212 So. 3d 940
Ala. Civ. App.2016Background
- In Sept. 2013 DHR removed three children from mother S.S. after her arrest and a positive methamphetamine test; children were adjudicated dependent and placed in DHR custody.
- DHR filed petitions (June 2015) to terminate parental rights to two children (H.S. and T.S.); proceedings re: third child were stayed because of placement with paternal relatives.
- Trial occurred Sept. 17, 2015; evidence showed mother’s long-term methamphetamine use, multiple incarcerations (including Feb–Sept 2015), incomplete rehab attempts, and limited recent participation in a rehab program begun two weeks before trial.
- DHR presented testimony regarding reasonable reunification efforts (ISP meetings, referrals, counseling, visitation), children’s multiple placements and behavioral/speech treatment needs, and that no viable relative or adoptive placement had been firmly established.
- Juvenile court found DHR made reasonable efforts that failed, concluded statutory grounds for termination were met, and ruled termination was in the children’s best interests; mother appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHR proved statutory grounds (parent unable/unwilling; substance abuse; unlikely to change) by clear and convincing evidence | Mother: DHR failed to show substance abuse rendered her unable to care for children and unlikely to change | DHR: Mother’s admitted ongoing meth use, incomplete programs, incarcerations, and failure to meet ISP goals over two years support statutory grounds | Held: Affirmed — record supports clear-and-convincing finding of inability/unwillingness and likelihood of nonchange |
| Whether DHR made reasonable efforts to reunify | Mother: DHR failed to provide counseling/transportation; insufficient assistance | DHR: Multiple ISP meetings, referrals, paid counseling, visitation, and transportation evidence reasonable efforts | Held: Affirmed — juvenile court reasonably found DHR’s efforts were adequate but unsuccessful |
| Whether viable alternatives to termination existed (relative placement; maintain status quo) | Mother: Strong parent-child bond and potential placements (maternal grandmother; custodians of K.S.) justify alternatives to termination | DHR: Maternal grandmother was indicated for abuse and unavailable; custodians declined certification and did not petition for custody; indefinite foster care not viable | Held: Affirmed — no viable alternatives shown |
| Whether termination was in children’s best interests | Mother: Bond and mother’s recent rehab efforts favor preserving parental rights and sibling relationships | DHR: Children’s need for permanency, mother’s inconsistent rehabilitation and incarceration, and foster/custodial willingness to maintain sibling contact favor termination | Held: Affirmed — trial court reasonably concluded termination served best interests |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Brown, 963 So.2d 604 (Ala. 2007) (Rule 60(a) clerical-correction principles and when amendments relate back to original judgment)
- Ex parte Beasley, 564 So.2d 950 (Ala. 1990) (two-pronged test for termination: dependency + rejection of viable alternatives)
- J.C. v. State Dep’t of Human Res., 986 So.2d 1172 (Ala.Civ.App. 2007) (appellate deference to juvenile court factual findings in termination cases)
- A.R. v. State Dep’t of Human Res., 992 So.2d 748 (Ala.Civ.App. 2008) (consideration of family history and past efforts in termination analysis)