116 So. 3d 220
Ala. Civ. App.2012Background
- DHR involvement with mother and S.N.B. began in 2006; child case JU-07-291.01 filed in 2007.
- Grandparents obtained temporary custody of the child and mother’s visitation was allowed in 2008.
- Mother’s rights to S.N.B. were involuntarily terminated on December 1, 2009; mother appealed and the decision was affirmed.
- The juvenile court later ordered that mother’s visitation with the child would be at the discretion of the grandparents and relieved DHR of supervising visitation (December 14, 2009).
- In January 2012, the juvenile court terminated mother’s parental rights to the child.
- The court considered § 12-15-319(a)(8), (a)(9), and (a)(11) factors and found no viable alternative to termination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether viable alternatives to termination existed | Mother argues for visitation/joint custody as viable alternatives. | Grandparents contend termination was required due to ongoing issues and lack of viable alternatives. | Status quo was a viable alternative; judgment reversed and remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- L.R. v. C.G., 78 So.3d 436 (Ala.Civ.App.2011) (two-pronged test for termination: dependency and viable alternatives)
- J.C. v. State Dep't of Human Res., 986 So.2d 1172 (Ala.Civ.App.2007) (clear-and-convincing standard; ore tenus findings presumed correct)
- L.M. v. D.D.F., 840 So.2d 171 (Ala.Civ.App.2002) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- D.M.P. v. State Dep't of Human Res., 871 So.2d 77 (Ala.Civ.App.2003) (plurality on factors for termination; alternative considerations)
- K.A.P. v. D.P., 11 So.3d 812 (Ala.Civ.App.2008) (rejection of indefinite status quo when reunification unlikely)
- L.R. v. C.G., 78 So.3d 443-44 (Ala.Civ.App.2011) (child and parent relationship weighing preservation vs. termination)
- East v. Meadows, 529 So.2d 1010 (Ala.Civ.App.1988) (progenitor rights termination standards context)