Title: Ex parte Montgomery County Department of Human Resources and Alabama Department of Human Resources. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS AND FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS: CIVIL (In re: Montgomery County Department of Human Resources and Alabama Department of Human Resources v. The matter of D. R. S., a minor)
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 1071250
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: December 5, 2008

REL:12/05/2008
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-
0649), 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, 2008-2009
____________________
1071250
____________________
Ex parte Montgomery County Department of Human Resources and
Alabama Department of Human Resources
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL
APPEALS AND FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
(In re: Montgomery County Department of Human Resources and
Alabama Department of Human Resources
v.
The matter of D.R.S., a minor)
(Montgomery Juvenile Court, JU-93-102.08;
Court of Civil Appeals, 2070163)
BOLIN, Justice.
1071250
2
The Montgomery County Department of Human Resources ("the
County DHR") and the Alabama Department of Human Resources
("the State DHR") (hereinafter referred to collectively as
"DHR") and the Department of Mental Health and Mental
Retardation ("DMH") request both a writ of certiorari and a
writ of mandamus.  
Facts and Procedural History
D.R.S. is deaf and mentally retarded.  She also suffers
from diabetes, mental illness, and alopecia.  The record
indicates that the juvenile court has exercised jurisdiction
over D.R.S. for a number of years.  During some of those
years, D.R.S. was in the legal custody of various relatives.
The most recent proceedings involving D.R.S. began on May 23,
2007, when the County DHR petitioned the juvenile court to
find that D.R.S., who was then in the legal custody of her
paternal aunt, was dependent and to award custody of D.R.S. to
the County DHR.  Upon the filing of the County DHR's petition,
the juvenile court appointed an attorney to serve as D.R.S.'s
guardian ad litem.  On May 30, 2007, following an expedited
hearing, the juvenile court found that D.R.S. was dependent
and granted the County DHR legal custody of D.R.S.
1071250
3
The County DHR made arrangements for D.R.S. to reside
temporarily at the National Deaf Academy in Florida ("the
NDA") while it sought joint-agency funding from the "State
Multiple Needs Team" for a long-term placement for D.R.S.  On
June 15, 2007, the juvenile court entered an order requiring
the County DHR to give the juvenile court 30 days' written
notice of any proposed change in D.R.S.'s placement.
On June 22, 2007, the State DHR, acting on behalf of the
County DHR, notified the juvenile court in writing of the
County DHR's intent to change D.R.S.'s placement from the NDA
to BayPointe Children's Residential Services ("BayPointe") in
Mobile, Alabama, and moved the juvenile court to amend its
June 15, 2007, order to allow the change in placement to take
place immediately.  As grounds for seeking the immediate
change in placement, the State DHR alleged that BayPointe
could provide services that were equivalent to those being
provided by the NDA; that the State Multiple Needs Team had
approved joint-agency funding for residential placement of
D.R.S. at BayPointe at a cost not to exceed $435 per day from
the date of admission through September 30, 2007; and that
BayPointe then had a space available for D.R.S. but might not
1071250
4
have space available at a later date.  The motion was
accompanied by a brief asserting that the juvenile court
lacked authority to condition D.R.S.'s placement on the
juvenile court's prior approval; that the constitutional
doctrine of separation of powers prohibited the juvenile court
from preventing D.R.S.'s placement at BayPointe; that the
juvenile court lacked the authority to control the expenditure
of State funds by directing that State agencies place D.R.S.
at a particular facility; that the juvenile court lacked the
authority to require State agencies to incur the cost of
providing care for a child at a private facility; and that the
counties of the State are statutorily responsible for the care
of indigent children under the supervision of a juvenile
court.
An entry made by the juvenile court on the case-action
summary on June 26, 2007, indicates that on that date the
juvenile court held a hearing on the State DHR's motion to
amend the juvenile court's June 15, 2007, order and found that
it was not in D.R.S.'s best interest to be moved from the NDA.
On July 27, 2007, the guardian ad litem moved the
juvenile court to find the County DHR in contempt.  As
1071250
5
grounds, the guardian ad litem alleged, among other things,
(1) that the County DHR had moved D.R.S. to BayPointe on July
25, 
2007; 
(2) 
that, 
contrary 
to 
the 
State 
DHR's
representations to the juvenile court, BayPointe did not
provide services that were equivalent to those provided by the
NDA; and (3) that BayPointe was an unsuitable placement for
D.R.S.  The County DHR denied the allegations in the guardian
ad litem's motion.
