A.M. v. Hous. Cnty. Dep't of Human Res.
262 So. 3d 1210
| Ala. Civ. App. | 2017Background
- Child born in Alabama on Feb. 16, 2015; mother and child tested positive for marijuana, father tested positive for methamphetamine. DHR took custody and filed a dependency petition Feb. 19, 2015.
- Father conceded dependency at the April 16, 2015 adjudicatory hearing; child remained in DHR foster care in Alabama continuously thereafter.
- DHR filed to terminate parental rights Nov. 30, 2016; paternal grandmother and aunt moved to intervene and contested Alabama jurisdiction, arguing New Mexico was the proper forum.
- Juvenile court denied motion to dismiss/transfer; trial on termination held April 13, 2017; evidence showed father had no contact with child since April 2015, did not complete substance-abuse treatment, and provided no financial support.
- ICPC home-study for paternal grandmother raised concerns (financial instability, protective capacity); aunt had not completed ICPC steps. DHR sought termination to achieve permanency with foster parents.
- Juvenile court terminated father’s parental rights May 3, 2017; father appealed arguing lack of UCCJEA jurisdiction and insufficient grounds for termination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (father) | Defendant's Argument (DHR) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Alabama had jurisdiction under the UCCJEA | Alabama was not the child’s home state; proceedings should be in New Mexico | Alabama made the initial dependency determination when no other state had jurisdiction; child lived in Alabama since birth | Alabama had jurisdiction; initial determination proper under §30-3B-201(a)(4) and continuing jurisdiction retained under §30-3B-202 |
| Whether Alabama should decline jurisdiction as inconvenient forum (§30-3B-207) | Father and relatives are New Mexico residents with limited resources; New Mexico is more appropriate | Child has lived in Alabama his entire life; records and evidence are in Alabama; relatives showed little participation | Trial court did not abuse discretion in refusing to transfer; Alabama not clearly inconvenient |
| Whether DHR made reasonable efforts toward reunification | DHR failed to pursue or secure relative placements adequately | DHR offered assistance; father failed to complete substance treatment, did not maintain contact or support; relatives did not complete ICPC or visit | DHR’s efforts were reasonable under the facts; termination not precluded by alleged failures |
| Whether termination of father’s rights was supported by clear and convincing evidence | Termination unnecessary because relatives could care for child | Father abandoned child, failed substance-abuse treatment, no contact/support; relatives unsuitable or inactive; best interest favors permanency | Clear and convincing evidence supported termination; juvenile court correctly rejected alternatives and favored adoption by foster parents |
Key Cases Cited
- H.T. v. Cleburne Cty. Dep’t of Human Res., 163 So.3d 1054 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014) (defines home-state analysis and significant-connection test under UCCJEA)
- B.M. v. State, 895 So.2d 319 (Ala. Civ. App. 2004) (two-pronged test for termination: dependency by clear and convincing evidence and rejection of viable alternatives)
- Ex parte Beasley, 564 So.2d 950 (Ala. 1990) (standards governing termination proceedings)
- J.C. v. State Dep’t of Human Res., 986 So.2d 1172 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007) (presumption of correctness for juvenile court findings in termination appeals)
- Ex parte McInish, 47 So.3d 767 (Ala. 2008) (standard of review for findings requiring clear and convincing evidence)