S.C. v. Cullman County Department of Human Resources (Appeal from Cullman Juvenile Court: JU-19-593.06).
CL-2024-0781
Ala. Civ. App.Mar 21, 2025Background
- Cullman County DHR filed petitions in May 2024 to terminate the parental rights of J.C. (father) and S.C. (mother) regarding their two children, So.C. (born 2013) and Je.C. (born 2012), after substantiated concerns of drug use and neglect.
- Parental rights were terminated by the Cullman Juvenile Court in September 2024 following ongoing evidence of parental substance abuse, poor living conditions, and lack of cooperation with DHR.
- Children initially placed with their maternal grandmother, but behavioral issues escalated, leading to psychiatric hospitalizations and a recommendation against continued placement there.
- DHR attempted to provide rehabilitation services and conducted substance abuse assessments, psychological evaluations, and offered parenting classes and drug screens; parents partially completed but did not cooperate fully.
- Both parents continued to deny the extent of their substance issues despite repeated positive drug tests, including on the day of trial.
- Juvenile court found termination of parental rights appropriate and the least drastic alternative; both parents appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument (DHR) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of DHR's rehabilitation efforts (Father) | DHR did not make reasonable efforts to help | Parents did not cooperate or engage | DHR's efforts reasonable; father's lack of cooperation precluded more services |
| Viable alternative to termination (Mother) | Children could be placed with grandmother | Grandmother declined further custody | No viable alternative; grandmother not a practical placement |
Key Cases Cited
- C.O. v. Jefferson Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 206 So. 3d 621 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016) (defines clear and convincing evidence standard in termination of parental rights)
- Ex parte McInish, 47 So. 3d 767 (Ala. 2008) (explains appellate review under clear and convincing standard)
- T.B. v. Cullman Cty. Dep't of Human Res., 6 So. 3d 1195 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008) (DHR's duty of reasonable efforts to rehabilitate)
- A.M.F. v. Tuscaloosa Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 75 So. 3d 1206 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011) (parent must cooperate with DHR for reunification)
- M.A.J. v. S.F., 994 So. 2d 280 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008) (reasonable efforts required, not maximal)
- C.T. v. Calhoun Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 8 So. 3d 984 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008) (DHR must explore viable alternatives before termination)