F.V.O. v. Coffee County Department of Human Resources
2013 Ala. LEXIS 139
Ala.2013Background
- DHR removed three children from parents in 2009 after an allegation of sexual abuse; father later convicted and incarcerated.
- Juvenile court found the children dependent and initially continued reunification efforts with the mother while relieving DHR of efforts toward the father.
- At an August 4, 2011 dispositional/permanency review, DHR sought adoption with unidentified resources after concluding relative-placement efforts had been exhausted and that the mother had not met reunification goals.
- The juvenile court’s January 3, 2012 orders: (1) found placement with the mother contrary to the children’s best interests; (2) found reasonable efforts to reunite the mother had been made and failed; (3) identified adoption as the most appropriate permanency plan; and (4) left custody with DHR.
- Mother appealed those January 3, 2012 orders to the Court of Civil Appeals; that court affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed, holding the appealed orders were nonfinal and dismissing the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (F.V.O.) | Defendant's Argument (DHR / Court of Civil Appeals majority) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether juvenile court’s announcement of adoption as permanency plan is an appealable adjudication | The permanency-plan finding is unsupported and appealable because it directs DHR toward termination/adoption | The permanency-plan designation was an administrative direction, not an adjudication of mother’s rights | Not appealable; announcement of adoption alone did not adjudicate mother’s rights (appeal dismissed) |
| Whether juvenile court’s finding that "reasonable efforts have been made and failed" relieved DHR of future obligations and is appealable | Mother contended the finding was erroneous and appealable | Court of Civil Appeals inferred the finding relieved DHR of obligations; DHR maintained the orders did not relieve ongoing duties | Not appealable; the finding was historical (past efforts failed) and did not expressly relieve DHR of continuing reasonable efforts to the mother |
| Finality: whether the January 3, 2012 orders were final, appealable judgments under § 12-15-601 | Mother argued errors in permanency finding and reasonable-efforts finding supported immediate appeal | DHR and majority below treated orders as final and appealable permanency orders | Supreme Court: orders were not final as to the mother’s substantive rights; appeal should be dismissed (remanded to dismiss) |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte T.V., 971 So.2d 1 (Ala. 2007) (permanency orders do not relieve State of proving termination elements later; permanency-plan context explained)
- Ex parte T.C., 96 So.3d 123 (Ala. 2012) (distinguishing finality of juvenile orders when hearing was resumed to complete evidence; finality principles in juvenile cases)
- C.L. v. D.H., 916 So.2d 622 (Ala. Civ. App. 2005) (juvenile dependency/custody adjudications may be final and appealable even if scheduled for review)
- D.P. v. Limestone Cnty. Dep’t of Human Res., 28 So.3d 759 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009) (permanency orders that decide crucial issues affecting parental rights are appealable)
- Morgan v. Lauderdale Cnty. Dep't of Pensions & Sec., 494 So.2d 649 (Ala. Civ. App. 1986) (multiple temporary custody orders in dependency proceedings treated as appealable judgments)