After a hearing, the juvenile court entered the following
order on November 13, 2007:
"This matter came before the Court for a review
of placement of the minor child by the Montgomery
County Department of Human Resources.  Custody of
the minor child, [D.R.S.], age 17, was vested in
Montgomery County DHR and the matter is ongoing as
to placement of the child, safety and stability,
medical treatment and education.  At the time and
date set for the hearing, the following persons were
present: The minor child, [D.R.S.]; Guardian ad
Litem, Hon. Beverly Howard; Hon. Andrea Mixson,
representing the minor child; the Hon. James Long,
representing the State Department of Human Resources
in substitution for the Montgomery County Department
of Human Resources attorney; Hon. Lisa Melvin,
Attorney for the Montgomery County Department of
Human Resources; Hon. John Wible, Attorney for the
Alabama Department of Public Health; Hon. Tamara
Pharrams, representing the Alabama Department of
Mental Health and Mental  Retardation; Hon. Tim
Tyler, Montgomery County District Attorney's Office;
Hon. Gene Spencer, the child's defense attorney (for
day one of the hearing only); Hon. Dudley Perry,
1071250
6
representing 
the 
Alabama 
Department 
of 
Youth
Services (for day one of the hearing only); and Hon.
Barney March, attorney for BayPointe (day two of the
hearing only).  Also present for the hearing were
Ms. Liz Hill, Alabama Department of Mental Health
and Mental Retardation; Mr. Fred Vrgora, probation
officer for the minor child; Ms. Beverly Wise,
probation supervisor for Montgomery County Juvenile
Court; Ms. Sue Parker, Montgomery County Department
of 
Human 
Resources; 
Ms. 
Ruthie 
Fitzpatrick,
Montgomery County Department of Human Resources; Ms.
Margaret 
Bonham, 
State 
Department 
of 
Human
Resources; Ms. Beth Williams, Montgomery County
Department of Human Resources; and Ms. Jody Jernigan
and Ms. Wendy Darling, American Sign Language
interpreters. 
"The Court heard testimony ore tenus over a two-
day period and entered certain exhibits. The purpose
of this two-day hearing was to review and determine
whether or not the unilateral decision made by the
Department of Human Resources to place [D.R.S.] at
BayPointe in Mobile, Alabama was a viable placement
under the facts and circumstances surrounding this
case. At all times pertinent, custody of [D.R.S.]
has been vested in DHR.
"The record reflects that [D.R.S.] has been
previously determined to be mentally ill, has been
diagnosed 
as 
mentally 
retarded, 
is 
deaf,
communicates primarily by sign language, is diabetic
and suffers from alopecia in addition to other
medical problems.  She came to the attention of this
Court through a criminal charge for a misdemeanor.
It appears that the basis for [D.R.S.'s] criminal
charge was for her acting-out behavior in a DHR
placement. [D.R.S.] had been placed by DHR in a
facility 
where 
staff 
members 
were 
unable 
to
communicate with her by sign language and she had no
peers 
or 
other 
deaf 
persons 
around 
her 
to
communicate with her as to her needs on a daily
basis.
1071250
7
"After coming to the attention of the Montgomery
County Juvenile Court, the Montgomery County Multi-
Needs Team met to consider the multiple needs of
this deaf child.  The County recommendation made to
the State Multi-Needs Team was that the child be
placed at the National Deaf Academy in Mt. Dora,
Florida, hereinafter referred to as NDA.  For
reasons known only to the State Multi-Needs Team,
the executive director, Donna Glass, determined that
[D.R.S.] should be sent to University of Alabama at
Birmingham 
Children's Hospital for a physical
examination instead of NDA.  After a hearing
regarding the best interest and safety of [D.R.S.],
Montgomery County Department of Human Resources made
the decision to send [D.R.S.] to NDA and to pay for
that facility for only 30 days. That specific
placement was certainly in this child's best
interest because NDA is a fully licensed medical and
educational facility wherein deaf children with
multiple needs (such as mental illness, mental
retardation, medical problems and the like) may be
cared for and may interact with other children who
are also hearing impaired and who have educational
and medical needs as well.
"At some point in this process, State DHR,
through its attorney, James Long, unilaterally
removed [D.R.S.] from NDA, transporting her to a
facility called BayPointe Hospital in Mobile.  At
all times pertinent, Mr. Long asserted that State
DHR had absolute authority to place any child in DHR
custody anywhere it wished without oversight by any
authority including the Circuit Court and without
answering to any agency or Court for any harm
perpetrated upon the child.  At the conclusion of
the two-day hearing, in response to the Guardian ad
Litem, Mr. Long stated on the record, in substance
that, 'I'm the State of Alabama; I say where she
goes, and she's coming back to Alabama.'  Mr. Long
continued by telling the Guardian ad Litem and the
Court that, if [D.R.S.] were Ordered to NDA, someone
other than DHR would have to pay for it.
1071250
8
"The testimony during the two-day trial can only
be described as a horror story.  Olivia Nettles,
Director of the 94-bed hospital at BayPointe,
testified that BayPointe had no deaf interpreters on
staff, no employees who were available twenty-four
hours a day seven days a week and who were fluent in
American Sign Language.  Ms. Nettles stated that
BayPointe had never provided services, including
medical attention, for a single deaf child prior to
[D.R.S.'s] placement.  Ms. Nettles admitted that she
was not familiar with the protocols endorsed by the
State Department of Mental Health regarding deaf
children.  Therefore, she was unsure as to whether
or not BayPointe was in compliance with those
protocols, which included procedures for restraining
a deaf child and for communication with the deaf
child.  Consistent with her lack of knowledge, Ms.
