236 So. 3d 875
Ala. Civ. App.2017Background
- DHR filed to terminate H.B.'s parental rights to her daughter after three removals (2008, 2012, 2015); mother appeals the juvenile court's termination judgment.
- Removals were prompted by mother's 2008 mental-health crisis (off meds; erratic behavior), a 2012 hoarding/squalor situation (dozens of cats; unsanitary apartment), and a 2015 home without utilities and in "deplorable" condition after an arrest.
- The child was never shown to have suffered physical harm; school records and social-worker observations reflected the child was clean, attended school, and was bonded to mother/grandmother.
- Mother has long-standing diagnosis of psychosis/schizophrenia, is treated with Haldol and periodic Altapointe visits; evidence at trial showed she was stabilized and participating in services by mid-2016.
- DHR offered reunification services (psychiatric evaluation, parenting classes, in‑home FOCUS, Tools of Choice); mother initially declined but later began cooperating and completed or nearly completed many goals before the termination hearing.
- Juvenile court found reasonable efforts had been made by DHR but concluded reunification failed due to mother's failure to accept services/adjust circumstances and terminated parental rights; the appellate court reversed.
Issues
| Issue | H.B.'s Argument | DHR's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clear-and-convincing evidence showed mother remained unable/unwilling to care for child such that termination under §12-15-319 was warranted | Mother: record lacks clear-and-convincing proof of present inability; conditions were remedied and child bonded to mother | DHR: recurrence of unsanitary conditions, delayed cooperation, and repeated removals show inability/unwillingness to sustain safe care | Reversed — appellate court held record lacked clear-and-convincing evidence that mother remained unable to properly care for child at trial |
| Whether DHR made and exhausted reasonable reunification efforts before seeking termination | Mother: DHR did not sufficiently assist (e.g., restore utilities) and had not completed rehabilitation process | DHR: offered appropriate services repeatedly; mother initially refused services and delayed cooperation | Court: DHR used reasonable efforts; but appellate court concluded rehabilitation process was incomplete and mother had largely adjusted circumstances by trial, weighing against termination |
| Whether termination required proof of actual harm to the child (or only risk/conditions) | Mother: absence of demonstrated harm undermines termination | DHR: removal/remediation standard may rest on endangering conditions and likelihood of recurrence, not proof of past physical harm | Court: held statutory standard focuses on parent's present inability/unwillingness and likelihood of persistence; absence of proven harm here weighed against termination |
| Whether mother’s late/partial compliance and credibility issues justified termination | DHR: mother’s delayed, initially refusing participation and inconsistent statements supported finding reunification failed | Mother: belated cooperation and home improvement show changed circumstances and fitness to parent | Court: juvenile court could assess credibility, but appellate court found record did not clearly-and-convincingly demonstrate ongoing inability; reversed termination |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (due‑process requires clear‑and‑convincing standard to terminate parental rights)
- Ex parte McInish, 47 So.3d 767 (Ala. 2008) (standard for appellate review of fact findings under clear‑and‑convincing evidence)
- S.U. v. Madison Cty. Dep't of Human Res., 91 So.3d 716 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012) (termination requires clear‑and‑convincing proof of present inability/unwillingness likely to persist)
- M.G. v. Etowah Cty. Dep't of Human Res., 26 So.3d 436 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009) (mere absence of utilities alone insufficient for termination)
- B.J.K.A. v. Cleburne Cty. Dep't of Human Res., 28 So.3d 765 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009) (reasonable efforts analysis and when further reunification efforts may be futile)
- T.B. v. Cullman Cty. Dep't of Human Res., 6 So.3d 1195 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008) (rehabilitation succeeds when removal causes are resolved so child can safely return)