197 So. 3d 997
Ala. Civ. App.2015Background
- Two minor children, Z.H. and J.H., were placed in DHR custody after Z.H. tested positive for marijuana at birth; removed from the mother’s custody multiple times beginning in 2010.
- Paternal grandparents obtained custody in March 2012 and were awarded custody free of DHR supervision in August 2013; they sought termination of the parents’ rights March 4, 2015.
- Father consented to termination; mother contested and testified she had not used drugs in over a year but tested positive for cocaine, marijuana, and alcohol at the termination hearing.
- Mother’s visitation and contact were sporadic; she had not visited or contacted the children from September 2014 until a brief phone contact in late March 2015, and provided no financial support while grandparents had custody.
- Juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence that the children were dependent, mother had abandoned them, reasonable reunification efforts had failed, no viable alternatives existed, and termination was in the children’s best interest; mother appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clear and convincing evidence showed the children were dependent and termination warranted | Mother: evidence insufficient and termination premature; needed more time for substance-abuse treatment | Grandparents/Juvenile Court: mother’s long-term absence, ongoing substance use, abandonment, and failure to meet I.S.P. show dependency and unfitness | Affirmed: evidence supported dependency and termination under two-prong test |
| Whether juvenile court properly considered/rejected viable alternatives to termination | Mother: court acted too quickly; alternatives (rehab, reunification) not exhausted | Court: DHR no longer a party since 2013; alternatives considered and none viable given mother’s history | Affirmed: court properly considered alternatives; termination in children’s best interest |
| Whether failure to contribute financially alone warranted termination | Mother: poverty prevented support; reliance on lack of financial support improper | Court: mother did not claim incapacity and financial non-support was one factor among abandonment and lack of visitation | Rejected mother’s challenge; court relied primarily on abandonment and other factors |
| Whether finding that DHR made reasonable efforts was erroneous or reversible | Mother: DHR did not continue reunification efforts after 2013, so reliance on that finding was error | Court: reference to earlier DHR efforts pertained to initial removals; any misstatement was harmless given other supporting evidence | Harmless error if any; overall judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- B.M. v. State, 895 So.2d 319 (Ala. Civ. App. 2004) (two-pronged test for termination by nonparent)
- Ex parte Beasley, 564 So.2d 950 (Ala. 1990) (standards for termination proceedings)
- Ex parte J.R., 896 So.2d 416 (Ala. 2004) (best interest of child is paramount)
- A.A. v. Cleburne County Dep’t of Human Res., 912 So.2d 261 (Ala. Civ. App. 2005) (role of best interests in termination)
- A.R.E. v. E.S.W., 702 So.2d 138 (Ala. Civ. App. 1997) (trial court best positioned to evaluate child’s interests)
- D.M. v. Walker County Dep’t of Human Res., 919 So.2d 1197 (Ala. Civ. App. 2005) (trial court resolves evidentiary conflicts)
- Ex parte Fann, 810 So.2d 631 (Ala. 2001) (presumption of correctness for trial-court factual findings)
- C.J. v. Marion Cnty. Dep’t of Human Res., 5 So.3d 1259 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008) (trial court may accept only credible testimony)
- T.W.W. v. Lauderdale Cnty. Dep’t of Human Res., 628 So.2d 761 (Ala. Civ. App. 1993) (harmless-error review in termination context)