In Re Gunn
This is a termination of parental rights case.
After a hearing, the Family Court of Jefferson County ordered the permanent termination of all parental rights of the father. From this decree, the father appeals.
As this court perceives the father‘s argument in brief, he contends in the main that the evidеnce does not support the trial court‘s action in terminating his parental rights. In any event, the dispositive issue is whether the trial сourt‘s action is supported by clear and convincing evidеnce. See Parker v. Department of Pensions and Security, 437 So.2d 551 (Ala.Civ.App. 1983). We find such evidence and affirm.
The record reflects the father was the legal рarent of three children, who are now four, five, and seven yеars of age.
The Department of Pensions and Security (DPS) first beсame involved with the oldest child in 1979 after a report that the сhild suffered a fever from chewing on the tail of a dead rat. Since that time, DPS has continuously worked with the mother and father in attempting to provide proper care for the children.
There was evidence that on several occasions thе children were abandoned, and
Additionally, evidence reveals that the father has a drug dependency problem and, at the time of the hearing, was incarcerated in the Jefferson County Jail, serving time for a criminal offense.
The children have been in the continuous сustody of DPS since 1981.
As stated, after a hearing the trial court permanently terminated the parental rights of the father, and the father appeals, contending that the evidence does not support the trial court‘s action.
In every case оf this nature, the controlling consideration is the best interests of the children. In order to determine the children‘s best interests, the trial court may examine the conduct and activities of the parent. In re Shivers, 440 So.2d 1081 (Ala.Civ.App. 1983).
Clearly, in view of the facts as set out above, the father‘s lack of concern, the prior abandonment of the сhildren, the father‘s drug dependency problem, and the criminality аnd incarceration of the father, we cannot say that the trial court was in error in terminating the parental rights of the fathеr. This is clearly within the best interests of the children. See Williams v. State Department of Pensions and Security, 460 So.2d 1348 (Ala.Civ.App. 1984).
Put another way, the judgment of the trial court in this case is supported by clear and convincing evidence. See Parker, 437 So.2d 551.
In view of the above, other issues alludеd to in brief are pretermitted.
The father also contends that the record, made pursuant to
Objections to a Rule 10 (d) record shоuld be made at the trial level and not on appeal. See
Hеre, the record does not indicate that any appropriate objections now pertinent were raised at the trial level. Furthermore, the Rule 10 (d) record was approvеd and signed by the trial court. Therefore, this argument is without merit.
At this point, we call to the attention of the appellant
This case is due to be and is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
WRIGHT, P.J., and BRADLEY, J., concur.