alternatives to termination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHR’s termination complied with AJJA and evidence supported termination | Father argues insufficient evidence under §12-15-319 | DHR argues clear and convincing evidence showed inability/unwillingness to care for the children | Termination supported; no reversible error. |
| Whether viable alternatives to termination existed | Father asserts viable alternative (continued foster care with visitation) | No viable alternative; no adoptive resource identified | No viable alternative; termination affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte State Dep't of Human Res., 834 So.2d 117 (Ala.2002) (clear abuses of discretion standard for custody findings; ore tenus review applied)
- Ex parte State Dep't of Human Res., 682 So.2d 459 (Ala.1996) (ore tenus review applies to juvenile decisions)
- T.L.S. v. Lauderdale Cnty. Dep't of Human Res., 119 So.3d 431 (Ala.Civ.App.2013) (lack of an identified adoptive resource does not preclude termination, but lacks reliance on speculative adoptions)
- S.M.W. v. J.M.C., 679 So.2d 256 (Ala.Civ.App.1996) (guardian ad litem's recommendation not binding on court)
- C.M. v. Tuscaloosa Cnty. Dep't of Human Res., 81 So.3d 391 (Ala.Civ.App.2011) (viable alternatives may warrant maintaining foster care with visitation)
- B.A.M. v. Cullman Cnty. Dep't of Human Res., 150 So.3d 782 (Ala.Civ.App.2014) (consideration of alternatives before termination)