236 So. 3d 910
Ala. Civ. App.2017Background
- DHR filed petitions in June 2016 to terminate the parents’ rights to three children; the juvenile court terminated both parents’ rights after a September 15, 2016 trial, and entered judgment October 7, 2016. The mother appealed.
- DHR had been involved since 2013 due to the mother’s substance abuse and arrests; the children were moved among relatives and foster placements and were in relative placements (maternal aunts and their husbands) at trial.
- The mother admitted she was not capable of caring for the children at trial and asked that the children be placed with their maternal aunts rather than have her rights terminated.
- Both maternal aunts (and their husbands) testified they would keep the children only if the parents’ rights were terminated; they refused custody conditioned on the parents retaining parental rights.
- DHR and the juvenile court found termination necessary to secure permanency and prevent future disruption, because custody awards (without termination) are modifiable and relatives were unwilling to assume custody absent termination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a viable alternative to terminating parental rights existed | Mother: place children with maternal aunts and their husbands without terminating her rights | DHR & maternal aunts: relatives would keep children only if parental rights were terminated; without termination children would face foster placements and instability | Court held no viable alternative existed because relatives refused custody unless rights were terminated; termination was the sole available method to secure permanency |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Beasley, 564 So.2d 950 (Ala. 1990) (court must find grounds and reject viable alternatives before terminating rights)
- Ex parte Ogle, 516 So.2d 243 (Ala. 1987) (petitioner bears burden to prove lack of viable alternative by clear and convincing evidence)
- Ex parte McInish, 47 So.3d 767 (Ala. 2008) (standard for reviewing factual findings where clear-and-convincing evidence is required)
- Ex parte T.V., 971 So.2d 1 (Ala. 2007) (termination improper where a less disruptive alternative preserving reunification prospects was available)
- M.W.H. v. R.W., 100 So.3d 603 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012) (custody awards without termination remain subject to modification)
- In re Grayson, 419 So.2d 234 (Ala. Civ. App. 1982) (termination precludes later attempts to reestablish parental rights)
- C.B. v. State Dep't of Human Res., 782 So.2d 781 (Ala. Civ. App. 1998) (termination is an extreme, permanent remedy)