Court Opinion

ID: 9915449
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-05 16:02:03.393425+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:14:10.272598
License: Public Domain

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-2023-0263, CL-2023-0264, CL-2023-0265, and CL-2023-0266
                     _________________________

                                                    K.M.

                                                      v.

            Houston County Department of Human Resources

               Appeals from Houston Juvenile Court
     (JU-20-619.02, JU-20-620.02, JU-20-621.02, and JU-20-622.02)

                                   _________________________

    CL-2023-0268, CL-2023-0269, CL-2023-0270, and CL-2023-0271
                     _________________________

                                                 C.W., Jr.

                                                      v.

            Houston County Department of Human Resources
CL-2023-0263; CL-2023-0264, CL-2023-0265, CL-2023-0266, CL-2023-
0268, CL-2023-0269, CL-2023-0270, and CL-2023-0271

              Appeals from Houston Juvenile Court
   (JU-20-619.02, JU-20-620.02, JU-20-621.02, and JU-20-622.02)

PER CURIAM.

     The Houston County Department of Human Resources ("DHR")

filed actions to terminate the parental rights of K.M. ("the mother") and

C.W., Jr. ("the father"), to four of their children. The Houston Juvenile

Court ("the juvenile court") conducted a hearing at which it received ore

tenus evidence over the course of two days, March 14, 2023, and March

27, 2023. On April 17, 2023, the juvenile court entered a separate

judgment in each action in which it ordered that the parental rights of

the mother and the father to each of the four children be terminated. The

mother filed a postjudgment motion in each action, which the juvenile

court denied. The mother and the father each filed a timely notice of

appeal in each of the four actions in the juvenile court. The eight appeals

were consolidated by this court, ex mero motu.

     The record indicates that DHR investigated the parents' home in

November 2020 and found it to be dirty and not a fit environment for

their children. In addition, the mother and the father each tested positive

for the use of methamphetamine. At that time, the parents had four

                                    2
CL-2023-0263; CL-2023-0264, CL-2023-0265, CL-2023-0266, CL-2023-
0268, CL-2023-0269, CL-2023-0270, and CL-2023-0271

children ("the four children"), who were five years old, two years old, one

year old, and two months old, respectively. The parents and DHR entered

into a safety plan pursuant to which the four children would live with the

mother's   mother    ("the   maternal   grandmother").     The   maternal

grandmother owns land on which is located her own home. Also located

on that land, and also owned by the maternal grandmother, is the mobile

home in which the mother, the father, and the four children were residing

when DHR first became involved with the family. The record indicates

that, as a result of the imposition of the safety plan, the mother, the

father, and the four children began living in the maternal grandmother's

home.

     Asia McNeely, a child abuse/neglect worker for DHR, testified that

on December 14, 2020, approximately two weeks after the parties had

entered into the safety plan, DHR was contacted by law-enforcement

officials concerning a domestic-violence incident at the maternal

grandmother's home. McNeely stated that when she arrived the father's

shirt was torn and the mother had a black eye. McNeely testified that the

mother denied that a physical altercation between the mother and the

father had occurred, and, she said, the mother insisted that there had

                                    3
CL-2023-0263; CL-2023-0264, CL-2023-0265, CL-2023-0266, CL-2023-
0268, CL-2023-0269, CL-2023-0270, and CL-2023-0271

been only an argument between the two. At the final hearing in these

cases, the mother testified that the argument had occurred between

herself and the maternal grandmother and that the father had not been

involved in the incident to which law-enforcement officers responded.

     McNeely stated that on December 14, 2020, the maternal

grandmother's home was in "disarray" and that, in addition to observing

bags of trash crowding the home, she observed open food containers

stacked next to cat-litter boxes. The mother, the father, and the maternal

grandmother submitted to drug screens on that date, and the results for

all three were positive for the use of methamphetamine. Based on the

foregoing, McNeely said, the decision was made to place the four children

in protective custody, and DHR initiated a dependency action with regard

to each of the four children.

