154 So. 3d 1049
Ala. Civ. App.2014Background
- DHR filed petitions in Jefferson Juvenile Court in 2010 to declare the three youngest children dependent and seek custody.
- Petitions alleged the mother abused the children verbally and physically and threatened to kill them; fathers’ details are not on appeal.
- Temporary custody was placed with DHR; the mother later had unsupervised visitation in 2012.
- In 2011 the mother was indicted for abuse tied to the 2010 allegations; charges were later dismissed.
- Dependency hearing occurred in March 2013, with a May 1, 2013 judgment finding the three youngest children dependent and awarding unsupervised visitation to the mother.
- Appellant-mother challenges evidentiary rulings and procedural issues in her appeal; the record is extensive and includes objections to hearsay and to a video disk of interviews.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of 2010 hearsay evidence regarding abuse | Mother argues hearsay was improperly admitted. | DHR contends evidence was admissible for impeachment or cumulative purposes. | No reversible error; evidentiary rulings were harmless or waived. |
| Waiver due to lack of timely objections | Mother objected to some testimony but not timely on all points. | Objections waived under waiver rules. | Objections waived; no reversal for those issues. |
| Impeachment testimony by Williams about 2010 allegations | Williams’s impeachment testimony on 2010 allegations was improper hearsay. | Testimony was admissible for impeachment; properly within ruling. | Waived or harmless; no reversible error. |
| Admission of the video disk of interviews | Disk was hearsay; should not have been admitted. | Disk admitted as exhibit; any error harmless. | Timely objection not preserved; erroneous admission not reversible. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte State Dep’t of Human Res., 890 So.2d 114 (Ala. 2004) (hearsay in adjudicatory proceedings is not admissible; applicability limited)
- S.K. v. Madison Cnty. Dep’t of Human Res., 990 So.2d 887 (Ala.Civ.App.2008) (caution against reviewing سخ record without specific objections)
- L.A.C. v. State Dep’t of Human Res., 890 So.2d 1026 (Ala.Civ.App.2003) (hearsay testimony; harmless error if cumulative)
- Pardue v. Potter, 632 So.2d 470 (Ala.1994) (issues not argued are waived)
- Atkins v. Lee, 603 So.2d 937 (Ala. 1992) (reversal requires more than mere error; must affect substantial rights)
- Davis v. Southland Corp., 465 So.2d 397 (Ala.1985) (timely objections required to preserve error)
- Ex parte Coulliette, 857 So.2d 793 (Ala.2003) (timeliness of objections governs preservation of error)
- Henning v. Henning, 26 So.3d 450 (Ala.Civ.App.2009) (timely objections; continuing objections; preservation)