C.O. v. Jefferson County Department of Human Resources, 206 So. 3d 621

DHR filed dependency petitions for three children in September 2013; children were removed from the mother’s custody and ultimately placed with a paternal aunt, M.O.\
Trials were scheduled and continued; an October 24, 2014 order set a trial for May 1, 2015. The mother was incarcerated and did not appear at trial; her counsel did.\
At the May 1, 2015 hearing the juvenile court found P.O. and Ca.O. dependent by clear and convincing evidence and awarded permanent custody to M.O.; the mother’s appeal as to J.M. was later dismissed as untimely.\
Key evidence: testimony that mother had an addiction history (Lortab, prescribed methadone), had been intoxicated around the children (including being found passed out with children in the car), and was incarcerated at time of trial; father had mental-health and substance-use concerns.\
Procedural/discovery issues included DHR’s protective in‑camera review of medical records (court excluded those records from evidence), mother’s motion to continue (denied), and objections about notice of a permanency decision at trial.

Issue	Mother’s Argument	DHR / Father’s Argument	Held
Timeliness of mother’s appeal re: J.M.	Mother filed notice of appeal in all three cases on June 15, 2015; argues appeal as to J.M. should proceed	DHR: mother’s notice was untimely for J.M.; father’s earlier appeals did not trigger cross-appeal for J.M.	Appeal as to J.M. dismissed (mother’s notice untimely)
Whether children P.O. and Ca.O. were dependent	Mother: insufficient clear and convincing evidence of dependency	DHR: evidence of mother’s substance use, intoxication around children, and unsafe incidents warranted dependency finding	Affirmed — juvenile court could find clear and convincing evidence of dependency
Notice / due process re: dispositional/permanency hearing	Mother/father: were not given proper notice that permanency would be decided at May 1 hearing	DHR: October 24 order set the matter for trial; trial notice was adequate to permit dispositional determinations	Held notice was adequate and no due-process violation (distinguished prior cases where only "review" notice was given)
Access to/usage of mother’s medical records	Mother: clerk should have produced subpoenaed medical records; exclusion prejudiced her	DHR: records were subject to protective order; court conducted in-camera review and ultimately excluded records; mother did not pursue Rule 37 relief	No reversible error; exclusion did not prejudice mother

Ex parte McInish, 47 So.3d 767 (Ala. 2008) (standard for review of findings required to be supported by clear and convincing evidence)\
L.M. v. D.D.F., 840 So.2d 171 (Ala. Civ. App. 2002) (definition and standard of clear and convincing evidence)\
N.J.D. v. Madison Cty. Dep’t of Human Res., 110 So.3d 387 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012) (due-process notice required before permanency decisions; applied Thorne test)\
M.E. v. Jefferson Cty. Dep’t of Human Res., 148 So.3d 737 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014) (parent deprived of due process where hearing proceeded as permanency hearing despite notice of only review hearing)\
A.D.G. v. D.O., 160 So.3d 783 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014) (same: lack of notice that hearing would be permanency hearing deprived parent of due process)\
Thorne v. Thorne, 344 So.2d 165 (Ala. Civ. App. 1977) (three-factor due-process test: nature of right, nature of proceeding, burden of notice)\
K.D. v. Jefferson Cty. Dep’t of Human Res., 88 So.3d 893 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012) (once a child is found dependent, court may proceed immediately to dispositional hearing)\
White Sands Grp., L.L.C. v. PRS II, LLC, 998 So.2d 1042 (Ala. 2008) (appellate-briefing rules require citation and argument; undeveloped arguments may be waived)