K.F. v. Cleburne County, 2100368 (ala.civ.app. 8-12-2011)
78 So. 3d 983
Ala. Civ. App.2011Background
- DHR filed three petitions in JU-08-107.03, JU-08-108.03, and JU-08-109.03 seeking custody transfers of A.F., M.T., and N.T. respectively, from DHR to C.L. or V.F. (A.F. and M.T. to C.L.; N.T. to V.F.).
- N.T. is mother K.F.’s child; A.F. and M.T. are also her children with V.F.; guardianship in Georgia was involved via ICPC.
- An ore tenus hearing was held October 28, 2010; on December 9, 2010 the juvenile court awarded custody of N.T. to V.F. and custody of A.F. and M.T. to C.L., with standard visitation for K.F. but no overnight visitation pending completion of alcohol-treatment.
- K.F. challenged the dispositional orders on custody and visitation grounds; the court also conditioned overnight visitation on documented completion of an intensive outpatient or inpatient alcohol-treatment program.
- DHR’s witnesses emphasized K.F.’s alcohol addiction and failure to complete ISP and treatment goals; C.L.’s home and ability to care for A.F. and M.T. were supported by a home study; V.F. supported by family placement and no alcohol issues.
- The court reversed the visitation portion of the judgment related to precluding overnight visits and remanded to finalize a more definite visitation schedule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether N.T.’s transfer to V.F. was proper. | K.F. argues V.F. is not a relative and relatives have priority. | V.F. contends the court could place N.T. with a suitable non-relative after ISP goals. | Affirmed; transfer to V.F. upheld as serve best interests. |
| Whether A.F. and M.T. should be placed with C.L. | K.F. contends non-relatives should not supersede a relative’s custody priority. | C.L. is able and willing; home study approved; DHR supported placement. | Affirmed; placement with C.L. upheld as in best interests. |
| Whether the visitation award is unconstitutionally vague. | K.F. argues the order does not specify visitation times before overnight access. | V.F./C.L. argue standard schedule with conditioning on treatment suffices. | In part reversed; remanded to specify visitation rights before overnight visits. |
| Whether the case should be remanded for a clarified visitation order. | K.F. seeks clearer, more specific schedule. | V.F./C.L. rely on existing framework pending remand. | Remanded with instructions to enter a clarified visitation judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Alabama Department of Human Resources, 682 So.2d 459 (Ala. 1996) (describes appellate review in ore tenus custody determinations)
- J.J. v. J.H.W., 27 So.3d 519 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008) (applies standard of review for best-interests custody decisions)
- W.T.H. v. M.M.M., 915 So.2d 64 (Ala. Civ. App. 2005) (best-interests governs dispositional phase in dependency cases)
- Dunn v. Dunn, 972 So.2d 810 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007) (trial court credibility and demeanor evaluation favored)
- Pratt v. Pratt, 56 So.3d 638 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010) (visitation judgments must specify schedule to avoid excessive dispute)
- Bryant v. Bryant, 739 So.2d 53 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999) (visitation awards should not completely vest discretion in custodial parent)
- K.L.U. v. M.C., 809 So.2d 837 (Ala. Civ. App. 2001) (clarifies specificity requirement in visitation orders)
- R.K.J. v. J.D.J., 887 So.2d 915 (Ala. Civ. App. 2004) (visitation awards lacking specific times may be reversible)