P.S. v. Jefferson County Department of Human Resources
143 So. 3d 792
Ala. Civ. App.2013Background
- DHR became involved with the mother in 2008, leading to the removal from custody of her two older children (R.O. and K.F.).
- In 2011 DHR learned of the mother's pregnancy with the child and prepared an alert with UAB Hospital regarding birth.
- The child was born April 19, 2011, and DHR filed a dependency complaint on April 22, 2011, alleging failure to inform DHR of pregnancy and risk to child.
- Shelter-care and adjudicatory proceedings resulted in the child residing with a maternal great-aunt with the mother having supervised visitation and required services (counseling, parenting class, housing/employment).
- DHR petitioned to terminate the mother's parental rights in November 2011; permanency hearings in 2012 set plans and relieved DHR of reasonable-efforts in 2011.
- The trial court terminated parental rights on August 23, 2012, but the mother appealed; the appellate court reversed due to lack of clear and convincing evidence and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was clear and convincing evidence to support termination under § 12-15-319(a)(12). | Mother (DHR) argues termination based on lack of effort to adjust circumstances. | Mother contends DHR failed to prove she was unable or unwilling to discharge parental duties. | No; insufficient clear and convincing evidence under § 12-15-319(a)(12). |
| Whether continuing the status quo was a viable alternative to termination. | DHR failed to consider continuation of status quo as viable alternative. | Mother argues status quo should have been considered. | Pretermitted; court reversed without addressing further issues due to dispositive finding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowman v. State Dep't of Human Res., 534 So.2d 304 (Ala.Civ.App.1988) (clear and convincing standard for termination of parental rights)
- V.M. v. State Dep’t of Human Res., 710 So.2d 915 (Ala.Civ.App.1998) (defines clear and convincing evidence standard)
- L.M. v. D.D.F., 840 So.2d 171 (Ala.Civ.App.2002) (court’s standard for evidence in termination cases)
- H.H. v. Baldwin Cnty. Dep’t of Human Res., 989 So.2d 1094 (Ala.Civ.App.2007) (relevance of communication of concerns in rehabilitation efforts)
- Ex parte M.D.C., 39 So.3d 1117 (Ala.) (guides fair opportunity to identify barriers to reunification)
- Ex parte McInish, 47 So.3d 767 (Ala.Civ.App.2008) (standard of review for termination cases)
- L.M. v. Shelby Cnty. Dep’t of Human Res., 86 So.3d 377 (Ala.Civ.App.2011) (evidence of parental unfitness must be connected to identifiable barriers to reunification)
- C.W. v. State Dep’t of Human Res., 826 So.2d 171 (Ala.Civ.App.2002) (record must show continued risk or unfitness from parent)