150 So. 3d 782
Ala. Civ. App.2014Background
- DHR petitioned to terminate the mother's and the father's parental rights on July 18, 2012.
- Hearings occurred August 13 and September 11, 2013; father was imprisoned and his rights were not at issue on appeal.
- September 17, 2013, the juvenile court terminated the mother's parental rights; mother filed a postjudgment motion and notice of appeal on October 1, 2013; appeal deemed perfected October 2, 2013.
- Mother argued the postjudgment motion should have been heard, but she did not request a hearing, thus waiving the right.
- Statutory grounds for termination require clear and convincing evidence that the parent is unable or unwilling to care for the child, and that the condition will persist; evidence showed the child has ADHD, ODD, autism, and requires highly structured care and multiple medications.
- The record showed the mother struggled to manage the child's medical needs, while bond and ongoing contact existed; experts acknowledged concerns but also emphasized the mother cooperated and had limited skills.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of postjudgment motion without a hearing was proper | Mother argues error in denying hearing on postjudgment motion. | DHR argues mother failed to request a hearing, waiving the right. | Waived; no hearing requested. |
| Whether grounds for termination existed under §12-15-319 | DHR asserts sufficient evidence of inability to care for the child and likely persistence. | Mother contends grounds exist but termination not favored due to alternatives. | Clear and convincing evidence supported grounds, but not termination; court erred. |
| Whether termination was appropriate given the child's best interests and alternatives | DHR argued termination is appropriate to remove obstacles to adoption. | Mother maintains continued relationship and visitation are beneficial and less drastic alternatives exist. | Less drastic alternative preservation of parental relationship favored; termination reversed. |
| Whether the court should maintain custody with visitation rather than terminate | DHR indicates adoption or long-term placement required, with termination being the path to permanency. | Mother and child have a strong bond and ongoing visitation would not harm the child. | Juvenile court erred in terminating; remanded to maintain current custody with visitation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Beasley, 564 So.2d 950 (Ala.1989) (requires consideration of less drastic alternatives before termination)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S.1982) (fundamental right to family integrity; narrowly tailored means)
- Roe v. Conn, 417 F.Supp. 769 (M.D. Ala.1976) (due-process considerations in protecting family bonds)
- Ex parte Mclnish, 47 So.3d 767 (Ala.2008) (standard for clear-and-convincing evidence on termination)
- T.D.K. v. L.A.W., 78 So.3d 1006 (Ala.Civ.App.2011) (consideration of alternatives to termination when preserving bond)
- Ex parte A.S., 73 So.3d 1223 (Ala.2011) (maintain foster custody with parental visitation when safe)
- CM. v. Tuscaloosa Cnty. Dep’t of Human Res., 81 So.3d 391 (Ala.Civ.App.2011) (bond, ongoing contact, and benefits of family preservation over termination)