N.J.D. v. Madison County Department of Human Resources
110 So. 3d 387
Ala. Civ. App.2012Background
- DHR commenced dependency proceedings for the father’s oldest child in June 2006, later including a second child in 2007.
- After multi-day hearings in 2008, the juvenile court found the children dependent and awarded custody to the maternal grandfather in September 2008.
- The parents appealed, but the juvenile court deemed its record inadequate for direct appeal to the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals, transferring the case to circuit court for trial de novo.
- The trial court scheduled and delayed multiple hearings; an adjudicatory, disposition, and permanency hearing was held in July 2011 with ongoing expert evaluation ordered, plus a March 19, 2012 hearing that evolved into a permanency dispute over visitation and placement.
- At the March 19, 2012 hearing, the court discussed DHR’s recommendation for permanent relative placement and visitation limits, with no testimony taken that day regarding the psychologist’s evaluation.
- On March 26, 2012, the trial court entered judgments purporting to find dependency and to finalize permanent relative placement with the maternal grandfather, prohibiting father visitation, and closing the case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether March 19, 2012 hearing violated due process by treating a review as a final permanency hearing without notice or opportunity to present evidence. | Father | Trial court | Yes; due process denied; reversal remand. |
| Whether the March 26, 2012 judgments, adopting DHR's plan and permanently placing with the grandfather, violated due process given lack of proper adjudicatory proceedings. | Father | Trial court | Yes; judgments reversed and case remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gilmore v. Gilmore, 103 So.3d 833 (Ala.Civ.App.2010) (reversal when final judgment on merits issued without proper final hearing)
- Thorne v. Thorne, 344 So.2d 165 (Ala.Civ.App.1977) (due process in custody matters requires notice and opportunity to be heard; balancing rights and state interest)
- Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 421 (U.S. Supreme Court 1960) (due process factors in custody proceedings: nature of right, nature of proceeding, and burden on proceeding)
- Strain v. Maloy, 83 So.3d 570 (Ala.Civ.App.2011) (parental due process in custody matters described; notice and hearing required)