218 So. 3d 1252
Ala. Civ. App.2016Background
- Child born 2008; removed from parents’ custody after a domestic-violence-related DHR investigation in Dec. 2011 and placed in foster care; DHR filed to terminate parental rights in Nov. 2013 and amended for abandonment in May 2014.
- Trial on DHR’s termination petition occurred over four days spanning April 2014–August 2015; statutory 90-day trial and 30-day final-order deadlines were not met.
- DHR presented evidence of domestic violence, parents’ low IQs (psychological evaluations), poor participation in services, interrupted visitation, and the parents’ prior loss of custody of other children.
- Parents: mother testified she cared for the child previously, denied cognitive impairment, claimed DHR prevented visitation; father was incarcerated on serious charges during much of the proceedings and had limited contact.
- Juvenile court issued a detailed 35-page judgment refusing to terminate parental rights, finding DHR failed to prove grounds by clear and convincing evidence and that DHR had not made reasonable efforts (including investigating relatives and accommodating parents’ cognitive limitations).
- DHR appealed; appellate court affirmed because juvenile court’s factual credibility determinations were supported by evidence and not plainly and palpably wrong.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DHR) | Defendant's Argument (Parents / Juvenile Ct.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHR proved grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence | DHR: evidence of dependency, abandonment, mental deficiency, failed reunification supports termination | Juvenile Ct.: evidence disputed; parents not shown to have abandoned child; mental deficiencies did not render them unable to parent; DHR failed reasonable efforts | Affirmed: juvenile court’s credibility findings supported; DHR did not meet clear-and-convincing burden |
| Whether parents abandoned the child (statutory presumption after 4 months) | DHR: parents had minimal contact (last visits Dec. 2013) → presumption of abandonment | Parents: mother prevented from visiting; father incarcerated and attempted contact; juvenile court credited preventive factors | Juvenile court could find no abandonment based on credited testimony; appellate court defers to that credibility determination |
| Whether DHR made reasonable reunification efforts and accommodations for parents’ low IQs | DHR: referred services, but parents failed to complete programs; lack of progress supports termination | Juvenile Ct.: DHR received notice of cognitive issues (Dr. Hammack) but did not sufficiently tailor services or investigate relatives; thus efforts were not reasonable | Held: juvenile court reasonably found DHR’s efforts inadequate and failure to accommodate undermined DHR’s case |
| Admissibility/consideration of MPD police report and procedural delays (statutory timing) | DHR: relied on police report and argues trial delays and post-trial timing errors prejudiced case | Juvenile Ct.: referenced MPD report (though it had earlier excluded it at trial) and criticized DHR’s handling; court also delayed proceedings | Appellate court noted possible improper reliance on excluded report and statutory timing violations but DHR did not preserve reversible-error arguments; nonetheless deferred to juvenile court’s factual findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte State Dep’t of Human Res., 624 So.2d 589 (Ala. 1993) (clear-and-convincing evidence required to terminate parental rights)
- Ex parte Beasley, 564 So.2d 950 (Ala. 1990) (must determine dependency then explore alternatives to termination)
- S.B.L. v. Cleburne County Dep’t of Human Res., 881 So.2d 1029 (Ala.Civ.App. 2003) (juvenile-court factual findings based on ore tenus evidence are presumed correct)
- Ex parte McInish, 47 So.3d 767 (Ala. 2008) (standard of review for findings required to be based on clear and convincing evidence)
- Griggs v. Griggs, 638 So.2d 916 (Ala.Civ.App. 1994) (appellate court must indulge all favorable presumptions to sustain trial court’s judgment)