89 So. 3d 169
Ala. Civ. App.2011Background
- B.B.T. appeals a juvenile court judgment terminating his parental rights to K.T.; judgment affirmed.
- This Court previously addressed related issues in B.B.T. v. Houston Cnty. Dep't of Human Res., 985 So. 2d 479 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007).
- Birth mother gave birth to K.T. on Feb 20, 2002; father initially listed on birth certificate but later not married to mother.
- DHR obtained custody of K.T. and three half-siblings on June 3, 2003; mother's rights later terminated in separate action.
- DNA testing in 2006 confirmed B.B.T. as biological father; initial termination of parental rights occurred after multiple hearings (2006–2007).
- Reversal in 2007 led to reunification efforts; father regained custody in Sept. 2008, but DHR later regained custody in Aug. 2009; child placed in foster care with a stable family.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clear and convincing evidence supports termination | B.B.T. argues insufficient evidence to terminate. | DHR asserts grounds exist under § 12-15-319(a). | Yes; trial court reasonably found grounds under § 12-15-319(a)(3),(12). |
| Whether reasonable reunification efforts were made | DHR did not provide ongoing effective services. | DHR provided services in 2007–2008; later barriers prevented reunification. | Yes; reasonable efforts shown and later limited by unadvisable circumstances. |
| Whether viable alternatives to termination were explored | DHR failed to consider all alternatives, like custody by S.G. | Court weighed availability and fit of alternatives; some were unsuitable. | Yes; court considered alternatives and favored termination with adoption. |
| Whether the child’s emotional bond with father favors preservation over termination | Strong bond suggests partial preservation or limited visitation. | Foster placement with adoption rights outweighed bond considerations. | Yes; best interest favored permanent placement with foster family and adoption. |
Key Cases Cited
- A.D.B.H. v. Houston Cnty. Dep't of Human Res., 1 So. 3d 53 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008) (separate termination of birth mother's rights; rationale cited)
- K.C. v. Jefferson Cnty. Dep't of Human Res., 54 So. 3d 407 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010) (DHR not required to offer unadvisable services; reunification limits)
- D.M.P. v. State Dep't of Human Res., 871 So. 2d 77 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003) (necessity to weigh partial preservation against termination)
- B.S. v. Cullman County Dep't of Human Res., 865 So. 2d 1188 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003) (custodial resource must be related and capable; relationship matters)
- J.B. v. Cleburne Cnty. Dep't of Human Res., 991 So.2d 273 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008) (question of fact whether custodian is qualified)