Title: Ex parte S.J.  PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS (In re: S.J. v. Henry County Department of Human Resources) (Juvenile Court: JU-19-81.02; Civil Appeals: CL-2022-0831).

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

Rel: October 27, 2023 
 
 
 
 
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern 
Reporter.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 
300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other 
errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter. 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA 
 
OCTOBER TERM, 2023-2024 
 
_________________________ 
 
SC-2023-0587 
_________________________ 
 
Ex parte S.J.   
 
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI 
 TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS  
 
(In re: S.J.  
 
v. 
 
 Henry County Department of Human Resources)  
 
(Henry Juvenile Court: JU-19-81.02;  
Court of Civil Appeals: CL-2022-0831) 
 
STEWART, Justice. 
 
WRIT DENIED. NO OPINION.  
Shaw, Wise, Sellers, Mendheim, Mitchell, and Cook, JJ., concur.  
SC-2023-0587 
2 
 
Parker, C.J., dissents, with opinion. 
Bryan, J., dissents. 
 
 
SC-2023-0587 
3 
 
PARKER, Chief Justice (dissenting). 
I respectfully dissent from the Court's denial of the petition for the 
writ of certiorari by S.J. ("the father") in this termination-of-parental-
rights case. The father has presented sufficient allegations of conflict 
between the Court of Civil Appeals' decision in this case (see S.J. v. Henry 
County Department of Human Resources, (No. CL-2022-0831, May 19, 
2023), ____ So. 3d ____ (Ala. Civ. App. 2023) (table), with Y.M. v. 
Jefferson County Department of Human Resources, 890 So. 2d 103 (Ala. 
Civ. App. 2003), to justify granting the petition and issuing the writ. I 
write to emphasize that courts ought to uphold the high evidentiary 
standard required in cases in which such fundamental rights as parental 
rights are concerned.  
Previous decisions of the Court of Civil Appeals and of this Court 
have held that hearsay is incompetent evidence at a proceeding to 
terminate parental rights. See, e.g., Y.M., 890 So. 2d at 109; Ex parte 
State Dep't of Hum. Res., 890 So. 2d 114, 117 (Ala. 2004). The father 
alleges that the termination of his parental rights was based largely on 
the admission of inadmissible hearsay evidence elicited through 
testimony and by the juvenile court's taking judicial notice of records 
SC-2023-0587 
4 
 
containing hearsay statements, which, he says, was admitted only 
because his court-appointed counsel failed to object. He argues that this 
case therefore presents a direct conflict with Y.M. I agree. The facts 
presented to this Court show that the juvenile court admitted copious 
amounts of hearsay evidence, both through testimony and by taking 
judicial notice of records containing hearsay statements, and based its 
decision upon that evidence. 
The admission of hearsay evidence in a termination-of-parental-
rights hearing is subject to a harmless-error standard of review. J.L. v. 
State Dep't of Hum. Res., 688 So. 2d 868, 871 (Ala. Civ. App. 
1997); Menniefield v. State Dep't of Hum. Res., 549 So. 2d 496, 500 (Ala. 
Civ. App. 1989); Hutchens v. State Dep't of Pensions & Sec., 497 So. 2d 
156, 158 (Ala. Civ. App. 1986). However, in Y.M., the Court of Civil 
Appeals held that the admission of hearsay evidence was not harmless 
when the juvenile court in that case had based its decision to terminate 
a mother's parental rights largely upon hearsay evidence in its own case 
file from previous proceedings that it had taken judicial notice of. In this 
case, the father alleges that the juvenile court did the same. And we have 
no facts properly before us to give any indication to the contrary. 
SC-2023-0587 
5 
 
Not only does the father allege that the juvenile court based its 
decision largely on incompetent evidence, but he also argues that the 
court admitted the incompetent evidence only because his court-
appointed attorney failed to object to it. He does not merely argue that 
his attorney did an ineffective job representing him in the termination 
hearing. He argues that his attorney "did not do any job to defend him in 
this termination" case. Petition at 9-10. Consistent with Strickland v. 
Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), the father argues that, without the 
admission of that evidence, the juvenile court would not have had 
sufficient evidence to terminate his parental rights. It seems to me that 
the father has made apparently meritorious arguments that the 
termination judgment was based on legally insufficient evidence and that 
the father received ineffective assistance of counsel. And without an 
explanation from the Court of Civil Appeals or the record on appeal, I do 
not believe this Court possesses sufficient information to dismiss the 
possibility that the decision of the Court of Civil Appeals conflicts with 
Y.M. 
 
I believe that the father has presented this Court with a 
procedurally compliant petition that presents a probability of merit. And 
SC-2023-0587 
6 
 
I believe that the nature of the rights being terminated, combined with 
the facts properly before this Court, presents "special and important 
reason" to issue the writ and investigate the record more thoroughly. See 
Ex parte E.R.G., 73 So. 3d 634, 643-45 (Ala. 2011) (plurality opinion); 
Rule 39(a), Ala. R. App. P. Parental rights are too valuable to terminate 
based on hearsay evidence, and a parent facing the possibility of having 
his or her parental rights terminated deserves competent legal 
representation. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.