F.W. v. T.M.
140 So. 3d 950
Ala. Civ. App.2013Background
- Mother gave birth Oct 22, 2011; hospital removed the newborn due to mother's erratic behavior and DHR took legal custody; child placed with nonrelative foster parents.
- Maternal great-aunt and great-uncle (F.W. and C.W.) sought relative placement and were approved by DHR in Jan 2012; DHR transferred the child to them in April 2012 after other relative placements were rejected.
- Foster parents filed to intervene and sought emergency and permanent custody; both foster parents and F.W./C.W. were permitted to intervene and sought custody competingly.
- Juvenile court conducted ore tenus hearings (Dec 2012, Jan 2013) and found the child dependent; court weighed relative-preference statute against best-interest and fitness evidence.
- Court found F.W. and C.W. were relatives but not "fit and able" because of unstable housing, close contact with relatives engaged in criminal/drug activity, health and financial limitations, and therefore awarded legal and physical custody to the foster parents.
- F.W. appealed, arguing (1) foster parents lacked standing to intervene and (2) factual findings rejecting F.W./C.W. were unsupported. Appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (F.W.) | Defendant's Argument (Foster parents / DHR) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether foster parents may be made parties / intervene | Statutes (§12‑15‑307; Foster Parents Bill of Rights) prohibit making foster parents parties based on notice/right to be heard | Rule 24 permits permissive intervention; prior decisions allow foster parents/relatives to seek intervention | Court: statutes do not bar intervention; juvenile court properly allowed intervention |
| Whether F.W./C.W. were fit, able, and entitled to relative‑placement priority | F.W.: they are willing relatives and DHR approved them; statutory preference should favor placement with relatives | Foster parents: relative household posed risks (criminal conduct nearby, unstable tenancy, health/financial limits) and not in child’s best interest | Court: findings support that F.W./C.W. are not fit/able and placement with them is not in child’s best interest; custody to foster parents affirmed |
| Whether juvenile court's factual findings were supported | F.W.: trial findings were erroneous and not supported by evidence | Juvenile court relied on ore tenus testimony, credibility assessments, and evidence of relatives’ criminal activity, housing insecurity, health/age, and finances | Court: appellate deference to trial court credibility; findings not plainly wrong; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Alabama Dep’t of Human Res., 682 So.2d 459 (Ala. 1996) (appellate-review principles and deference where evidence presented ore tenus)
- B.H. v. Marion Cnty. Dep’t of Human Res., 998 So.2d 475 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008) (relative preference does not automatically supplant best‑interest/permanency analysis)
- Ex parte Fann, 810 So.2d 631 (Ala. 2001) (trial court's credibility assessments and fact findings are given great deference on appeal)
- J.B. v. Cleburne Cnty. Dep’t of Human Res., 991 So.2d 273 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008) (relative seeking custody must prove suitability, fitness, and that placement serves child's best interest)