REL: 07/03/2014

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 , Ala b ama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0649), of any typographical or other erro r s , in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter . 

# SUPREME COURT OF ALA BAMA

SPECIAL TERM, 2 014

_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ 11308 11

_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ Ex pa rte T .M. PETIT ION FOR WRIT OFCERT IORARI TO THE COURT OFCIVI L APPEALS

(In re: T .M.

v. M.D.) (DeKa lb Juvenil e Cou rt, JU-08- 117.0 2; Courtof C ivil Appea ls, 2 12100 5) WISE, Just ice. WRIT DENIE D. N O OPI NION.11308 11

Stuar t, Bolin , Parke r, Murdo ck, Shaw, Main, a n d B r yan, JJ., concu r. Moore , C.J ., di ssent s.

211308 11

MOORE , Chi ef Ju stice (dis senti ng). This petit ion raise s impor tant ques t ions about the propr iety of termi natin g the p a renta l right s of a natur al fathe r, T.M., to satis fy the desir e of the mothe r's ne w husba nd to a d o p t the fathe r's child as his own. The natur al fathe r poses no dange r to the welfa re of his child , whose only suppo sed benef it from the termi natio n of his fathe r's paren tal right s is that the c hild will be sp ared from learn ing o f his true pater nity until manyyear s in the f uture . Becau se I beli e v e t h at the Court of Civil Appea ls serio usly erred in affir ming the termi natio n o f T.M.' s paren tal right s, I respe ctful ly disse nt from the deni a l of T.M.' s pet itionfor a wri t of certi orari .

I. Fa cts a nd Pr ocedu ral H istor y T.M. ("the fathe r") and M.D. ("the mothe r") began datin g in high schoo l when they were 17 years old. Durin g their senio r year, the mothe r, who w a s livin g with her paren ts, becam e pregn ant . T he fathe r and the mothe r conce aled the pregn ancy from every one, inclu ding the m other 's pa rents , who learn ed one night in Septe mber 2007 that the mothe r neede d to go to the hospi tal to give birth . In Febru ary 2008, the coupl e

311308 11

conse nted to trans ferri ng tempo rary legal custo dy of the child to the mothe r's paren ts. The mothe r conti nued to live with her paren ts an d car ed fo r the chil d wit h herpare nts' help. A year after th e c hild' s birth , the coupl e broke up. Altho ugh the fathe r had visit ed the child regul arly up to that point , his visit s after the break up becam e spora dic. The last time he sa w the chil d bef ore t he te rmina tion heari ng inJuly 2013 was on his son's third birth day in Septe mber 2010. He

c l a i m s that his visit s cease d becau se the mothe r and he r paren ts delib erate ly avoid ed him and he event ually ga v e up tryin g to see the child . The fathe r's siste r provi ded s o me

corro borat ion of this testi mony, but the m o t her and her paren ts denie d that they had avoid ed the fathe r. The fathe r's pasto r testi fied that the fathe r came to him in 2009 and asked for help in getti ng to see his son. The fathe r testi fied that he hi red alawy er inthe fall of 20 12 to seekvisi tatio n but that he wa s una ble t o eff ect s ervic e on the m other . In 2010, the fathe r marri ed and start ed a famil y. He has

a daugh ter who is now three years old. In May 2012, the mothe r marri ed and moved from her paren ts' home t o live with her husba nd and the child , who calls the husba nd " D a d dy." The

411308 11

fathe r would like his son to know that he is the fathe r and is willi ng to have a gradu al struc tured reint roduc tion to his son that would not be disor ienti ng to the child . The mothe r claim s that simpl y knowi ng about the fat h e r would be emoti onall y stres sful for t he ch ild. In Febru ary 2 0 1 3, in order to facil itate a stepp arent adopt ion of the child by her husba nd, the mothe r moved the juven ile court to termi nate the fathe r's paren tal right s. The fathe r count ercla imed for an order decla ring pater nity and for custo dy. H e als o sou ght t empor ary v isita tion. The juv enile court heard testi mony from 10 witne sses. Findi ng that the fathe r had aband oned his son, a stat u t o ry g r ound for the termi natio n of paren tal right s, § 12- 1 5

