L.R. v. C.G.
78 So. 3d 436
Ala. Civ. App.2011Background
- Children removed from mother’s custody in 2006 after she left two children with neighbors who molested them.
- Maternal grandparents were awarded permanent legal and physical custody in June 2008; mother was to have visitation and pay $75/month child support.
- Maternal grandparents filed to terminate parental rights of both parents in June 2010.
- Trial held September 23, 2010; judgments entered November 18, 2010 terminating rights of both mother and father.
- Mother and father appealed; appeals consolidated.
- Appellate court reversed termination as to both parents, holding maintenance of the status quo viable; remanded for ongoing proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is termination of the mother’s rights warranted? | Mother argues ongoing stability and improvements favor keeping status quo. | Grandparents argue termination is appropriate due to abandonment and lack of progress. | Termination not warranted; status quo viable; reversed as to mother. |
| Is termination of the father’s rights warranted? | Father argues improvement and ability to provide for children if back with family. | Grandparents seek termination based on past support failures. | Termination not warranted; status quo viable; reversed as to father. |
| Did the court err by not articulating specific §12-15-319(a) findings? | Mother contends insufficient statutory findings. | Grandparents rely on ore tenus findings. | Court pretermitted discussion; maintenir status quo as viable alternative; judgments reversed on both parents. |
Key Cases Cited
- L.T. v. W.L., 47 So.3d 1241 (Ala.Civ.App.2009) (reversing termination where viable alternative exists; stability concerns)
- KA.P. v. D.P., 11 So.3d 812 (Ala.Civ.App.2008) (maintenance of status quo not viable where reunification unlikely)
- B.J.C. v. D.E., 874 So.2d 1109 (Ala.Civ.App.2003) (oppose indefinitely maintaining third-party custody when prospects for reunification are poor)
- A.N.S. v. K.C., 628 So.2d 734 (Ala.Civ.App.1993) (rejecting status quo as sole solution; permanence considerations important)
- L.M. v. D.D.F., 840 So.2d 171 (Ala.Civ.App.2002) (clear-and-convincing standard; ore tenus findings presumed correct)
- Favorite Market Store v. Waldrop, 924 So.2d 719 (Ala.Civ.App.2005) (disposition of issues when another issue is determinative)
- R.B. v. State Dep’t of Human Res., 669 So.2d 187 (Ala.Civ.App.1995) (standard for reviewing juvenile court judgments)
- Bowman v. State Dep’t of Human Res., 534 So.2d 304 (Ala.Civ.App.1988) (clear-and-convincing evidence requirement in termination cases)