158 So. 3d 471
Ala. Civ. App.2014Background
- M.H. appealed termination of parental rights to her children K.J. and J.J. after DHR petitions filed July 2, 2013.
- Children were in foster care since July 2012 following evidence of drug abuse and domestic violence in the mother’s home.
- Trial held Sept. 23, 2013; juvenile court terminated rights on Nov. 7, 2013 and awarded permanent custody to DHR.
- Mother filed postjudgment motions; GAL supported mother’s position that goals had been completed.
- Mother sought to have custody with guardians; DHR’s efforts to reunify were disputed and argued as insufficient.
- Court reversed and remanded, holding termination not warranted based on mother’s current condition and viable alternatives not properly considered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the judgments were void for failure to timely enter final orders | Mother: §12-15-320(a) and Rule 25(D) require timely entry | DHR argues delay not jurisdictional and not prejudicial | Judgments not void; delay not jurisdictional; remand advised |
| Whether clear and convincing evidence supported dependency and inability/unwillingness to care for the children | Mother contends evidence shows improvement and capability | DHR presented evidence of drug abuse, domestic violence, neglect | Court erred in finding no viable change; dependency proven but termination not warranted based on current condition |
| Whether there existed a viable alternative to termination that was properly considered | Great-aunt/Great-uncle viable custodians; home study pending | DHR deemed relatives unsuitable; delay insufficient | DHR failed to prove unsuitability of relative resources; viable alternative existed |
| Whether DHR provided reasonable reunification services | DHR failed to offer or assess parenting-skills and housing options | DHR duty acknowledged but not fully satisfied; case to be remanded | Reasonable-services issue remanded; overall termination reversed and remanded for further proceedings |
| Whether the court properly weighed current conditions against past history in terminating rights | Improvement in employment, housing, and sobriety argued against termination | Past neglect and danger justified termination | Error in termination given evidence of progress and strong parent-child bond; reversal and remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Beasley, 564 So.2d 950 (Ala. 1990) (termination decisions based on welfare; last-resort measure)
- J.C. v. State Dep’t of Human Res., 986 So.2d 1172 (Ala.Civ.App.2007) (deference to trial court factual findings; de novo review of law)
- Ex parte Nixon, 729 So.2d 277 (Ala.1998) (30-day final-order writing not jurisdictional; AP A interface guidance)
- D.O. v. Calhoun Cnty. Dep’t of Human Res., 859 So.2d 439 (Ala.Civ.App.2003) (consider current conditions; consistent with termination framework)
- A.H. v. Houston Cnty. Dep’t of Human Res., 122 So.3d 846 (Ala.Civ.App.2013) (relevance of current conditions and history in two-prong test)
- J.B. v. Cleburne Cnty. Dep’t of Human Res., 991 So.2d 273 (Ala.Civ.App.2008) (unsuitability burden on DHR; relative resources)
- J.K. v. Jefferson Cnty. Dep’t of Human Res., 114 So.3d 835 (Ala.Civ.App.2012) (veneer of dependency and termination standards; ore tenus review)