- 319(a )(1), Ala. Code 1975 , the juve nile court term inate d the fathe r's paren tal right s in order , it reaso ned, to provi de the child with "stab ility ." The juven ile court did not discu ss or analy ze an y via ble a ltern ative s to termi natio n. Th e Cou rt of Civil Appea ls affirmed the juven i l e court 's rulin g on the groun d of aband onmen t and the lack of viabl e alter nat i ves. T . M . v. M.D., [Ms. 21210 05, April 11, 2014] ___ So. 3 d

___ (Ala. Civ. App. 2014) . Howev er, the Court of Civil Appea ls did

511308 11

not serio usly consi de r t h e alter nativ e of maint ainin g the statu s quo and allow ing t he fa ther visit ation . II. Analys is "[U]n der Ex parte Beasl ey, [564 So. 2d 950 (Ala. 1990) ,] upon findi ng that aband o n m ent const itute s a groun d for a termi nat ion of paren tal right s, a trial court must consi der whet h er viabl e alter nativ es to termi natio n exist ." Ex parte J.E., 1 So. 3d 1002, 1013 (Ala. 2008) (Cobb , C.J., concu rring speci ally) . In previ ous cases in which a custo dial paren t has initi ated a termi natio n-of- paren tal-r ights proce eding , appel late court s hav e bee n rel uctan t to affir m the seve rance of the paren tal bond betwe en the child and t he noncu stodi al paren t in the absen ce of evide nce that the noncu stodi al paren t poses some tang ible threa t to the c hild' s wel fare. "Sinc e [1987 ] this court has consi stent ly held that termi natio n of paren tal right s is not appro priat e in cases like this one in which the child ren are safel y resid ing with the custo dial paren t and the conti nuati on of the noncu stodi al paren t's paren tal right s doe s not pres ent a ny ha rm to the child ren." A.J.H .T. v. K.O.H ., 983 So. 2d 394, 406-0 7 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007) (Moor e, J., concu rring in part and disse nting in part) . See also Ex parte M.D.C ., 39 So. 3d 1117, 1 1 4 3 n . 14 (Ala. 2009) (Murd ock, J., disse nting ) (noti ng tha t cases "come

611308 11

befor e the appel late court s of this State in which the recor d sugge sts t hat a n eff ort t o ter minat e has occu rred becau se of animo sity or spite , out of conve nienc e, or simpl y to

accommodat e a new spous e w h o w ishes to adopt a child " (emph asis added )). 1 In Ex parte A.S., 73 So. 3d 1223 (Ala. 2011) , the mothe r was i ncarc erate d, an d the gran dmoth er ha d sol e leg al cu stody of the child . The grandmothe r petit ioned to termi n a te the

m o ther' s paren tal right s in order to adopt the child . T h e trial cour t terminat ed th e mot her's pare ntal right s, an d the Court of Civil Appea ls affir med the termi natio n . This Court

rever sed the Court of Civil Appea ls' judgme nt, holdi ng that "[t]h e grandm o t h e r's maint ainin g custo dy of the child and havin g the abili ty to determine and super vise the mot h er's visit ation with the child is a viabl e alter nativ e to termi natio n of the mothe r's paren tal right s ...." 73 So. 3d at

The conce p t t h at a custo dial paren t may initi ate the 1 termi natio n of the paren tal right s of a noncu stodi al paren t seems inher ently dubio us to me. Wha t is the purpo se of termi natin g the paren tal right s o f t he noncu stodi al paren t when the child is alrea dy exper ie n cing perma nency with the custo dial paren t? See S.D.P . v. U.R.S ., 18 So. 3d 936, 944 (Ala. Civ. Ap p . 2009) (Moor e, J., concu rring speci ally) (noti ng that "[t]h e recor d indic ates that the conti nuati on of the fathe r-chi ld relat ionsh ip does not curre n tly affec t the stabi lity and p erman ency of th e chi ld inany manne r"). 711308 11

