K.D. v. Jefferson County Department of Human Resources
2012 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 12
Ala. Civ. App.2012Background
- The mother appeals a juvenile court judgment placing her child Dependent and custody with the father.
- Child taken into protective custody on September 13, 2009 after a shooting at the residence; residence described as filthy with narcotics concerns.
- DHR filed a dependency petition on September 14, 2009; mother stipulated to dependency at a shelter-care hearing and child placed with paternal grandmother; father incarcerated.
- Court ordered psychological and substance-abuse evaluations, drug screening, stable housing/employment, and visitation conditions for parents; father allowed visitation subject to negative drug screens.
- In 2010, custody awarded to the father; 2011 disposition centered on whether the child remained dependent; February 2011 hearing included a stipulation to dependency, leading to a March 30, 2011 dispositional judgment placing custody with the father and limiting visitation to supervised visits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of the dependency stipulation | Mother contends there was no valid stipulation to dependency. | DHR argues the open-court stipulation was binding under Rule 47, Ala. R.App. P. | Stipulation valid; court properly treated as dependency finding and proceeded to dispositional hearing. |
| Dispositional authority following stipulation | Mother argues DHR must prove current dependency at disposition. | Because of the stipulation, no further proof was required at dispositional hearing. | Dispositional hearing permitted; court acted within authority given the stipulation. |
| Visitation restrictions | Mother seeks least restrictive visitation; claims existing order overly restricts rights. | Best interests and welfare of the child justify supervised visitation due to ongoing safety concerns. | Supervised visitation affirmed; court acted within discretion to protect child’s welfare given residence risks. |
Key Cases Cited
- Spradley v. State, 414 So.2d 170 (Ala.Crim.App.1982) (stipulations can substitute for proof)
- V.W. v. G.W., 990 So.2d 414 (Ala.Civ.App.2008) (dependency at disposition requires current evidence; however stipulation can alter burden)
- P.D. v. S.S., 67 So.3d 128 (Ala.Civ.App.2011) (visitation under dependency cases depends on child’s safety interests)
- Ex parte Thompson, 51 So.3d 265 (Ala.2010) (best interests and protective conditions on visitation)
- Pratt v. Pratt, 56 So.3d 638 (Ala.Civ.App.2010) (overbroad visitation restrictions violate parent-child rights when not necessary)
- Carr v. Broyles, 652 So.2d 299 (Ala.Civ.App.1994) (best-interests standard for visitation; restrict only as necessary)
- Jones v. Haraway, 537 So.2d 946 (Ala.Civ.App.1988) (visitation factors tied to child welfare)
- R.B.O. v. Jefferson County Dept. of Human Resources, 70 So.3d 1286 (Ala.Civ.App.2011) (juvenile court discretion in dependency visitation)