Nettles stated that she had approved the BayPointe
staff to provide 'dry erase boards' for [D.R.S.] to
communicate with staff rather than bear the cost of
sign 
language 
interpreters. 
 
Cross-examination
revealed that [D.R.S.] cannot write on the dry erase
board when she is upset and her arms are restrained.
The Guardian ad Litem posited that, 'because you
understand a deaf person, it should not be assumed
that the deaf person understands you.'  Ms. Nettles
responded that she had heard that.  However she
continued to assert that BayPointe was effectively
communicating with [D.R.S.].
"Ms. Nettles confirmed that BayPointe was
administering a high dosage of amphetamines to
[D.R.S.] to such an extent that she tested positive
for benzodiazepine and amphetamines.  However, the
staff physician for BayPointe as well as other on-
site staff appeared baffled by the positive drug
screen and could not explain why this child would
have tested positive for amphetamines.  The Court
took note that clearly, the child is being over-
medicated by the physicians and staff at BayPointe
for reasons known only to BayPointe.  The positive
1071250
9
drug screen conducted by Drug Test Services in
Montgomery confirmed the over-medication.
"Of particular concern to the Court was an
incident which occurred the day before the hearing
in Montgomery.  The staff at BayPointe had injured
[D.R.S.] while again attempting to restrain her. The
BayPointe staff 'busted' [D.R.S.'s] lip, yet they
did not report the injury to the case worker on
staff, the physician or the Guardian ad Litem.  Ms.
Nettles confirmed that BayPointe doesn't always
prepare written reports concerning injuries.  The
Court is particularly concerned about the injuries
this child has sustained which have gone untreated
by BayPointe because [D.R.S.] is diabetic.  An
injury left untreated can have major medical
consequences for the diabetic.  It was clear that in
this 
incident, 
[D.R.S.] 
had 
been 
improperly
restrained by BayPointe staff so as to render the
deaf, diabetic, mentally ill and mentally retarded
child unable to communicate, leaving the child, no
doubt, terrified in her virtually silent world.
"During the course of the hearing, several
BayPointe staff members testified, including Carla
Ladnier, who is the assistant coordinator of
residential programs at BayPointe. She admitted that
she had gotten one week's notice that she would be
a mental health therapist for [D.R.S.].  She does
not sign, is not hearing-impaired and is not
familiar with needs of deaf children.  Also, she
stated that she does not know protocols for
providing such specialized therapy. Her therapy for
[D.R.S.] consists of 30 minutes to an hour per week,
in which she focuses on [D.R.S.'s] acting-out, angry
behavior. Ms. Ladnier admitted that she was present
for the very first restraint of [D.R.S.] on August
6, 2007, as was a staff member, Anita Cox, who is
also not hearing impaired, but who has some
knowledge of signing.
1071250
10
"There was testimony throughout the hearing
regarding numerous restraints of [D.R.S.], all of
which rendered her unable to communicate even by dry
erase boards and caused injuries to her associated
with those restraints.  
"One of these injuries occurred when [D.R.S.]
was improperly restrained and collided with a trash
can, which broke the skin on her leg. Once again the
injury was left untreated by BayPointe, causing
massive infection to develop.  Such a course of
action by BayPointe can only be described as medical
neglect and abuse for this diabetic, deaf child.
Subsequent to the hearing, the Guardian ad Litem
filed BayPointe case notes and reports with this
Court which indicate that they (BayPointe) are
continuing to restrain [D.R.S.] in such a manner as
to continue to cause injury to her.  BayPointe
cannot be considered an appropriate placement for
[D.R.S.] 
under 
these 
circumstances. 
The
professionals involved with [D.R.S.] including Liz
Hill, the Guardian ad Litem, the probation officer
and the Montgomery County Multi-Needs team advised
DHR and James Long that BayPointe was inappropriate
prior to Mr. Long's unilateral decision to place
[D.R.S.] at BayPointe.  Where the health, well-being
and life of a child are at issue, ill-informed,
power plays by government attorneys cannot be
allowed.
"The Mobile School for the Deaf refuses to
accept [D.R.S.] as a student and made such a
determination 
based 
on 
unspecified 
documents
provided to them by BayPointe. The Mobile school
indicated that they believed [D.R.S.'s] behavior was
not stabilized as she had determined from the level
she had reached at NDA. At the time of the hearing,
[D.R.S.'s] educational status was abysmal, little
having been provided to her by BayPointe. 
"BayPointe utilizes a 'point system' wherein a
'consumer' (resident) earn points which allow the
1071250
11
child to be taken outside BayPointe for outings to
parks or a mall or a pet store.  BayPointe terms
such outings to be 'therapeutic outings.' [D.R.S.]
has had one therapeutic outing to Wal-Mart because
she has not earned points for additional outings.
