195 So. 3d 269
Ala. Civ. App.2015Background
- Child born March 2, 2011; mother left infant with acquaintance T.W., who took custody when child was five days old and cared for the child thereafter.
- DHR became involved in 2011 over allegations of the mother’s drug use, criminal associates, and mental-health issues; the child and siblings were adjudicated dependent on August 20, 2012; custody of the child awarded to T.W.
- Reunification efforts failed and DHR closed the family’s file in January 2013; T.W. and her husband thereafter supervised or controlled visitation between the mother and child.
- Mother had minimal contact or support for the child (no regular support; long periods without visits); T.W. testified mother last had sustained contact in mid‑2013 until a supervised visit two weeks before trial.
- T.W. and J.W. sought to adopt the child; juvenile court terminated the mother’s parental rights on April 3, 2015; mother appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court erred in finding the child dependent / that mother abandoned the child | Mother: court erred; factual disputes show she did not abandon the child | State/T.W.: mother voluntarily relinquished custody, had extended noncontact and provided no support | Court: affirmed dependency and abandonment finding (clear and convincing evidence supports it) |
| Whether termination was improper for lack of evidence that reasonable rehabilitation efforts failed | Mother: termination without proof of failed rehab efforts was improper | State: when abandonment is proven, reasonable-efforts requirement is excused | Court: affirmed — abandonment allows termination without showing prior reasonable efforts |
| Whether juvenile court failed to consider viable alternatives before terminating parental rights | Mother: court should have exhausted alternatives and restored relationship | State: due-process protection is reduced/lost for a parent who has abandoned the child | Court: affirmed — abandoned parent loses the due‑process right requiring exhaustion of alternatives; termination was in child’s best interest |
Key Cases Cited
- M.H. v. Jefferson Cnty. Dep’t of Human Res., 42 So.3d 1291 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010) (standard of review for termination-of-parental-rights factual findings)
- Ex parte T.V., 971 So.2d 1 (Ala. 2007) (dependency finding requires consideration of grounds for termination and alternatives)
- Ex parte Beasley, 564 So.2d 950 (Ala. 1990) (court must make a finding of dependency unless petitioner is a parent)
- C.C. v. L.J., 176 So.3d 208 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015) (abandoning parent loses due‑process protections requiring exhaustion of alternatives)
- Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1983) (parental due‑process rights depend on developed parental relationship)
- Roe v. Conn, 417 F. Supp. 769 (M.D. Ala. 1976) (discusses substantive right of association between parent and child)