119 So. 3d 431
Ala. Civ. App.2013Background
- DHR investigated the mother for physical abuse after K.S. showed marks; a safety plan placed the children with the mother's mother and services were provided toward reunification.
- In 2010 the mother was convicted of violating § 26-15-3, receiving a suspended 36-month sentence and probation, while the father relinquished custody due to the children's emotional problems.
- The children were placed in separate therapeutic foster homes; DHR concluded reunification was unlikely given the mother's conviction and needs of the children.
- DHR filed petitions to terminate the mother's parental rights on December 9, 2011; a trial occurred on June 8, 2012, with judgments entered June 19, 2012.
- The court found the mother tortured K.S. and that reasonable efforts to rehabilitate/reunite were not required due to aggravated circumstances.
- The permanency plan was changed from reunification to termination in 2011; the mother challenged various aspects but the appellate court affirmed termination as in the best interests of the children.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasonable efforts required against aggravated circumstances | Mother argues DHR failed to prove no reasonable efforts were required. | DHR contends aggravated circumstances (torture) negate need for efforts. | Aggravated circumstances override the duty to use reasonable efforts. |
| Proper handling of permanency-plan change | Mother contends error in changing plan from reunification to termination. | DHR argues issue not properly litigated; plan change proper given evidence. | Court declined to decide on the plan-change issue for appeal purposes. |
| Sufficiency of evidence of current unfitness (K.S.) | Mother claims insufficient clear-and-convincing evidence of unfitness. | DHR and court found torture and risk of harm, with mental-health issues irreconcilable with reunification. | Clear and convincing evidence supported termination due to unfitness and risk. |
| Prematurity of termination given mother's improvements | Mother argues improvements (housing, work, therapy) warranted continued reunification efforts. | DHR argues long rehabilitation period would be unlikely to succeed given history and needs. | Termination affirmed despite potential future rehabilitation; prolonged delay not required. |
| Viability of father or other relatives as placement | Mother contends father/relatives could provide placement. | Court found father and proposed relative placements unsuitable given needs and lack of long-term viability. | No viable alternative placement that would serve best interests; termination upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- A.E.T. v. Limestone Cnty. Dep’t of Human Res., 49 So.3d 1212 (Ala.Civ.App.2010) (court presumes findings needed when not explicitly stated)
- B.B.T. v. Houston Cnty. Dep’t of Human Res., 89 So.3d 169 (Ala.Civ.App.2011) (termination supported by evidence of unfitness)
- C.M. v. Tuscaloosa County Dep’t of Human Resources, 81 So.3d 391 (Ala.Civ.App.2011) (weighting continued emotional bond versus adoption prospects)
- R.B. v. State Dep’t of Human Res., 669 So.2d 187 (Ala.Civ.App.1995) (general rule on termination when no viable adoptive resource)
- J.B. v. Cleburne Cnty. Dep’t of Human Res., 991 So.2d 273 (Ala.Civ.App.2008) (relative not viable if cannot meet child’s needs)
- T.B. v. Cullman Cnty. Dep’t of Human Res., 6 So.3d 1195 (Ala.Civ.App.2008) (supports termination even if rehabilitation could extend years)
- S.U. v. Madison Cnty. Dep’t of Human Res., 91 So.3d 716 (Ala.Civ.App.2012) (reversal when reasonable reunification foreseeability exists)