A.W. v. Jefferson County Department of Human Resources (Appeal from Jefferson Juvenile Court: JU-21-156.02)., CL-2024-0548

The Jefferson County Department of Human Resources (DHR) filed petitions to terminate the parental rights of A.W. (the mother) to five of her children, alleging, among other things, that A.W. committed felony assault and abuse against one child.
A criminal case was pending against A.W. for felony child abuse based on the same underlying facts as the termination proceedings.
The mother sought to stay the termination proceedings, arguing proceeding would force her to choose between defending her parental rights and her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in the ongoing criminal matter.
The juvenile court denied her motions for a stay and held a trial, after which her parental rights were terminated.
On appeal, A.W. contended that the court’s denial of a stay was reversible error because her Fifth Amendment rights were implicated, the proceedings were parallel, and there was little risk of prejudice to the children from delay.
The children were all in stable and preadoptive foster care placements, with no evidence that a stay would have negatively affected their welfare.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the termination and criminal proceedings are parallel	Both actions stem from identical underlying facts and would use substantially similar evidence	Actions are independent, with different procedures and standards	The actions are parallel when based on identical allegations
If proceeding with the civil action threatens the mother's Fifth Amendment rights	Severe risk that mother must forfeit her defense or risk criminal self-incrimination	Mother did not take the stand, and so no direct threat presented	The risk of threatened self-incrimination is substantial even if party does not testify
Whether the balancing of interests favored a stay	No evidence that a stay would prejudice the children; protecting constitutional rights outweighs minimal delay	Children’s need for permanency/storage of delay outweigh the mother’s interests	The balance favored a stay as no evidence indicated prejudice from delay
Was the juvenile court’s refusal to stay proceedings reversible error?	Yes—error to proceed where mother’s Fifth Amendment rights so impacted and parallel criminal case ongoing	No—juvenile court had discretion, evidence supported termination	Yes—denial of stay was an abuse of discretion and required reversal

Ex parte Ebbers, 871 So. 2d 776 (Ala. 2003) (sets forth the balancing test for whether to stay a civil proceeding pending a parallel criminal action)
R.M. v. Elmore Cnty. Dep’t of Human Res., 75 So. 3d 1195 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011) (reversal of termination of parental rights where criminal prosecution and termination proceedings were parallel)
Ex parte Rawls, 953 So. 2d 374 (Ala. 2006) (court has discretion to stay civil proceedings to protect Fifth Amendment rights in light of pending criminal actions)
Ex parte Coastal Training Inst., 583 So. 2d 979 (Ala. 1991) (factors for trial court discretion regarding stay of civil actions pending criminal proceedings)
Ex parte Baugh, 530 So. 2d 238 (Ala. 1988) (balancing test for rights and prejudice in Fifth Amendment stay contexts)