REL: January 5, 2024

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 published in Southern Reporter.

ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS

OCTOBER TERM, 2023-2024

_________________________

CL-2023-0157 and CL-2023-0158

_________________________

T.H.

v.

F.H. and Lee County Department of Human Resources

Appeals from Lee Juvenile Court

(JU-22-317.01 and JU-22-204.01)

____________________________

CL-2023-0159 and CL-2023-0160

_________________________

T.H. 

v.

F.H.

Appeals from Lee Juvenile Court

(JU-18-56.02 and JU-16-511.02)
CL-2023-0157, CL-2023-0158, CL-2023-0159, and CL-2023-0160

2

EDWARDS, Judge.

T.H. ("the mother") is the mother of four children. Two of the 

mother's children, C.J. and C.L. ("the older children"), were the subjects 

of previous dependency actions in the Lee Juvenile Court ("the juvenile 

court"), specifically, case numbers JU-16-511.01 and JU-18-56.01, 

respectively. As a result of the earlier dependency actions, the older 

children had been placed in the legal and physical custody of their 

maternal grandmother, F.H. ("the maternal grandmother"). In March 

2022, the mother filed requests for a change of custody regarding the 

older children; those petitions were assigned case numbers JU-16-511.02 

and JU-18-56.02, respectively. 

In April 2022, the Lee County Department of Human Resources 

("DHR") filed in the juvenile court a dependency petition seeking to have 

the mother's third child, Co.J., declared dependent; that petition was 

assigned case number JU-22-204.01. In a May 2022 shelter-care order 

entered in case number JU-22-204.01, the juvenile court placed Co.J. in 

the legal and physical custody of the maternal grandmother pending a 

dependency adjudication. 
CL-2023-0157, CL-2023-0158, CL-2023-0159, and CL-2023-0160

3

In July 2022, DHR filed in the juvenile court a dependency petition 

seeking to have the mother's fourth child, C.H., declared dependent; that 

petition was assigned case number JU-22-317.01. In a July 2022 sheltercare order entered in case number JU-22-317.01, the juvenile court 

placed C.H. in the legal and physical custody of the maternal 

grandmother pending a dependency adjudication.

After a consolidated trial on the requests for a change of custody of

the older children and the dependency petitions relating to Co.J. and 

C.H., the juvenile court, on February 15, 2023, entered in each action a 

single judgment determining that the older children remained dependent 

and that Co.J. and C.H. were dependent. The February 2023 judgment 

awarded legal and physical custody of the older children and of Co.J. and

C.H. to the maternal grandmother, thus denying the mother's request to 

alter the previous award of custody of the older children to the maternal 

grandmother. The juvenile court also ordered the mother to pay to the 

maternal grandmother child support in the amount of $234 per month. 

The mother filed a postjudgment motion in each action, in which she 

argued that the juvenile court should not have ordered the mother to pay 
CL-2023-0157, CL-2023-0158, CL-2023-0159, and CL-2023-0160

4

child support and that the best interests of the older children and of Co.J. 

and C.H. would be served by an award of joint custody to the mother and 

the maternal grandmother.1 After the mother's postjudgment motions

were denied by operation of law, see Rule 1(B), Ala. R. Juv. P., the mother 

timely appealed.

The testimony presented to the juvenile court indicated that DHR's 

concerns regarding the mother's fitness as a parent stemmed from the 

mother's mental-health issues. Phaedra Wilson, the child-abuse and 

neglect worker for DHR, testified that the mother, who, she said, had 

disclosed a diagnosis of bipolar disorder, was not mentally capable of 

caring for a child. Brittany Bedell, the mother's DHR caseworker, 

likewise testified that, because of her mental illness, the mother was not 

capable of caring for the older children, Co.J., or C.H. (referred to 

collectively as "the children") on a 24-hour basis. 

Bedell testified that the mother had not held stable employment 

and that, instead, she had had five or six jobs during Bedell's seven1"Joint custody" is defined as "[j]oint legal custody and joint 

physical custody." Ala. Code 1975, § 30-3-151(1).
CL-2023-0157, CL-2023-0158, CL-2023-0159, and CL-2023-0160

5

month tenure as her caseworker. According to Bedell, DHR was also 

concerned about the mother's stability because she had been attacked in 

her residence by four women over a social-media post about a man. 

Bedell further recounted that the mother had insisted that she had had 

two other children that had been removed from her custody but that, 

based on the dates that the mother had given, the mother would have 

had to have been under the age of 10 when the alleged removal had 

occurred.