     On December 22, 2020, the juvenile court entered a shelter-care

order in each of the four dependency actions in which it placed the four

children in the pendente lite custody of DHR. McNeely stated that, as a

consequence of both the DHR investigation that had resulted in the

November 2020 safety plan and her investigation that had been initiated

on December 14, 2020, DHR found the mother, the father, and the

                                    4
CL-2023-0263; CL-2023-0264, CL-2023-0265, CL-2023-0266, CL-2023-
0268, CL-2023-0269, CL-2023-0270, and CL-2023-0271

maternal grandmother to be "indicated" for physical abuse, chemical

endangerment of the four children, neglect, and inadequate supervision.

     The mother testified that complications arising from the COVID-19

pandemic delayed DHR's immediate provision of services for the family.

Ashley Parr, the DHR social worker assigned to the four children's cases

between February 2021 and May 2022, testified that, after the four

children were placed in DHR's custody, DHR offered the parents a

number of reunification services, including random drug screens;

assessments by SpectraCare, a provider of substance-abuse-treatment

services; parenting classes; anger-management classes; and visitation

with the four children. Parr also testified that DHR requested that the

parents repair and clean the mobile home in which they resided and that

they each obtain and maintain stable employment.

     Parr testified that she spoke several times to the parents about the

need to attend substance-abuse treatment after she had received the

results of their drug screens. 1 It is undisputed that both the mother and

     1DHR     did not present any testimony or documentary evidence
concerning the frequency of the mother's and the father's drug screens or
the results of those drug screens. The result of a drug screen was referred
to only in passing during the DHR social workers' testimony.
                                    5
CL-2023-0263; CL-2023-0264, CL-2023-0265, CL-2023-0266, CL-2023-
0268, CL-2023-0269, CL-2023-0270, and CL-2023-0271

the father were using methamphetamine at that time. According to Parr,

both the mother's and the father's behavior and demeanor was consistent

with that of a person using methamphetamine.

     DHR presented evidence indicating that inpatient substance-abuse

treatment was recommended for the father as a result of his use of

methamphetamine. The father made a few attempts to attend an

outpatient substance-abuse-treatment program offered by SpectraCare.

However, Parr testified, the father either never attended that program

or, if he did attempt the program, quickly left it. Parr also stated that,

during an individualized-service-plan ("ISP") meeting that appears to

have been conducted after the father had already failed to complete an

outpatient substance-abuse-treatment program offered by SpectraCare,

the father informed her that he believed that he needed to attend an

inpatient substance-abuse-treatment program. Parr said that following

that ISP meeting she made several referrals for the father to attend

SpectraCare's inpatient program and another inpatient program offered

by an entity referred to as "The Haven." Parr testified, however, that the

father never attended either inpatient program. Thereafter, because of

the father's repeated failure to attend the inpatient programs offered by

                                    6
CL-2023-0263; CL-2023-0264, CL-2023-0265, CL-2023-0266, CL-2023-
0268, CL-2023-0269, CL-2023-0270, and CL-2023-0271

SpectraCare and The Haven after having been offered a place as a patient

in those programs several times, those two entities refused to include the

father as a patient in their programs. In his testimony at the final

hearing, the father acknowledged that DHR had asked him to attend an

inpatient substance-abuse-treatment program but that he had not done

so.

      Parr testified that the parents were given one hour of visitation

with the four children each week, and that the parents had visited the

four children consistently. However, she said, in April 2021 a domestic-

violence incident between the parents occurred either shortly before they

arrived at DHR's office for a visit or in the parking lot of DHR's office.

The mother insisted at the final hearing that she and the father had

engaged only in an argument. However, Parr testified that, immediately

after that incident, the mother told her that the father had hit her, and,

Parr said, she had observed that one of the mother's eyes was puffy and

that the mother had fresh scratch marks on her neck. DHR contacted

law-enforcement officers, the father was arrested on a domestic-violence

charge, and he remained incarcerated for approximately 30 days. The

mother was allowed to proceed with the visitation with the four children.

                                    7
CL-2023-0263; CL-2023-0264, CL-2023-0265, CL-2023-0266, CL-2023-
0268, CL-2023-0269, CL-2023-0270, and CL-2023-0271

     The mother explained that she and the father had never married

but that the father had been living with her for several years before the

birth of their oldest child, who was seven years old at the time of the final

hearing. The mother testified that the father had been physically abusive

to her before their children were born. However, she denied that the

father had abused her recently. Also, the mother specifically disputed

Parr's testimony that she had had a black eye in December 2020, when

Parr removed the four children from the parents' custody.

