81 So. 3d 391
Ala. Civ. App.2011Background
- DHR petitioned to terminate the mother's parental rights to A.M. and Ch.M.; juvenile court terminated rights on Aug. 26, 2010 based on dependency findings and the mother's alleged inability to care for the children due to mental illness.
- The court found the mother's chronic mental health condition rendered her unable to comply with the Individualized Service Plan and unlikely to improve with rehabilitative services.
- The court concluded there were no suitable relatives available and no viable alternatives to termination, and it determined adoption and DHR custody were in the children's best interests.
- The mother filed postjudgment motions and notices of appeal; Rule 60 motions were considered, and several appeals were consolidated.
- This court reversed the termination judgments, finding a significant mother–child bond and that continued visitation was in the children's best interests, remanding for entry of judgments consistent with that ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination was in the best interests given the mother–child bond | Mother argues bond and visitation negate termination. | DHR contends termination is proper to protect children and enable adoption. | Termination not in best interests; maintain visitation. |
| Whether less drastic alternatives were adequately weighed against termination | Mother asserts alternatives (restricted visitation, ongoing contact) could protect interests. | DHR contends no viable alternative exists beyond termination. | Court must weigh visitation against adoption; since adoption prospects were uncertain, preserving visitation was favored. |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (due-process requires narrowly tailored measures to protect the child)
- Roe v. Conn, 417 F. Supp. 769 (M.D. Ala. 1976) (requires considering less drastic measures to protect children)
- Ex parte State Dep't of Human Res., 834 So.2d 117 (Ala. 2002) (preserves a presumption of correctness on ore tenus findings)
- D.M.P. v. State Dep't of Human Res., 871 So.2d 77 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003) (recognizes preserving parent–child relationship through alternatives when feasible)
- F.I. v. State Dep't of Human Res., 975 So.2d 969 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007) (applies clear and convincing standard and balancing in parental-rights cases)
- J.C. v. State Dep't of Human Res., 986 So.2d 1172 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007) (discusses standard of review and reliance on ore tenus findings)