Bedell testified that the maternal grandmother had allowed the 

mother to take C.H. to the pediatrician alone. Bedell said that the 

mother had failed to report to the maternal grandmother that the 

pediatrician had prescribed C.H. a medication. Bedell also described the 

mother's interactions with the children during Bedell's visits to the 

maternal grandmother's home as not being positive. She testified:

"I have been out to the home and watched [the mother]

interact with the kids, there was one occasion where [the 

mother] had [a plate of] food, and the children were hungry. 

They were asking her for food, and she was saying, 'Get away 

from me I'm not giving you any food.' She did not give them 

food that day...."
CL-2023-0157, CL-2023-0158, CL-2023-0159, and CL-2023-0160

6

Bedell also described the mother's interactions with the children as 

"brush[ing] them off."

Regarding the mother's income, Bedell testified that the mother 

receives Social Security supplemental-security income ("SSI") benefits 

and that the maternal grandmother is the payee of those benefits. Bedell 

indicated that the maternal grandmother splits those benefits between 

the mother and the children and that the amount of the mother's SSI 

benefits changes when the mother works. Bedell also stated that the 

mother could not work more than 20 hours but did not specify whether 

that was per week or per month.

Eve Stalker, the mother's therapist, testified that she had provided 

therapy to the mother to treat bipolar disorder; she noted that, as a child, 

the mother had also been diagnosed with oppositional-defiant disorder 

and an unspecified intellectual disability. She said that she typically saw 

the mother once or twice per month. Stalker described the mother as 

having been very compliant with her treatment plan and noted that she 

had regularly received her medication via injections. She said that the 

mother had difficulty managing her finances and keeping a job.
CL-2023-0157, CL-2023-0158, CL-2023-0159, and CL-2023-0160

7

The maternal grandmother testified that she had had each of the 

children in her home since each had been born. She explained that the 

mother had been diagnosed as having bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, 

and a learning disability when she was in the third or fourth grade. The 

maternal grandmother said that, as a result of her mental-health issues, 

the mother had been rude and disrespectful, had laughed to herself for 

no reason, and had talked aloud to herself or to "people" all day and night. 

According to the maternal grandmother, although the mother was 

often in the maternal grandmother's home, the mother was not helpful 

and did not assist very much with the care of the children. In fact, the 

maternal grandmother testified that she felt "like I have five kids in the 

house sometimes." She also testified that the mother had failed to report 

that the pediatrician had prescribed medication for C.H.

Like Bedell, the maternal grandmother testified that the mother 

had refused to feed the children one day despite having made a full plate 

of food for herself. In addition, the maternal grandmother testified that, 

when the mother would keep Co.J. and C.H. in her room overnight, both 

children's diapers would be soaking wet when the maternal grandmother 
CL-2023-0157, CL-2023-0158, CL-2023-0159, and CL-2023-0160

8

would check on them. She also said that the mother would sometimes 

try to feed C.H. bottles of soured milk that had been out of the 

refrigerator for hours. 

She further characterized the mother's interactions with the 

children as "not good." The maternal grandmother said that the children 

call her "mom" and call the mother by her first name. According to the 

maternal grandmother, the mother did not know how to parent the

children and had even told the children that she did not want them. 

When asked whether she would consider joint custody with the mother, 

the maternal grandmother objected to that option, stating that the 

mother did not know how to be a mother and that she was not concerned 

about seeing the children.

The maternal grandmother testified that the mother receives SSI 

benefits and that she was the payee of those benefits. She explained that 

she would give the mother approximately half of the benefits to cover her 

bills and that she would use the other half to care for the children. 

According to the maternal grandmother, if the mother was allowed access 

to the full amount of the benefits, she would spend them. Like Bedell, 
CL-2023-0157, CL-2023-0158, CL-2023-0159, and CL-2023-0160

9

the maternal grandmother testified that the mother was limited to 

working 20 hours; however, the maternal grandmother testified that the 

mother was permitted to work only 20 hours per month. She also 

testified that, when the mother worked, the amount of the SSI benefits 

she received had been reduced.

