114 So. 3d 835
Ala. Civ. App.2012Background
- DHR petitioned in 2004 alleging dependency due to mother's mental illness, domestic violence, and concerns of sexual abuse by father; custody initially with maternal relatives and then with the father under various orders.
- Children were removed from parental custody and placed with DHR by 2005 after additional abuse allegations; mother and father had supervised visitation.
- The father failed to complete court-ordered services (psychological evaluation, counseling, drug testing, parenting classes) over several years, despite attorney representation.
- No-contact orders and relocations (to Missouri) limited father’s contact with the children; DHR later sought termination of parental rights.
- In 2011–2012, after ore tenus proceedings, the juvenile court terminated both parents’ rights, finding dependency and grounds under §12-15-319(a) including abandonment, failure to provide for needs, lack of visitation, lack of contact, and failure to adjust circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction post-AJJA repeal | Father argues CPA jurisdiction ended; AJJA repealed CPA. | DHR argues AJJA retained exclusive jurisdiction and preserved pending actions. | Court retained jurisdiction; no loss due to renumbering to §12-15-114. |
| Application of AJJA vs CPA on facts | Father claims AJJA applied improperly to termination. | Argument raised too late for appellate review. | Appellate review declined for arguments first raised on appeal. |
| Sufficiency of grounds under §12-15-319(a)(9) and (12) | Dad failed to provide for needs; no effort to adjust; no meaningful contact. | DHR argues substantial evidence supports grounds. | Clear and convincing evidence supported termination under (9) and (12). |
| Abandonment finding support | Abandonment period less clear due to no-contact orders. | Other independent grounds support termination; abandonment finding not sole basis. | Even if abandonment findings were problematic, other statutory bases supported termination. |
| Hearsay evidence of Missouri case | Missouri case information was hearsay and dispositional only. | There were independent bases for termination regardless. | Reversal not required; independent grounds affirmed termination. |
Key Cases Cited
- J.C. v. State Dep’t of Human Res., 986 So.2d 1172 (Ala.Civ.App.2007) (clear factual findings presumed correct on appeal; mixed standard for law)
- J.A. v. C.M., 93 So.3d 953 (Ala.Civ.App.2012) (de novo standard on questions of law)
- Ex parte Beasley, 564 So.2d 950 (Ala. 1990) (Beasley factors for termination standard)
- B.M. v. State, 895 So.2d 319 (Ala.Civ.App.2004) (two-prong test for termination; dependency and alternatives)
- Brown v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 864 So.2d 1100 (Ala.Civ.App.2002) (duty to raise arguments; not preserved for appeal)