T.T. v. C.E., 204 So. 3d 436

Child was removed from parents at 4 months; at trial the child was ~3 years old and in DHR custody.
DHR placed the child with petitioners C.E. and T.E., who planned to adopt; mother consented to termination and did not appeal.
Petition to terminate parental rights filed June 8, 2015; final hearing held July 21, 2015; juvenile court terminated both parents’ rights that day.
Paternal grandmother moved to intervene the day of the hearing seeking placement as an alternative; motion was denied as untimely and because she had been previously considered and rejected.
Father appealed termination on grounds of insufficient evidence, improper admission of exhibits, and that viable alternatives were not exhausted; grandmother appealed denial of intervention asserting a statutory right to intervene.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence supported termination (dependency/abandonment)	Father: insufficient evidence; termination not supported	DHR: father abandoned child, failed to contact or seek visitation while DHR had custody	Court: Held evidence (father’s lack of contact/efforts) clearly and convincingly supported abandonment/dependency; termination proper
Whether court had to pursue alternatives/reasonable efforts before terminating	Father: court should have tried to rehabilitate or pursue other alternatives	DHR: abandonment dispenses with requirement to use reasonable efforts; court may terminate without exploring alternatives	Court: Held abandonment removes due-process/right-to-effort protections; no requirement to exhaust alternatives
Admissibility of exhibits at trial	Father: certain exhibits were improperly admitted	DHR: no contemporaneous objection at trial	Court: Held father waived appellate review by failing to object at trial
Denial of grandmother’s motion to intervene	Grandmother: had statutory right to intervene under §30-3-4.1 and should be considered as placement alternative	State/DHR: grandmother sought placement, not visitation; statute (in any event) not applied; juvenile court previously and DHR had rejected her as custodian	Court: Held court did not err denying intervention — grandmother was not asserting visitation right under statute and was not entitled to intervene as placement alternative

Ex parte Beasley, 564 So.2d 950 (Ala. 1990) (two-pronged test for terminating parental rights: dependency by clear and convincing evidence and consideration of alternatives)
Ex parte McInish, 47 So.3d 767 (Ala. 2008) (standard of review for factual findings based on clear and convincing evidence)
Ex parte T.V., 971 So.2d 1 (Ala. 2007) (dependency finding requires consideration of grounds for termination)
B.M. v. State, 895 So.2d 319 (Ala. Civ. App. 2004) (articulating the Beasley two-pronged test)
S.S. v. Jefferson Cty. Dep’t of Human Res., 154 So.3d 1049 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014) (failure to timely object to evidence waives appellate challenge)
L.L. v. J.W., 195 So.3d 269 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015) (abandonment can eliminate due-process protections requiring exploration of alternatives)