164 So. 3d 1164
Ala. Civ. App.2014Background
- DHR became involved in 2010 after reports of domestic violence and child abuse; the juvenile court adjudicated the three children dependent in November 2011 and placed them in DHR custody.
- The children moved among multiple homes; the son (special-needs, diagnosed with autism, behavioral issues) spent most of the period living with the maternal grandmother, while the two daughters lived with foster parents by the time of trial.
- DHR provided services (ISP meetings, counseling, parenting classes, in‑home FOCUS services, psychological evaluation); in January 2013 DHR was relieved of the duty to provide reunification services.
- DHR petitioned to terminate the mother’s parental rights; the termination trial occurred July 29–30, 2013; judgments terminating the mother’s rights to all three children were entered August 13, 2013.
- The juvenile court found statutory grounds under Ala. Code § 12‑15‑319(a) (emotional/mental illness, failure to support, failure to maintain contact, failure to adjust circumstances), found DHR made reasonable reunification efforts that failed, and found no viable alternatives to termination for any child.
- On appeal the court affirmed termination as to the two daughters but reversed and remanded as to the son, concluding a viable alternative (maintaining the status quo with maternal grandmother caretaking) existed for the son.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | DHR’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination was supported by clear and convincing evidence | Mother argued termination was not supported as the son was thriving with grandmother and she had taken some steps (attendance, housing, church) | DHR pointed to mother’s untreated depression, inconsistent participation, lack of support/payment, failure to adjust circumstances, safety concerns and behavioral risks posed by mother’s environment | Court: For daughters — clear and convincing evidence supported termination; For son — court found dependency and mother’s incapacity but reversed termination because alternative placement existed |
| Whether DHR made reasonable efforts to reunify | Mother argued DHR’s efforts were insufficient or should have continued | DHR argued it provided services over three years (ISP, counseling, in‑home services, parental capacity assessment, domestic‑violence and mental‑health referrals) and efforts failed | Held: Juvenile court reasonably concluded DHR made reasonable reunification efforts that failed |
| Whether placement with maternal grandmother was a viable alternative | Mother urged grandmother placement (son was already with grandmother and improving) | DHR argued grandmother placement was unsuitable for daughters due to son’s severe behaviors and grandmother’s health/financial/household concerns; for the son DHR favored grandparent adoption but acknowledged son benefited from grandmother’s care | Held: Not viable for daughters; for son maintaining status quo with grandmother was a viable less‑drastic alternative, so termination as to son was improper |
| Whether other relative placements or "status quo" were adequately considered | Mother urged investigation of great‑grandmother and other relatives and urged maintaining status quo | DHR said mother failed to provide relative information and DHR contacted available relatives (great‑aunt refused due to safety concerns) | Held: Juvenile court did not err in rejecting other relative placements for daughters; but court erred in finding no viable alternative for son given record showing son’s improvement in grandmother’s care |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte State Dep’t of Human Res., 834 So.2d 117 (Ala. 2002) (presumption of correctness applies to trial‑court findings based on ore tenus evidence)
- F.I. v. State Dep’t of Human Res., 975 So.2d 969 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007) (standard of review for termination judgments; require clear and convincing evidence)
- R.T.B. v. Calhoun Cnty. Dep’t of Human Res., 19 So.3d 198 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009) (framework for assessing reasonableness of reunification efforts)
- Ex parte Beasley, 564 So.2d 950 (Ala. 1990) (two‑pronged test: dependency + consideration/rejection of viable alternatives)
- M.W. v. Houston Cnty. Dep’t of Human Res., 773 So.2d 484 (Ala. Civ. App. 2000) (child’s need for permanency can outweigh parent’s good‑faith but unsuccessful efforts)
- D.O. v. Calhoun Cnty. Dep’t of Human Res., 859 So.2d 439 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003) (termination is drastic and must be supported by sufficiently clear and convincing evidence)
- Ex parte A.S., 73 So.3d 1223 (Ala. 2011) (status quo may be viable when parent demonstrates real progress toward rehabilitation)
- K.J. v. S.P., 78 So.3d 994 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011) (maintaining status quo can be appropriate if parent is progressing toward stability)