261 So. 3d 1229
Ala. Civ. App.2018Background
- Child born Sept. 2011; mother married to another man at conception but father (J.H.) later adjudicated biological father in Oct/Nov 2016 after DHR compelled DNA test.
- Father had multiple incarcerations (including convictions for possession of meth ingredients and an "escape"), was incarcerated at child’s birth and at other relevant times during child’s first five years; had pending felony charges at trial and limited employment due to back surgery and pain medication.
- DHR removed the child from mother’s custody in Jan 2015 after finding illegal drug use at maternal grandparents’ home; child was placed with various relatives and remained in DHR custody.
- DHR tested the father for drugs in Oct 2016 (positive for marijuana, morphine, methadone) and requested proof of prescriptions; DHR filed a termination petition in Dec 2016. Visitation for the father was arranged beginning Jan 2017; trial occurred Apr 19, 2017.
- Juvenile court terminated both parents’ rights; father appealed arguing, among other things, that DHR failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify him with the child.
- Alabama Court of Civil Appeals reversed as to the father, holding the juvenile court’s finding that DHR made reasonable reunification efforts was "plainly and palpably" unsupported by the record, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHR made reasonable efforts to reunify father and child | DHR failed to offer rehabilitative services or reasonable efforts (e.g., job/disability assistance, housing, parenting classes) before terminating rights | Juvenile court found DHR made reasonable efforts and that parents refused to change | Reversed as the record lacks evidence of reasonable efforts by DHR; finding was plainly and palpably wrong |
| Whether termination should stand despite late paternity adjudication | Father implied DHR rushed to terminate weeks after paternity adjudication and provided little services | DHR relied on juvenile court's factual findings supporting termination | Court remanded for further proceedings because failure to show reasonable efforts required reversal; other arguments not reached |
| Applicability of aggravated-circumstance exception (Ala. Code §12-15-312(c)(1)f.) | (Argued by concurrence as possible DHR defense): father’s incarceration may relieve DHR of reasonable-efforts duty if child deprived of safe, stable relationship | DHR did not seek the statutory determination below | Court declined to decide because DHR never asserted the exception; concurring judge noted DHR should have requested such a determination timely |
Key Cases Cited
- W.A. v. Calhoun Cty. Dep't of Human Res., 211 So.3d 849 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016) (county DHR must make reasonable reunification efforts absent exceptions)
- J.C. v. State Dep't of Human Res., 986 So.2d 1172 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007) (standard of review for termination judgments—clear and convincing evidence)
- F.I. v. State Dep't of Human Res., 975 So.2d 969 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007) (clarifying appellate scope in termination cases)
- L.M. v. D.D.F., 840 So.2d 171 (Ala. Civ. App. 2002) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- M.H. v. Jefferson Cty. Dep't of Human Res., 42 So.3d 1291 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010) (appellate review limited to disturbing juvenile court’s factual findings only when plainly and palpably wrong)