Further, [D.R.S.] is required to earn an outing even
to interact with other deaf children, which also has
not been allowed as of the date of the hearing.
Therefore the status of the child, [D.R.S.], is
isolation from the deaf community and with no
recourse while she is in the custody of DHR.  The
Court finds it frightening that the agents of DHR
find nothing amiss or cause for alarm in BayPointe's
treatment of this child and condones same.
  
"Ms. Olivia Nettles testified that she really
had no direct knowledge of [D.R.S.'s] care, nor did
her schedule and duties allow time to oversee care
of all of the patients which she refers to as
'consumers.'  She then asserted that [D.R.S.] likes
to sleep and doesn't want to get up in the morning.
When [D.R.S.] doesn't get up, BayPointe employees
punish and restrain her.  When asked about the level
of [D.R.S.'s] medications and the side effects which
are known to induce sleepiness, Ms. Nettles,
Director of BayPointe operations, was uninformed as
to the side effects of each of the medications
prescribed for the child at BayPointe.
"Gregory Broadnax is an LPN at BayPointe.  He
testified that [D.R.S.] is prescribed Cymbalta,
Dulcolax, Depakote, Loratadine, Ranitidine, Geodon,
Amaryl, Lorazepam, Ativan, Reglan, Metformin and
others.  All these medications are given to [D.R.S.]
on a daily basis.  The side effects of Cymbalta are
drowsiness, dizziness, headaches, sleep problems,
dizziness [sic], hypotension.  He also testified
that Loratadine, which is Claritin, can cause
hallucinations 
in 
combination 
with 
other
medications. 
 
Lorazepam, likewise, will cause
drowsiness, as will the drug Geodon. Based on
comparison with the medications prescribed and
1071250
12
administered to [D.R.S.] at NDA, it appears that
BayPointe and its personnel over-medicate [D.R.S.]
and then punish her when she cannot respond because
of the medications they administer to her.  
"Another concern is that BayPointe apparently
believes that depriving [D.R.S.] of food will
stabilize her diabetic condition.  There was
testimony that [D.R.S.] has Type II diabetes and is
insulin dependent.  Testimony indicated that a
patient who is stable on insulin can eat favorite
foods on occasion but in smaller portions.  NDA
managed [D.R.S.'s] diabetes while providing her with
occasional small portions of her favorite foods such
as hamburgers and potato chips.  BayPointe prefers
to simply deprive [D.R.S.] of even small portions of
favorite foods. [D.R.S.'s] response to the constant
deprivation is to engage in acting-out behavior.
"By comparison, when [D.R.S.] was at the
National Deaf Academy in Mt. Dora, she was less
medicated and was able to interact with other deaf
children on a daily basis.  There was no earned
points system at NDA, as outings for the children
were 
considered 
positive 
experiences. 
 
The
administrators and medical personnel, as well as the
educational staff at NDA, are all fluent in American
Sign Language, and many of those employees are also
deaf.  NDA personnel were clearly able to understand
[D.R.S.'s] needs and to communicate directly with
her regarding those needs.  In addition, they are
able to communicate with her to explain treatment
procedures 
and 
reasons therefor. The opposite
occurred at BayPointe.  While placed at the National
Deaf Academy, [D.R.S.] was prescribed 500 milligrams
of Depakote at bedtime only.  At BayPointe, [D.R.S.]
was prescribed 1500 milligrams twice daily.  The
amounts of medications prescribed for [D.R.S.]
across the board at National Deaf Academy were far
less than the amount prescribed for her by BayPointe
personnel.
1071250
13
"Following her placement at NDA, [D.R.S.]
underwent 
a 
full 
physical 
examination 
and
psychological 
evaluation. 
[D.R.S.'s] 
behavior
stabilized within the thirty (30) days she was at
NDA and she appeared to be well-adjusted.  She was
beginning to adjust to her educational structure and
responding to therapy when she was summarily removed
from NDA at the insistence of DHR attorney James
Long and placed at BayPointe.  Mental health
therapist Liz Hill testified that the practice of
'earning 
outings' 
employed 
by 
BayPointe 
is
therapeutically destructive.  Ms. Hill is a deaf
therapist who is fluent in American Sign Language
and had made excellent progress with  [D.R.S.] in
terms of communication and had gained [D.R.S.'s]
trust.  Ms. Hill is employed with the Alabama
Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation
and is in the ideal position to make a therapeutic
recommendation for [D.R.S.].  Based on Ms. Hill's
work with deaf children throughout Alabama she
testified that there is no program in the State of
Alabama for multi-needs deaf children which will
provide the continuum of services that NDA provides.
It is unfortunate that the State of Alabama does not
have such a facility, but the fact remains, that
Alabama does not have a facility to accommodate the
multiple needs of a child such as [D.R.S.].  Ms.