1229. In S.M.M . v. R.S.M ., 83 So. 3d 572 (Ala. C i v . App. 2011) , the fath er ofthe child , who had sole custo dy, s ought to termi nate the paren tal rig h t s of the mothe r, who had a priso n recor d. The trial court termi nat e d t he mothe r's paren tal right s. The Co u r t of Civil Appea ls rever sed its judgm ent , holdi ng that "[m]a inten ance of the statu s quo and allow ing t he mo ther conti nued super visedvisi tatio n wit h the child adequ ately prote cts the welfa re of the ch i l d while allow ing for a benef icial relat ionsh ip with both paren ts." 83 So. 3d at 577. The court speci fical ly noted that "no evide nce

was o f f e r ed to sugge st that [the mothe r] posed a physi cal threa t to the c hild. " Id. at 5 76. In this case no evide n ce was prese nted indic ating that the fathe r posed a threa t of physi cal harm to the child . Inste ad, the mothe r predi cted that the child would exper ience emoti onal confl ict by knowi ng his fathe r while being raise d by the husba nd. The Court of Civil Appea ls consi d e r e d this testi mony to be clea r andconv incin g evi dence that no v iable alter nativ e to the termi natio n of the fathe r's paren tal right s exist ed: "The mothe r and her witne sses offer ed testi mony in oppos itio n to the grant of visit ation , sayin g that

811308 11

visit ation would cause the child to exper ience pain, a broke n h eart, and emoti onal confl ict becau se he has no knowl edge of his biolo gical relat ionsh ip to the fathe r and belie ves that the hus b a n d is his fathe r. "The e viden ce was suffi cient to suppo rt the juven ile court 's findi ng that no viabl e alter nativ e to the termi natio n of the fathe r's paren tal right s exist ed." T.M., ___ So. 3 d at ___. The f atherargu es th at "[ p]are nting time or visit ation could have been award ed incr e m e n t ally, gradu ally and even super vised if neces sary. " T.M.' s brief , at 7. The Court of Civ i l Appea ls rejec ted as unvia ble the alter nativ e of "gradual visit ation with the child ." T.M.,

___ So. 3 d at ___. The diffe rence betwe en this case and those cited above in which the child was resid ing safel y with the custo dial paren t and t hus " conti nuati on ofthe noncu stodi al pa rent' s par ental right s [did] not prese nt any harm to the child ren," A.J.H .T., 983 So. 2d at 407, is t h e p resen ce of a new subst itute "Dadd y," w ho is now marri ed to the mothe r. Th is ci rcums tance suppo sedly creat e s a heart -wren ching confl ict for the child that can b e rem ediedonlyby t ermin atingthe paren tal r ights of the natur al fathe r. But what about the emoti onal i mp a ct upon the child when years later he learn s the ident ity of his

911308 11

natur al fathe r, who s e e xiste nce has been delib erate ly

conce aled from him? The mothe r offer ed the testi mony of a soci a l w o r ker who had k nown the m otherand the g randp arent s formanyyear s and who had recen tly inter viewe d the child . When asked if it would be in the child 's best inter ests for the fathe r's par e n t al right s to be termi nated , he state d: "I don't k n o w all the facto rs in the case, so I can't reall y state that a t t h i s p oint in time. " Cutti ng the child off from knowl edge of h i s natur al linea ge and a relat ionsh ip with the fathe r's immed iate and exten ded famil y -- conta ct that is more likel y to nurtu re than to harm the child -- seems intui tivel y detri menta l to the child 's sound emoti onal devel opmen t. See Ex parte Monro e, 727 So. 2 d 104 (Ala . 199 9) (r einst atinga tr ial c ourt' s jud gment that award ed a chang e of custo dy for the purpo se of prese rving a chi ld's ties with his e xtend ed fa mily) . Even were the child to benef it from havin g his natur al fathe r erase d from his life, th a t f act would not justi fy 2

