M.E. v. Jefferson County Department of Human Resources
148 So. 3d 737
Ala. Civ. App.2014Background
- DHR filed a dependency petition concerning the child on September 1, 2012, alleging the mother left the child with an abuser; the child was placed with the maternal grandparents.
- On February 20, 2013, the parties stipulated to dependency and the court scheduled a May 29, 2013 review hearing; the order did not label a permanency hearing.
- A CASA was appointed on March 12, 2013; a contempt motion for nonpayment of child support was set for May 29, 2013.
- At the May 29 hearing, the court announced a contempt motion and a review, heard arguments, and did not take sworn testimony; DHR urged a permanency-plan change and custody with the grandparents.
- The court ultimately closed the case, adopted DHR’s permanency plan, and permanently placed custody with the grandparents, relieving DHR and the CASA from further involvement.
- The mother timely sought to alter, amend, or vacate the judgment claiming due-process deficiencies and lack of notice; the motion was denied by operation of law and the mother appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the mother denied due process by not being adequately informed that the May 29 hearing would be a permanency hearing? | N.J.D. requires notice of permanency effects on custody. | Hearing labeled Compliance/Dispositional; substantial notice provided. | Yes; due process violated; reversed. |
| Did closing the case and relieving DHR of further duties violate due process? | Closing prejudiced the mother’s future custody efforts. | Closing is permitted with proper notice. | Yes; judgment reversed and remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- N.J.D. v. Madison Cnty. Dep’t of Human Res., 110 So.3d 387 (Ala.Civ.App.2012) (three-factor Thorne test for due process in dependency cases; notice insufficient when permanency at stake)
- Thorne v. Thorne, 344 So.2d 165 (Ala.Civ.App.1977) (three-factor test: nature of right, nature of proceeding, burden on proceedings)
- Gilmore v. Gilmore, 103 So.3d 833 (Ala.Civ.App.2012) (parental rights protected by due process; notice required)
- Strain v. Maloy, 83 So.3d 570 (Ala.Civ.App.2011) (due process in welfare of a minor context; notice requirement)
- Danford v. Dupree, 272 Ala. 517, 132 So.2d 734 (1961) (early due process due to notice considerations in custody matters)
- M.H. v. Jer. W., 51 So.3d 334 (Ala.Civ.App.2010) (quoting due process requirement: notice and hearing consistent with notice)
- Neal v. Neal, 856 So.2d 766 (Ala.2002) (due process requires notice and hearing consistent with the notice given)
- Frahn v. Greyling Realization Corp., 239 Ala. 580, 195 So. 758 (1940) (historic articulation of notice and hearing requirements)
- Ex Parte F.V.O., 145 So.3d 27 (Ala.2013) (distinguished for not relieving DHR of duties in that context)