S.U. v. Madison County Department of Human Resources
2012 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 63
Ala. Civ. App.2012Background
- DHR filed petitions to terminate mother S.U.'s parental rights to J.A.B. and D.A.U. on Dec. 6, 2010; trial held July 5, 2011; judgments terminating rights entered July 18, 2011; mother appealed July 28, 2011.
- Mother was incarcerated in Sept. 2009 for a felony; children placed in foster care after DHR removed them from D.B.’s care.
- Mother resided at Lovelady Center post-incarceration; claimed imminent release and plans for housing, employment, and visitation.
- DHR argued termination appropriate based on past drug use, imprisonment, failure to visit, and inability to provide; court found no present inability or likelihood of future change.
- Trial court emphasized past conduct and found visits and housing arrangements insufficient; appellate court reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with opinion.
- Fathers’ rights were not at issue on appeal; parenting duties are evaluated for present ability and likelihood of future change.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clear and convincing evidence shows present inability to care for the children | DHR argues inability due to past drug use and imprisonment | Mother contends current circumstances enable caring for children | No; record shows present ability and likelihood of change not established by clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether viable alternatives to termination were exhausted | DHR claims no workable alternative remained | Mother argues more alternatives exist and should be pursued | Yes; court erred by not exhausting viable alternatives before termination |
| Whether imprisonment/public safety concerns permanently prevent reunification | Imprisonment prevented caregiving and justified termination | Imprisonment no longer precludes care; rehab may enable reunification | Imprisonment alone insufficient to terminate; future changepossible and not demonstrated |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Beasley, 564 So.2d 950 (Ala. 1990) (duty to exhaust alternatives before termination; proper standard for termination)
- Ex parte State Dep’t of Human Res., 624 So.2d 589 (Ala. 1993) (parental rights termination requires present inability or unwillingness to care for children)
- M.G. v. Etowah County Department of Human Resources, 26 So.3d 436 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009) (no current drug problem shown where abstinence indicated commitment to ending drug problem)
- M.D.C. v. K.D., 39 So.3d 1105 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008) (parallels on evaluating parental responsibilities and relapse risk)
- Ex parte A.S., 73 So.3d 1223 (Ala. 2011) (relapse risk and future behavior considered in termination decisions)
- J.C. v. State Dep’t of Human Res., 986 So.2d 1172 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007) (best interests and parental rights termination standards when a fit parent is available)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (requires clear and convincing evidence of present inability or unfitness and likely persistence)
- Ex parte McInish, 47 So.3d 767 (Ala. 2008) (review of whether fact-finder reasonably determined present inability to care for children)