Hill testified that based upon her interaction with
[D.R.S.] over a period of time, the child needs to
be in a facility where the staff are trained to work
with deaf children who are emotionally disturbed,
like [D.R.S.].  She recommends that [D.R.S.] be
placed at NDA or a comparable facility where
[D.R.S.] will be in the best position to progress
and become behaviorally stable.  It appears that NDA
is the closest such facility to Montgomery County
geographically.
"Ms. 
Hill 
points 
to 
an 
incident 
wherein
BayPointe employees punished [D.R.S.] because one of
their 
non-fluent 
interpreters 
for 
the 
deaf
misunderstood a sign which [D.R.S.] made in an
1071250
14
effort to communicate with them.  She also testified
that, based on the protocols prepared by the Alabama
Mental Health Office of Deaf Services regarding
restraints, BayPointe's use of restraints regarding
[D.R.S.] was improper and not consistent with those
protocols. BayPointe's restraints render [D.R.S.]
unable to communicate as her hands are bound.  Of
particular concern in the case of [D.R.S.] is the
fact that, in mental health therapy, having a third
person in the room to interpret, through sign
language, 
patient 
and 
therapist 
communication
destroys the dynamics of therapy.  It is no longer
one-on-one, as it should be.  Thus a therapist who
if fully fluent in American Sign Language is
required and is the right of the child.
"Donna Glass, director of the State Multi-Needs
Office, testified that she believes BayPointe is
more appropriate than NDA for [D.R.S.].  It should
be noted that Donna Glass was not present for the
testimony of the BayPointe personnel who admitted
that they have no services for deaf children and
have never provided services for a child like
[D.R.S.] and, therefore, have no programs or
protocols 
in 
place 
to 
insure 
the 
child's
development, stability and safety.  It is unknown
why Ms. Glass and the State Multi-Needs Team has
consistently supported the Department of Human
Resources' baseless position that BayPointe is an
appropriate placement for [D.R.S.], particularly
when 
the 
Montgomery 
County 
Multi-Needs 
Team
recommended placement of this child at NDA.  The
inconsistent opinions are troubling and are cause
for concern when weighed with the child's needs.
Also troubling, Ms. Glass demonstrated a marked lack
of understanding for a child with [D.R.S.'s] special
multiple needs, as Ms. Glass is woefully unaware of
what services BayPointe can and does provide and she
was completely unaware of the lack of resources at
BayPointe for a deaf child.  Ms. Glass's testimony
was less than credible.
1071250
15
"Subsequent to the two-day hearing, the Court
has reviewed records from BayPointe dated 10/10/07
which were delivered to the Guardian ad Litem and
filed with the Court. The BayPointe staff state that
[D.R.S.'s] behavior has deteriorated over the last
month, that her hearing is getting worse and that
she has been prescribed the 'wrong medicine,' Ms.
Ladnier says in her report, 
"'Cons [consumer] has reported feeling
lonely at BayPointe, wants to be with other
deaf peers, feels isolated from hearing
staff members and hearing peers.  Although
consumer initially seems to be adjusting to
BayPointe 
and 
connecting 
with 
her
therapist, at present time consumer is
withdrawing from others and has shown a
decrease 
in 
her 
participation 
during
therapy. 
She 
was 
observed 
to 
have
experienced anxiety related to several
controversial meetings in Montgomery and
aggressive behaviors toward self and others
significantly intensified.  Discussed the
Guardian ad Litem's and probation officer's
opposition to her placement at BayPointe.
Initial outbursts at BayPointe were related
primarily to food issues and program rules
(consistent with her history), current
frustration now seem[s] to be related to
uncertainty about her placement.  She seems
to have lost trust in staff and states that
the Court plans to send her back to NDA.
Consumer 
is 
no 
longer 
interested 
in
treatment, 
may 
not 
be 
successful 
at
BayPointe due to these circumstances. We
discussed making recommendation to seek
alternative 
placement 
for 
cons 
at 
a
facility with other deaf peers.  She will
require same level of care.'
"It is signed Carla Ladnier.
1071250
16
"On October 9, 2007, Ms. Ladnier wrote in
[D.R.S.'s] chart that it is not in the child's best
interest to continue treatment at BayPointe and she
would be better served in a different residential
program. Ms. Ladnier instructed Ms. Ferrere to send
a letter to DHR regarding their recommendation. ...
"Alabama State 
Department 
of 
Human 
Resources 
and
the State Multi-Needs Team have attempted to paint
a picture of the National Deaf Academy as being
prohibitively expensive in order to justify their
decision to place this child at BayPointe.  There
was testimony that the cost for NDA is approximately
$525 per day.  The cost per day for placement at
BayPointe is approximately $435 per day.   The Court
does not find the difference in this cost to be
particularly significant, particularly in light of
the fact that the State Multi-Needs Team has,
throughout the recent past, placed numerous children
who are hearing impaired with special needs at the
National Deaf Academy.  There was testimony that
there presently are two such children from the State
of Alabama placed at NDA.