Regarding the mother's work history, the maternal grandmother 

testified that the mother was able to secure employment but that she 

could not maintain it. According to the maternal grandmother, the 

mother had had six to eight jobs in the previous six months. She said 

that the mother's employment had never lasted more than a few weeks 

because, she said:

"It's always their fault, but it's actually her fault. It's 

always somebody picking on her or this or that. The thing 

about her last job was at [a barbeque restaurant]. She just 

started there, you know, everybody was sitting around. Of 

course, they been there a while. You're new. So if they ask you 

to go do something, that's what you do, you know, because 

you're new there. They're sitting there just sitting. 'That's not 

what we asked. We asked you to go do your job.' So that's why 

she -- 'Why I got to go do this and that when they're sitting 

around?' So he just told her to go leave, clock out, and go."

The mother testified that she receives SSI benefits based on her 

bipolar disorder and that the maternal grandmother was the payee of 
CL-2023-0157, CL-2023-0158, CL-2023-0159, and CL-2023-0160

10

those benefits. She explained that she currently received $707 per 

month in benefits because she was unemployed but that, when she was 

employed, her monthly benefits had been reduced to $581. She also 

explained that the maternal grandmother would usually give her 

approximately $400 of her benefits each month to pay her bills, which, 

she said, included $41 in rent, $120 in insurance, $60 for electricity, and 

$60 for gas; she also testified that she had a $410 automobile payment 

each month but that the maternal grandmother had not given her enough 

money to pay that payment. Thus, the mother testified, she was unable 

to use the automobile for transportation.2 According to the mother, if the 

maternal grandmother would give her the entire amount of her monthly 

SSI benefits, she could pay all of her monthly expenses, which total $691,

and still afford to get her hair and nails done (for which she had paid, 

according to the maternal grandmother, $85 and over $100, respectively).

The mother testified that she was about to begin a job at a fast-food 

restaurant. She did not testify regarding her rate of pay or her expected 

2Testimony in the record indicated that, because the mother had 

not made her monthly payment on the automobile, it had been disabled 

by the automobile dealership. 
CL-2023-0157, CL-2023-0158, CL-2023-0159, and CL-2023-0160

11

hours. She testified that she had previously held a job at a pizzeria for 

approximately three years but that, more recently, she had remained at 

a job at a barbeque restaurant for only several weeks. She explained:

"[T]hey just be picking on me. It don't be the coworkers. It be 

like the manager and stuff like that. And then I get there and 

do my work, and then they be adding stuff on for me to do 

more. And that's what I don't like. But if they tell me to do 

something, I'm supposed to do it."

The mother admitted that she had recently been attacked in her 

own home. She said that four women had beaten her up. She also said 

that she was engaged to be married; although she first declined to name 

her fiancé, she later referred to him as K.C. The mother said that he had 

never been in any trouble. 

The mother indicated that she could take care of Co.J. and C.H. She 

denied the maternal grandmother's accusation that she would not check 

their diapers at night; she said that she would check them and that they 

would not be wet. The mother testified that she would routinely pick up 

Co.J. and C.H. from their day-care facility and that she sometimes also 

kept all four of the children overnight at her apartment. She admitted, 

however, that none of the children lived with her.
CL-2023-0157, CL-2023-0158, CL-2023-0159, and CL-2023-0160

12

On appeal, the mother makes two arguments. She contends that 

the record lacks sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the 

children would be best served by an award of their legal and physical 

custody to the maternal grandmother. She also argues that the juvenile 

court erred by ordering her to pay $234 per month in child support. 

Notably, she does not challenge the determination that Co.J. and C.H. 

were dependent children. The mother also fails to challenge the juvenile 

court's implicit conclusion that she failed to establish a basis for the 

modification of the custody of the older children. Thus, those two

arguments have been waived. See A.B. v. Montgomery Cnty. Dep't of 

Hum. Res., 370 So. 3d 822, 829 (Ala. Civ. App. 2022); see also L.C. v. 

Jefferson Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 330 So. 3d 849, 857 (Ala. Civ. App. 

2021) ("It is well settled that arguments not raised in an appellate brief 

are deemed waived."). 

We reject the mother's argument that the record lacks evidence 

indicating that the best interests of the children would be served by an 

award of custody to the maternal grandmother. As the mother concedes, 

"[t]he legal standard to be applied in the dispositional phase of a 
CL-2023-0157, CL-2023-0158, CL-2023-0159, and CL-2023-0160

13

dependency proceeding is the best-interest standard." B.L.T. v. V.T., 12 

So. 3d 123, 125 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008). Furthermore, our standard of 

review of the disposition of a dependent child is limited.