"Term inati o n o f paren tal right s, by abrog ating the 2 paren t's legal right to visit ation , norma lly forec l oses the child 's oppor tunit y to visit or commu nicat e with the paren t until the child reach es t h e a ge of major ity." D.M. Blair , Paren t-Ini tiate d Termi natio n of Paren tal Right s: The Ultim ate Weapo n in Matri monia l War fare, 24 T ulsa L.J. 299, 328 ( 1989) 1011308 11

termi natin g the fathe r's par ental right s. The state may not termi nate a paren t's right s si mp l y becau se a child will suppo sedly exper ience super io r nurtu ring from an adopt ive paren t. "[ T]hat a mo re id eal l ivingsitu ationexis ts fo r the child ren provi des no basis for termi natin g the paren tal right s of th e [fa ther] ." S. U. v. Madi son C nty. Dep't of H uman Res., 91 S o . 3 d 716, 722 (Ala. Civ. App. 1988) . "[T]h e court s of this state do n ot ha ve th e pow er to seve r the bond s of blood

r e latio nship merel y in order to gain some real or fan c i e d advan tage for a minor child ." Grigg s v. Barne s, 262 Ala. 357, 362, 78 So. 2d 910, 916 (1955 ). A trial court , facin g simil ar facts , sta ted: "'[T] he Court does not find that it is in the best i n t e rests of the child to termi nate the paren ta l right s of the biolo gical fathe r merel y to delay the child 's knowled ge of the truth or to avoid or delay facin g the same in an organ ized and thera peuti c manne r, merel y t o assis t the stepf ather in his desir e to becom e an adopt ive f ather .'" K.H.M . v. D.L.I ., 895 S o . 2 d 9 5 0 , 953 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003) (quot ing t rial court 's or der a nd af firmi ng th e tri al co urt's

(foot note omitt ed). 1111308 11

judgm ent, with one judge concu rring and anoth er concu rring in the r esult ). 3 The right of a fathe r and his son to enjoy their un i que natur al relat ionsh ip is f undam ental in our law. "The fathe r and the child share recip rocal funda menta l con s t ituti onal right s to assoc iatio n wit h one anot her." Mead ows v . Mea dows, 3 So. 3d 221, 236 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008) (Moor e, J., concu rring in the re s u l t ) . T h e state may sever this bond only if clear and convi ncing evide nce exist s that demon strat es the fathe r's unfit ness. "The clear and convi ncing evide nce must demon strat e

. . . that the state has a compe lling inter est requi ri n g inter feren ce with t h e right s of the paren ts and that that inter est is being advan ced by the least restr ictiv e means ." Ex parte E.R.G ., 73 So. 3d 634, 645 (Ala. 2011) . In the circu mstan ces of this case, in which the c h i ld resid es in a

secur e a n d nurtu ring envir onmen t with his mothe r and her husba nd, the state has no compe lling inter est in sever ing the natu r a l fathe r's paren tal right s. Furth ermor e, even if the state had an inter e s t in prote cting the child from the

In the conte x t o f a custo dy conte st betwe en a natur al 3 fathe r anda st epfat her, the l aw re cogni zes apres umpti on in favor of the natur al paren t. Ex parte D.J., 6 4 5 S o . 2 d 303, 305-0 6 (Al a. 19 94). 1211308 11

poten tial emoti onal upset that might atten d learn ing the truth about his conce ption , alter nativ es exist that are less drast ic than a perma nent sever ance of the child 's filia l bond with his natur al fathe r. See Franz v. Unite d State s, 707 F.2d 582, 602 (D.C. Cir. 1983) ("Sev eranc e of the filia l bond ... obvio usly cuts deepl y into t he emoti onal inter ests of both paren t and child.... "); C orey L. v. Mart in L. , 45 N.Y.2 d 383 , 392 , 408 N.Y. S . 2 d 439, 443, 380 N.E.2 d 266, 271 (1978 ) ("The filia l bond i s o ne of the stron gest, yet most delic ate, and most invio lable of a ll re latio nship s ... ."). Altho ugh "[a] juven ile court has an imper ative duty t o exhau st all viabl e alter nativ es befor e termi natin g a paren t's pare n t a l r i g hts," S.U., 91 So. 3d at 723, in this case the juven ile court did not consi der any alte r n a tives to termi natio n of the f ather 's pa renta l rig hts. "[I]f some less drast ic alter nativ e to ter m inati on of paren tal right s can be used that will simul taneo usly prote ct the child ren from paren tal harm and prese rve the benef icial aspec ts of the famil y relat ionsh ip, t h e n a juven ile court must explo re wheth er that alter nativ e can be succe ssful ly emplo yed i nstea d of termi natin g par ental righ ts." T.D.K . v. L.A.W ., 78 So. 3d 10 06, 1 011 ( Ala. Civ. App. 2011) (emph asis added ). Se e als o Ex parte Beas ley, 564 S o. 2d950,