"Clearly, all those involved with [D.R.S.] know
full well that BayPointe is not equivalent to the
National Deaf Academy and BayPointe employees admit
that BayPointe cannot provide services for [D.R.S.].
Despite 
this 
admission, 
DHR 
has 
consistently
attempted to paint the services at BayPointe as
equivalent, but they are not.  Ms. Hill had
predicted 
that 
[D.R.S.] 
would 
deteriorate 
at
BayPointe, and such has been the case.  Based on
DHR's protocols and Alabama statutes, if a natural
parent placed a child in a facility such as
BayPointe under these same facts and circumstances,
DHR would likely seek custody of the child with
abuse and neglect charges brought against that
parent.  In this case, it is DHR who is the
custodial 'parent' and who has intentionally left
[D.R.S.] in a facility were she is harmed and
continues to deteriorate in this inappropriate
1071250
17
placement.  Under these circumstances, this Court
must intervene to protect [D.R.S.].
"Based on the foregoing, a review of the record,
the testimony and the exhibits, it is hereby ordered
as follows:
"1. That the Court specifically finds that the
Alabama Department of Human Resources has not made
reasonable efforts to assure the health, safety and
educational and medical needs of [D.R.S.] by placing
her at BayPointe.  Despite DHR's assertion that this
Court cannot tell DHR where to place a child, the
Court believes that when DHR fails or refuses to
protect a child from harm or mistreatment, the
Circuit Court must step in to stop the continued
medical maltreatment, over-medication and personal
violations of [D.R.S.].
"2. 
 
That 
[D.R.S.] 
shall 
be 
immediately
transported to Mt. Dora, Florida, to the National
Deaf Academy (or other facility equivalent to the
National Deaf Academy), where she shall remain at
the expense of the State of Alabama until such time
as 
she 
is 
able 
to 
function 
and 
communicate
independently; it is undisputed that presently
Alabama has no such facility within its borders.
"3.  That copies of any and all records
pertaining to  [D.R.S.] shall be regularly provided
to the Guardian ad Litem and [D.R.S.'s] Montgomery
County Juvenile probation officer.
"4.  That based on the recommendation of the
probation officer, [D.R.S.'s] probation is hereby
extended for one year.
"5. That probation officer Fred Vrgora shall be
available to transport [D.R.S.] from BayPointe to
Mt. Dora, Florida, or equivalent facility.  The
Guardian ad Litem may assist if her schedule
permits.
1071250
18
"6.  That Mr. Vrgora and the Guardian ad Litem
shall monitor [D.R.S.'s] placement at NDA or
equivalent facility and notify the Court and DHR as
to progress or lack thereof.
"7.  That the Court Orders that Mrs. Liz Hill be
reinstated 
as 
therapist 
for 
[D.R.S.] 
by 
the
Department of Mental Health, so as to allow her to
continue her work with this multi-needs child.  Ms.
Hill had clearly made progress and has achieved a
level of trust which cannot be duplicated quickly.
It cannot be in this child's best interest to have
Ms. Hill summarily removed from interaction with
[D.R.S.].
"8.  That based upon testimony from BayPointe
personnel 
regarding 
improper 
restraints 
and
continued injuries to this deaf, diabetic child,
together with their recent case notes, it appears
that BayPointe has communicated with the Department
of Human Resources to remove [D.R.S.] in an effort
to minimize their liability.  The Court believes, as
previously stated, that immediate removal of this
child from this improper placement is necessary as
Ordered herein.
"9.  That all Orders not modified herein remain
in full force and effect.  
"10. That the Clerk shall transmit a copy of
this Order to counsel and/or the parties."
DHR then requested that the court reporter who recorded
the hearing provide DHR with a transcript of the evidentiary
hearing; however, the court reporter informed DHR that it
would have to obtain a court order authorizing the court
reporter to provide it with a transcript.  Accordingly, DHR
1071250
19
moved the juvenile court to authorize the court reporter to
provide it with a transcript; the juvenile court denied DHR's
motion.
DHR filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to the Court
of Civil Appeals, seeking to have the November 13, 2007, order
vacated insofar as it directed (1) that D.R.S. be removed from
BayPointe and placed at the NDA or at an equivalent facility;
(2) that the State of Alabama pay the cost of placing D.R.S.
at the NDA; and (3) that Liz Hill, a DMH employee, be
reinstated as D.R.S.'s therapist.  DHR also sought to have the
juvenile court's order denying it a transcript of the
evidentiary hearing vacated.  The Court of Civil Appeals
granted the petition in part and denied it in part.  Ex parte
Montgomery County Dep't of Human Res., [Ms. 2070163, May 23,
2008] ___ So. 2d ___ (Ala. Civ. App. 2008).