"Appellate review is limited in cases where the evidence is 

presented to the trial court ore tenus. In a child custody case, 

an appellate court presumes the trial court's findings to be 

correct and will not reverse without proof of a clear abuse of 

discretion or plain error. Reuter v. Neese, 586 So. 2d 232 (Ala. 

Civ. App. 1991); J.S. v. D.S., 586 So. 2d 944 (Ala. Civ. App. 

1991). This presumption is especially applicable where the 

evidence is conflicting. Ex Parte P.G.B., 600 So. 2d 259, 261 

(Ala. 1992). An appellate court will not reverse the trial 

court's judgment based on the trial court's findings of fact 

unless the findings are so poorly supported by the evidence as 

to be plainly and palpably wrong. See Ex Parte Walters, 580 

So. 2d 1352 (Ala. 1991)."

Ex parte Alabama Dep't of Hum. Res., 682 So. 2d 459, 460 (Ala. 1996).

Although the mother testified at the trial that she assisted in the 

care of the children and that she had been permitted unsupervised access 

to them at various times, other testimony, including that of the maternal 

grandmother, supports the conclusion that the mother was not equipped 

to be a parent. The evidence indicated that the mother had told the 

children that she did not want them, that she would "brush[] them off" 

when they approached her, and that she had, on at least one occasion 
CL-2023-0157, CL-2023-0158, CL-2023-0159, and CL-2023-0160

14

that Bedell had observed, refused to feed them when they requested food. 

The maternal grandmother said that the mother did not know how to 

care for the children, as evidenced by her leaving Co.J. and C.H. in wet 

diapers and attempting to feed C.H. bottles of soured milk. Moreover, 

when asked, the maternal grandmother indicated that joint custody 

would not be in the best interests of the children because of the mother's 

inability to parent the children adequately without assistance. Thus, the 

evidence, although conflicting, was sufficient to support the conclusion 

that the best interests of the children would be served by an award of sole 

legal and sole physical custody to the maternal grandmother, and we 

affirm the judgment of the juvenile court in that respect. 

Although we do not necessarily agree with the mother that the 

juvenile court improperly based the calculation of her child-support 

obligation on the amount of her SSI benefits, which are excluded from 

the definition of income by Rule 32(B)(2)(b), Ala. R. Jud. Admin., we reach 

a different result regarding the mother's argument regarding child 

support. As DHR points out, the mother testified that she had been 

employed in the past and was about to begin a new job at a fast-food 
CL-2023-0157, CL-2023-0158, CL-2023-0159, and CL-2023-0160

15

restaurant; thus, like DHR, we conclude that the juvenile court based its 

decision to require the mother to pay child support on her employment 

income and not on her receipt of SSI benefits. However, we cannot 

discern how the juvenile court calculated child support, preventing us 

from affirming the award. 

The record does not contain either a CS-41 form indicating the 

mother's anticipated income or a CS-42 form reflecting the calculations 

the juvenile court engaged in to arrive at the mother's $234 monthly 

child-support obligation. Furthermore, the record lacks sufficient 

information regarding the mother's rate of pay or expected hours of 

employment at her anticipated fast-food employment from which to 

determine the mother's monthly income. We also note that certain 

pleadings suggest that the father of C.H. and the father of Co.J. have 

been the subject of separate paternity actions, either or both of which 

may have resulted in a child-support order for one or both of those 

children. 

"We note that this court may affirm a child-support award if 

such forms are not contained in the record when the court is 

able to determine, from the evidence in the record, how the 

trial court reached its child-support calculation. Hayes v. 
CL-2023-0157, CL-2023-0158, CL-2023-0159, and CL-2023-0160

16

Hayes, 949 So. 2d 150, 154-55 (Ala. Civ. App. 2006). However, 

in this case, this court is unable to determine from the 

evidence in the record the figures the trial court used in 

reaching its child-support determination."

Griffin v. Griffin, 159 So. 3d 67, 72 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014). As was the 

case in Griffin, we cannot discern in the present cases how the juvenile 

court arrived at its $234 per month child-support obligation. 

Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the juvenile court and remand 

the cases for the juvenile court to recalculate the mother's child-support 

obligation based on her current income. See Griffin, 159 So. 3d at 72.

CL-2023-0157 -- AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; 

AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. 

CL-2023-0158 -- AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; 

AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. 

CL-2023-0159 -- AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; 

AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. 

CL-2023-0160 -- AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; 

AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. 

Thompson, P.J., and Moore, Hanson, and Fridy, JJ., concur.