67 So. 3d 114
Ala. Civ. App.2011Background
- DHR filed a dependency petition alleging C.J.H. and S.H. were dependent due to lack of a parent or guardian to provide support, training, or education.
- The father allegedly killed the mother and then committed suicide, prompting ex parte temporary custody.
- Several relatives (the brother, maternal aunt and uncle, and paternal aunt) intervened seeking custody or visitation.
- The juvenile court ordered home studies of the proposed custodians’ residences.
- On May 3, 2010 the court adjudicated the children dependent and awarded custody to the paternal aunt, with specific visitation for others and a 12-month supervision by DHR.
- The court ordered the paternal aunt not to homeschool for one year to preserve normalcy, and required DHR to provide counseling and services.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the education restriction violates due process | Paternal aunt argues the judgment compels public-school education and violates rights | DHR argues the provision is to preserve stability, not a general restriction | Affirmed; no exact requirement to keep in public school was shown in judgment |
| Whether DHR supervision of the custodial arrangement for one year is unconstitutional | Paternal aunt claims state interference with a fit custodian violates rights | State may supervise to protect interests after dependency disposition | Affirmed; order to supervise for one year within §12-15-314(a)(4) upheld |
| Whether awarding visitation to maternal aunt and uncle was error | Maternal relatives sought visitation; paternal aunt argues lack of standing and statutory basis | Court may grant visitation to nonparents where in best interests under AJJA/§12-15-314(a)(4) | Affirmed; visitation upheld as in best interests and permissible under statutory authority |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. 2000) (Due process limits on state involvement in parenting decisions; best interests standard applied)
- Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (U.S. 1944) (Parents have primary responsibility for child nurture; state may intervene only with justification)
- J.S.M. v. P.J., 902 So.2d 89 (Ala.Civ.App.2004) (Visitation to nonparent after dependency adjudication allowed if in child’s best interests)
- K.B. v. Cleburne County Dep’t of Human Res., 897 So.2d 379 (Ala.Civ.App.2004) (Review of visitation awards; abuse of discretion standard; best interests of child standard)
- Ex parte Bland, 796 So.2d 340 (Ala.2000) (Visitation decisions reviewed for abuse of discretion; best interests standard emphasized)
- Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (U.S. 1977) (Relative in loco parentis has protected interests; state interference must be justified)
- Ex parte Devine, — So.3d — (Ala.2010) (Dependency analysis; importance of case-specific factual inquiry for best interests)