First, the Court of Civil Appeals held that DHR did
establish its right to a writ of mandamus directing the
juvenile court to vacate its November 13, 2007, order insofar
as the order required the State to pay the expense of placing
D.R.S. at the NDA.  Section 12-15-10, Ala. Code 1975, a part
of the Alabama Juvenile Justice Act designates the county as
1071250
20
the entity responsible for maintenance and care of a juvenile.
The Court of Civil Appeals noted that in Ex parte Department
of Mental Health, 511 So. 2d 181 (Ala. 1987), this Court held
that an order of the Houston Juvenile Court directing DMH to
place a child at Charter Woods Hospital, a private facility,
for a psychiatric evaluation to be paid for by DMH violated §
12-15-10 and the separation-of-powers provisions of the
Alabama Constitution of 1901. ___ So. 2d at ___.       
Second, the Court of Civil Appeals held that DHR was not
entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the juvenile court to
vacate its November 13 order insofar as the order required
that D.R.S. be placed at the NDA and that Liz Hill, a DMH
employee, be reinstated as her therapist.  The Court of Civil
Appeals cited In re Morris, 491 So. 2d 244 (Ala. Civ. App.
1986), in which the juvenile court ordered that the child in
need of supervision be placed in a facility operated by the
State DHR and further ordered that under no circumstances was
the child to be sent to another facility, to be placed for a
visit, or to be released without the express written consent
of the court.  The State DHR appealed, arguing that the
juvenile court had overstepped its constitutional authority by
1071250
21
adding those three conditions.  The  Morris court held that
the State DHR had been empowered with discretion to deal with
troubled children in a professional manner and that the
juvenile court was authorized to commit mentally disturbed
children to the care of the State DHR.  However, the juvenile
court was not authorized to tell the State DHR how to exercise
that discretion, and there had been no allegations that the
State DHR had abused, neglected, or improperly treated the
child in Morris.  The juvenile court's instruction that the
State DHR could not take any action without its prior written
approval invaded the State DHR's exercise of its discretion.
"'We are not to be understood as holding that the juvenile
court cannot review actions taken by the Department in
treatment and care of mentally disturbed children committed to
its care.  All we are saying is that the Department must be
given an opportunity to carry out its legislative mandate.'"
Ex parte Montgomery County Dep't of Human Res., ___ So. 2d at
___ (quoting Morris, 491 So. 2d at 246).  The Court of Civil
Appeals noted that Morris was distinguishable because in the
present case the juvenile court did not dictate to DHR how it
was to care for D.R.S. without first giving DHR the
1071250
22
opportunity to carry out its legislative mandate.  The court
also noted that a juvenile court has the authority to review
a State agency's care of a child committed to its custody and
to direct the agency to change the child's care if the court
determines that the care the child is receiving is not in the
child's best interest.
Third, the Court of Civil Appeals held that DHR was
entitled to a writ of mandamus ordering the juvenile court to
vacate its order denying it a transcript of the evidentiary
hearing.  Rule 20(B), Ala. R. Juv. P., provides that testimony
from a juvenile court shall be transcribed upon order of the
court or upon the request of any party at the requesting
party's expense.  DHR filed a motion requesting that the
testimony from the evidentiary hearing be transcribed and
quoted Rule 20(B), Ala. R. Juv. P.  The juvenile court denied
DHR's motion because DHR did not expressly offer to pay for
the transcript.  However, DHR did quote from Rule 20(B),
implying that it was willing to comply with the rule.
Accordingly, the Court of Civil Appeals directed the juvenile
court to vacate its order denying DHR a transcript of the
evidentiary hearing.
1071250
Although DHR and DMH ask for a "statutory writ of
1
certiorari," they do not cite any authority regarding a
statutory writ of certiorari nor do they explain how such a
writ would apply in this case.  Historically, the purpose of
a statutory writ of certiorari was to secure review by trial
de novo in the circuit court after the right of appeal was
lost, and it existed as the result of the interaction of
several statutory provisions that the legislature did not
carry forward into the Code of Alabama 1975.  See Norton v.
Staples, 377 So. 2d 1095 (Ala. Civ. App. 1979).   
23
In its petition to this Court, DHR and DMH ask this Court
to issue a writ of certiorari to direct the Montgomery Circuit
Court and the Court of Civil Appeals to send up the record,
including the transcript of the evidentiary hearing, so that
this Court may have the full record to review the important
constitutional separation-of-powers issue presented by this
case.  DHR and DMH ask that a writ of mandamus or other order
"upon statutory
 or common law certiorari review be issued to
[1]
the Court of Civil Appeals reversing the court's May 23, 2008,
opinion affirming [sic] the Montgomery County Circuit Court
Order directing that D.R.S. be placed at [the NDA or
equivalent facility] and directing that state employee Liz
Hill be reassigned to the case by the Department of Mental
Health and Mental Retardation as therapist because the order
exceeds the authority of the Court and violates Separation-of-
Powers under the Alabama Constitution."  DHR and DMH argue
1071250
24
that the transcript of the evidentiary hearing and the record
will show that they were attempting to create an in-state
program for deaf children with mental-health problems and that
D.R.S. was receiving a full array of services at BayPointe.
