384 So.3d 663
Ala. Civ. App.2023Background
- Mother petitioned in Morgan Juvenile Court to terminate father's parental rights; juvenile court held ore tenus hearing and granted termination on May 16, 2022, finding abandonment. Father appealed.
- Prior Cullman Circuit Court divorce judgment awarded mother sole custody and gave father supervised alternating-weekend visitation for six months (with conditions including substance-abuse evaluation and drug screens); telephone contact limited to specified days/times; PFA pendente lite remained in effect for nonconflicting provisions.
- Father attended very limited supervised visitation (two weekends) and sporadic contact thereafter; mother testified father harassed her, threatened her, and she blocked his phone and moved without giving address; paternal grandmother mediated some contact requests.
- Father had positive drug screens in Sept./Oct. 2020 but later presented negative screens; father conceded multiple jobs, no child-support payments post-judgment (approx. $10,000 arrearage alleged), and inconsistent communication about visitation.
- Juvenile court found abandonment based on failure to visit, maintain consistent contact, and financially support the child, and terminated parental rights; court also stated alternatives were considered.
- Court of Civil Appeals affirmed abandonment but reversed termination because the record lacked evidence that termination was in the child’s best interest.
Issues
| Issue | Mother's Argument | Father's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether father's conduct constituted statutory abandonment | Father withheld presence, contact, and support without good cause — statutory abandonment occurred | Father blamed mother's blocking, disputed pre-divorce noncontact, and said he sought visitation via grandmother; asserted compliance with drug-evaluation and screenings | Court: Father abandoned child (credibility for mother; failure to enforce visitation or provide support; overall conduct supports abandonment) |
| Whether juvenile court was required to consider alternatives before terminating rights | Abandonment doctrine reduces due-process protections; still must consider best interest but alternatives not mandated when abandonment found | Father argued court should have considered alternatives and due process concerns | Court: Abandonment can diminish due-process protections re alternatives, but court nonetheless must determine best interest; no reversible error in finding abandonment |
| Whether the record contains evidence termination was in child’s best interest | Mother asserted child’s counseling and separation anxiety supported termination; termination would protect child | Father argued lack of evidence on harm, relationship, or adoptive prospects; termination would leave child without legal father | Court: Reversed — record lacks evidence supporting that termination was in child’s best interest |
| Whether juvenile court’s factual findings were supported by evidence | Mother’s testimony and documentary evidence showed minimal contact, harassment, missed support, and credibility favored mother | Father presented some negative drug tests and claimed contact via tablet and grandmother; denied threats; argued compliance | Court: Findings re abandonment are supported by evidence (credibility determinations upheld) but best-interest finding is unsupported |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Beasley, 564 So. 2d 950 (Ala. 1990) (two‑prong test: grounds for termination then consideration of alternatives/best interest)
- Ex parte L.J., 176 So. 3d 186 (Ala. 2014) (when a parent seeks termination, court assesses statutory burden and best interest without requiring dependency)
- T.T. v. C.E., 204 So. 3d 436 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016) (abandonment can eliminate certain due‑process protections regarding exploration of alternatives)
- D.S.R. v. Lee Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 348 So. 3d 1104 (Ala. Civ. App. 2021) (reversal where record lacked evidence that termination served child’s best interest)
- J.C.D. v. Lauderdale Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 180 So. 3d 900 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015) (concurrence reliance cited regarding standards for termination)
- S.D.P. v. U.R.S., 18 So. 3d 936 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009) (Moore, J., concurring in result; cited for analytical approach in concurrence)