R.B.O. v. Jefferson County Department of Human Resources, 2011 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 87

DHR filed a dependency petition in 2008 alleging the mother’s drug abuse and unsafe living situation; custody awarded to maternal grandmother; mother initially received supervised visitation.
Paternity of the child was established on June 18, 2009, and the dispositional order noted the father as the legal father with supervised visitation pending reunification services.
A 2010 dispositional hearing considered whether the father should have unsupervised visitation; the juvenile court ultimately denied unsupervised visitation and closed the case, with visitation remaining as previously ordered.
The father appealed, arguing the court abused its discretion by restricting visitation to supervised only; the record showed no evidence that unsupervised visitation would harm the child.
On appeal, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals reversed the denial of unsupervised visitation and remanded for consideration of less-restrictive measures to protect the child, including conditions on visitation and driver’s license issues.
The court noted the father’s parole status, lack of a valid driver’s license, past child-support nonpayment, and relationship with a woman who had lost custody of her own children, but found these factors insufficient to justify broad supervision absent showing of harm.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the court err in denying unsupervised visitation?	R.B.O. argues no evidence shows detriment from unsupervised visits.	DHR contends supervision is warranted to protect the child given the father’s status and associations.	Yes; reversed and remanded for less-restrictive measures.
Are there feasible less-restrictive alternatives to supervised visitation that would protect the child?	Father could visit unsupervised with safeguards rather than blanket supervision.	Supervision protects the child from potential negative influences.	Yes; remand with instructions to consider alternatives like excluding the father’s partner from visits and driver’s-license-based restrictions.
Did the evidence support a broad loss of unsupervised visitation based on the father’s parole, finances, and relationship?	No evidence shows the father cannot properly care for the child unsupervised.	Parole status, license issues, and associations justify continued supervision for safety.	Yes, to the extent it supports reconsideration of restrictions rather than a blanket denial; the court must tailor less-restrictive protections.

Carr v. Broyles, 652 So. 2d 299 (Ala. Civ. App. 1994) (best interests standard; misconduct must be shown to be detrimental)
Ex parte Thompson, 51 So. 3d 265 (Ala. 2010) (child welfare requires best interests with protective visitation as appropriate)
P.D. v. S.S., 67 So. 3d 128 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011) (supervised visitation improper where no abuse or danger shown)
Jackson v. Jackson, 999 So. 2d 488 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007) (consider restricting mother's visitation to address influence of the mother's companion)
Pratt v. Pratt, 56 So. 3d 638 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010) (overbroad visitation restrictions violate parent-child interests when not needed for safety)
Ex parte M.D.C., 39 So. 3d 1117 (Ala. 2009) (recognizes visitation rights independent of child-support obligations)