They contend that this Court should issue a writ of
"certiorari to bring up the entire record in order to make a
fully 
informed 
decision 
regarding 
the 
separation-of-powers 
and
the boundaries of judicial discretion."  It appears that DHR
and DMH are asking this Court to issue a writ of certiorari to
have the record and the transcript from the evidentiary
hearing reviewed by this Court in order that it can then
determine whether the Court of Civil Appeals erred in denying
DHR and DMH's petition for the writ of mandamus as to certain
portions of the juvenile court's order.
Discussion
DHR and DMH cite Max J. Winkler Brokerage, Co. v.
Courson, 160 Ala. 374, 49 So. 341 (1909), for the proposition
that this Court could issue a common-law writ of certiorari in
order to review the entire record because, they argue, a writ
of certiorari is issued by a superior court to an inferior
court to bring up the record and to determine whether the
1071250
25
judgment of the inferior court was erroneous.  In that case,
the petition for a common-law writ of certiorari was filed in
the circuit court, seeking to have the proceedings in an
inferior court certified. They cite but do not discuss Ex
parte Hennies, 33 Ala. App. 377, 34 So. 2d 22 (1948), which
involved a common-law writ of certiorari to review the record
of the Jefferson County Court of Misdemeanors in a contempt
action.  DHR and DMH quote from, but do not discuss, Nashville
Chattanooga & St. Louis Ry. v. Town of Boaz, 226 Ala. 441,
443, 147 So. 195, 196 (1933).  In that case, this Court
stated: "The remedy by common-law certiorari only extends to
courts or boards required by law to keep a record or quasi
record of their proceedings, and the only proper return to the
writ is such record or a transcript thereof duly authenticated
by the legal custodian, as it exists at the time of the
issuance of the writ."   In short, these three cases hold that
when an inferior court has acted based on the information
before it, a superior court could review the inferior court's
judgment in light of the same information that was before the
inferior court.
1071250
Part of the relief DHR sought, and received, in the Court
2
of Civil Appeals was a writ ordering the juvenile court to
26
In the present case, the Court of Civil Appeals would
have original jurisdiction over an appeal regarding D.R.S.,
and that court would also have original jurisdiction of a
petition for a writ of mandamus relating to a matter over
which it would have appellate jurisdiction. § 12-3-11, Ala.
Code 1975.  In granting in part and denying in part DHR and
DMH's petition for the writ of mandamus, the Court of Civil
Appeals reached the merits of the case without the benefit of
the same information that was before the juvenile court.  DHR
and DMH ask this Court to review the merits of the Court of
Civil Appeals' decision with the benefit of information that
was never before the Court of Civil Appeals.  By their
petition for a writ of certiorari or the petition for a writ
of mandamus DHR and DMH can seek review of only the decision
of the Court of Civil Appeals, not the decision of the
juvenile court.    
DHR and DMH have not complained, and could not complain,
that the Court of Civil Appeals erred in entertaining their
mandamus petition without the transcript from the hearing in
the juvenile court.  In other words, DHR and DMH have not
2
1071250
vacate its order denying DHR a transcript of the evidentiary
hearing.
27
asked this Court to issue a writ of mandamus ordering the
Court of Civil Appeals to review the merits of the juvenile
court's decision in light of the transcript.  Instead, they
ask this Court to review the Court of Civil Appeals'
disposition of the merits of the case, in light of the
transcript of the evidentiary hearing, which was not before
the Court of Civil Appeals.  Absent any argument that the
Court of Civil Appeals erred in reaching the merits without
the transcript, there is no need for this Court to review the
transcript, and any issue surrounding the necessity for a
transcript has been waived.  When a petitioner fails to argue
an issue in his brief, that issue is waived.  See Ex parte
Martin, 775 So. 2d 202, 206 (Ala. 2000).   
Even if DHR and DMH had not waived the issue regarding
the necessity of the transcript, the cases concerning a
common-law writ of certiorari have to do with the interaction
between an inferior court from which an appeal lies to a
superior court.  As discussed earlier, this Court's review of
the decisions of tribunals from which an appeal lies to the
Court of Civil Appeals is limited, and we will not expand the
1071250
28
broad language in cases such as Max J. Winkler Brokerage
beyond the context in which the rule regarding common-law
writs of certiorari is stated.  
Regarding the mandamus petition, DHR and DMH have not
shown that they have a clear legal right to the relief sought
because they waived any argument regarding the Court of Civil
Appeals' review of the juvenile court's order, and this Court
is limited in its appellate jurisdiction to reviewing the
Court of Civil Appeals' actions or misdeeds, not those of the
trial court.
Based on the foregoing, DHR and DMH's petition seeking
either a common-law or statutory writ of certiorari or a writ
of mandamus is denied.
PETITION DENIED.
Cobb, C.J., and Lyons, Stuart, and Murdock, JJ., concur.