378 So.3d 543
Ala. Civ. App.2022Background
- DHR filed a petition on August 2, 2021, seeking termination of A.R.H.B.'s (mother) and D.D.B.'s (father) parental rights; the juvenile court terminated both parents' rights on March 30, 2022; the mother appealed.
- The child (born Feb. 2018) was removed and placed in foster care on May 19, 2020, after reports the mother was homeless and using drugs in the child's presence; the child remained in foster care and the foster parent wished to adopt.
- DHR developed an ISP, offered services (drug screening, substance-abuse treatment, parenting classes, visitation). The mother attended treatment intermittently but did not complete discharge requirements and repeatedly tested positive for methamphetamine/amphetamines and marijuana, with numerous missed screens; she described herself as a "functioning addict."
- The juvenile court found the mother had not adjusted her circumstances to meet the child’s needs, that her condition was unlikely to change in the foreseeable future, and that there were no viable alternatives to termination.
- On appeal the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals reversed and remanded, holding DHR failed to present clear and convincing evidence that it had made recent, adequate efforts to locate and investigate relative placement alternatives before seeking termination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (DHR) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of DHR's search for relative alternatives | DHR did not show recent, specific attempts to locate/investigate relatives or other viable alternatives | DHR said it had contacted maternal relatives during its initial search and that statutory § 12-15-319(c) can preclude relatives who did not attempt custody | Reversed: DHR failed to present evidence of sufficient, recent attempts to locate/investigate relatives; statute § 12-15-319(c) does not relieve DHR of its burden absent proof relatives were notified/declined |
| Burden to prove no viable alternatives | DHR must prove lack of viable alternatives by clear and convincing evidence; it failed here | DHR relied on evidence of dependency and parental unfitness to justify termination | Held for Mother: Court emphasized DHR bears the burden and did not meet it on relative-search evidence |
| Sufficiency of grounds/dependency evidence | Mother challenged evidentiary matters and contested fitness findings | DHR relied on ore tenus testimony (drug use, housing instability, failure to complete services) supporting termination grounds | Court accepted juvenile-court factual findings as presumptively correct but did not affirm termination because the failure to show lack of alternatives was dispositive |
| Admissibility/reliability of drug-screen exhibits | Exhibits were inconsistent and should have been struck | DHR defended exhibits and supporting testimony | Juvenile court admitted exhibits despite discrepancies; appellate court did not reverse that evidentiary ruling and focused on DHR's failure to prove lack of alternatives |
Key Cases Cited
- B.M. v. State, 895 So. 2d 319 (Ala. Civ. App. 2004) (two-pronged test: dependency and rejection of viable alternatives for termination)
- Ex parte Beasley, 564 So. 2d 950 (Ala. 1990) (same legal framework for termination decisions)
- C.C. v. L.J., 176 So. 3d 208 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015) (ore tenus findings entitled to presumption of correctness; clear-and-convincing standard explained)
- J.F.S. v. Mobile Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 38 So. 3d 75 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009) (DHR must present evidence of recent attempts to locate viable relative alternatives)
- V.M. v. State Dep't of Hum. Res., 710 So. 2d 915 (Ala. Civ. App. 1998) (DHR responsibility to investigate relatives when considering termination)
- Bowman v. State Dep't of Hum. Res., 534 So. 2d 304 (Ala. Civ. App. 1988) (early articulation of DHR's duty to seek alternatives)
- D.S.S. v. Clay Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 755 So. 2d 584 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999) (DHR bears burden of initiating investigation into relative custodian suitability)