Montgomery County Department of Human Resources v. A.S.N.
2016 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 84
Ala. Civ. App.2016Background
- In July 2011 DHR removed three children after the infant T.C. was treated for skull fracture and an oblique femur fracture; a CA/N investigation produced an “indicated” finding for inadequate supervision.
- DHR filed termination petitions in October 2012 and amended in June 2014 to add abandonment as to the father; trial did not occur until February 2015 and parents did not appear.
- DHR presented testimony about services offered (drug testing and referrals, parenting classes, transportation, VRS referrals, domestic-violence assessment) and about the parents’ limited compliance.
- The juvenile court declined to terminate parental rights, concluding DHR had not made reasonable efforts (focusing on transportation, housing, employment assistance, and reliance on a psychological evaluation that was excluded).
- The appellate court reversed: it found (1) undisputed evidence of the father’s abandonment, and (2) that DHR had made reasonable efforts and the mother failed to avail herself of services and did not effect sustainable rehabilitation over ~3.5 years — remanding with instructions to terminate both parents’ rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DHR) | Defendant's Argument (Parents / Juvenile Ct.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court erred in finding DHR failed to make reasonable efforts to rehabilitate the parents | DHR: it provided tailored services for years (drug treatment referrals, parenting classes, transportation, VRS, ISP monitoring); parents failed to avail themselves | Juvenile Ct.: DHR cut services (notably transportation), failed to follow psychological recommendations, and thus did not make reasonable efforts | Reversed: appellate court held DHR made reasonable efforts; juvenile court’s conclusion was unsupported by record |
| Whether the father abandoned the children (statutory abandonment) | DHR: father ceased contact, whereabouts unknown since Apr 2014, did not participate in ISP or visits — abandonment proven | Father: no defense at trial; juvenile court did not find abandonment | Held for DHR: undisputed evidence established abandonment; termination instruction ordered |
| Whether the mother abandoned the children | DHR: mother failed to sustain ISP goals (drug treatment, employment, transportation, parenting completion, visits) and showed indifference | Mother / Juvenile Ct.: DHR’s failures (transportation, employment assistance, not following psychological recommendations) prevented reunification | Appellate court rejected juvenile court’s view: mother did not make sustained efforts; reversal and instruction to terminate mother’s rights |
| Whether juvenile court could rely on an excluded psychological evaluation in denying termination | DHR: not necessary; record otherwise supports termination | Juvenile Ct.: relied on psychological evaluation (excluded) to criticize DHR | Held: juvenile court erred to rely on excluded evaluation; those findings disregarded on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Beasley, 564 So.2d 950 (Ala. 1990) (two-pronged test for termination: dependency by clear and convincing evidence and consideration/rejection of viable alternatives)
- Bowman v. State Dep’t of Human Res., 534 So.2d 304 (Ala. Civ. App. 1988) (termination requires clear and convincing evidence)
- L.M. v. D.D.F., 840 So.2d 171 (Ala. Civ. App. 2002) (definition of clear and convincing evidence standard)
- Ex parte State Dep’t of Human Res., 624 So.2d 589 (Ala. 1993) (presumption of correctness for ore tenus juvenile-court decisions)
- H.M.W. v. Mobile Cty. Dep’t of Human Res., 631 So.2d 1049 (Ala. Civ. App. 1993) (appellate review standard in termination cases)
- B.M. v. State, 895 So.2d 319 (Ala. Civ. App. 2004) (discusses Beasley two-prong test)
- M.A.J. v. S.F., 994 So.2d 280 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008) (reasonable, not maximal, efforts; presumptive rehabilitation period)
- A.M.F. v. Tuscaloosa Cty. Dep’t of Human Res., 75 So.3d 1206 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011) (parental obligation to make themselves available and to take steps to rehabilitate)
- M.W. v. Houston Cty. Dep’t of Human Res., 773 So.2d 484 (Ala. Civ. App. 2000) (child’s need for permanency can outweigh parents’ belated good-faith attempts)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (constitutional clear-and-convincing standard for parental-rights termination)