1311308 11

9 5 5 ( Ala. 1990) (reve rsing the Court of Civil Appea ls' affir mance of the termi natio n of t he paren tal right s of the

noncu stodi al paren t becau se the Court of Civil Appea ls did not addre ss "the issue of wheth er other alter nativ es, less drast ic than termi natio n of paren tal right s, were avail able to prote ct the b est i ntere sts o f the chil d"). Maint ainin g the statu s quo and allow ing the fathe r visi t a t i o n on a gradu ally incre asing basis is a viabl e alter n ative to termi natio n of the fathe r's paren tal right s. Gran t i n g the fathe r visit s with his son would prese rve the child 's curre nt home env i r o nment with the mothe r and the husba nd while allow ing both fathe r and child to enjo y their uniq u e relat ionsh ip. In short , "the evide nce at this time 4 does not r ise t o a l evel of be ing s o cle ar an d con vinci ng as to suppo rt termi natio n of the paren tal right s of the [fath er], such actio n being the last and most extre m e d i sposi tion permi tted by statu te." East v. Meado ws, 529 So. 2d 1010, 1012 (Ala. Civ. App. 1988) (emph asis added ). See also Beasl ey, 564

Anoth e r alter nativ e to termi natin g the paren tal right s 4 of the natur al paren t as a prelu de to adopt ion is to recog nize the stepp arent as a legal cu s t o d ian of the child . See Eliza beth J. Aulik , Stepp a r e n t Custo dy: An Alter nativ e to Stepp arent Adop tion, 12 U .C. D avis L. Re v. 60 4 (19 79). 1411308 11

So. 2 d at 952 ("[A] court shoul d termi nate paren tal right s only in th e mos t egr egiou s of circu mstan ces." ). III. Concl usion "The fir st offic ial actio n of this natio n decla red the found ation of gover nment in t h e s e words : 'We hold these truth s to be self- evide nt, th a t all men are creat ed equ a l, that they are endow ed by their Creat or with certa in unali enabl e right s, that among these are life, liber ty, and the pu rsuit of happi ness. '" G u l f , C o lo. & Santa Fe Ry. v. Ellis , 165 U.S. 150, 159-6 0 (1897 ) (quot ing the Decla ratio n of Indep enden ce ¶ 2 (1776 )). 5 The Creat or has a l s o ordai ned natur al paren thood , "and a falli bl e judge shoul d distu rb the relat ionsh ip thus estab lishe d only where circu mstan ces compe l human inter venti on." Ex parte Sulli van, 407 So. 2d 559, 563-6 4 (Ala. 1981 ) ( empha sis added ). Becau se such circu mstan ces are not prese nt in this case, I disse nt from the denia l of the fathe r's p etiti on fo r a w rit o f cer tiora ri.

The Unite d State s Code, "the offic ial codif icati on of the 5 gener al and perma nent laws of the Unite d State s," inclu des the Decla ratio n of Indep enden ce in the secti on entit led "The Organ ic Laws of the Unite d State s of Ameri ca." See Black 's Law Dicti onary 1274 (10th ed. 2014) ( d efini ng "orga nic law" as "[t]h e body of laws (as in a const ituti on) that defin e and estab lish a gov ernme nt"). 15