     The mother acknowledged that three domestic-violence charges

had been alleged against her since 2017. The mother testified that those

incidents of domestic violence had involved the mother and the maternal

grandmother; she stated that the father had not been involved in those

incidents. During the time the four children have been in foster care, the

mother has been arrested at least twice for failing to appear at court

hearings regarding those criminal charges. According to the mother, she

had also incurred in the past a charge relating to an altercation at a local

store. The mother testified that all of those charges had been dismissed

at the time of the final hearing, and, she said, she had "cleared up" all

the failure-to-appear warrants issued against her.

                                     8
CL-2023-0263; CL-2023-0264, CL-2023-0265, CL-2023-0266, CL-2023-
0268, CL-2023-0269, CL-2023-0270, and CL-2023-0271

     The mother admitted that she, the father, and the maternal

grandmother were using methamphetamine when DHR became involved

with the family. The mother denied that she had ever "struggled" with

drug addiction. Instead, she said, she had been a recreational drug user.

She stated that she began using methamphetamine in April 2020, after

she lost her employment as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The

mother initially stated that she had stopped using methamphetamine in

March 2021. However, she later admitted that she had used

methamphetamine occasionally until September 2021. The mother

explained that she had continued to use methamphetamine when she felt

"defeated."

     The mother testified that she had attended a substance-abuse-

treatment program offered by SpectraCare for one year; the record does

not disclose the dates she attended that program. The mother stated that

she had last used methamphetamine in September 2021 and that, by the

time of the final hearing, she had been "clean" for almost 18 months. The

mother also presented evidence indicating that she had completed a

parenting class in February 2021 and an anger-management class in

October 2022. The mother testified that she and the father had separated

                                   9
CL-2023-0263; CL-2023-0264, CL-2023-0265, CL-2023-0266, CL-2023-
0268, CL-2023-0269, CL-2023-0270, and CL-2023-0271

from approximately September 2021 through August 2022 and that the

two had not lived together during that period.

     Parr also testified that, in addition to DHR's concern about the

mother's use of illegal drugs, it also had concerns about the mother's

overall mental health based on her occasionally erratic behavior. Parr

explained that the mother had acted erratically when she missed a visit

and when she did not get her way. For example, Parr testified, in

November 2021 the mother was late to a visitation, and the four children

had left DHR's office before the mother arrived. On that occasion, Parr

said, the mother told Parr that she knew where Parr lived, where Parr's

children attended school, and that she would "fight to the death" for her

own children. Parr testified that the mother's behavior, and the fact that

the four children had been removed from the mother's custody, caused

her to be concerned about the mother's mental health. Therefore, because

of that behavior, after the April 2021 domestic-violence incident, Parr

recommended and that both parents obtain counseling and that the

father attend anger-management classes.

     The mother testified that although she had attended a

psychological evaluation, she was unaware of any diagnoses that might

                                   10
CL-2023-0263; CL-2023-0264, CL-2023-0265, CL-2023-0266, CL-2023-
0268, CL-2023-0269, CL-2023-0270, and CL-2023-0271

have resulted from that evaluation. The mother explained that although

she had asked for the results of the evaluation, she had never been

allowed to see the evaluation report. The mother testified that, after the

psychological evaluation, she attended an appointment with a

psychiatrist who prescribed medications for "mild depression" and other

medications to help her sleep. The mother admitted that she no longer

took those medications because, she said, they made her very ill.

     Parr stated that she had made referrals for the mother and the

father to attend individual counseling with Everlasting Peace, which

provided in-home counseling services. The mother and the father each

took part in a few counseling sessions with Stephanie Govan, who worked

for Everlasting Peace. Parr said that the mother appeared to have

worked well with Govan. However, Govan informed DHR at some point

that she was no longer able to contact the mother or the father to arrange

services and that, for that reason, no further counseling services could be

provided by Everlasting Peace. On cross-examination, when the mother's

counsel asked Parr if Govan had lost contact with the mother because the

mother had been in jail, Parr stated that that was possible, but she later

                                    11
CL-2023-0263; CL-2023-0264, CL-2023-0265, CL-2023-0266, CL-2023-
0268, CL-2023-0269, CL-2023-0270, and CL-2023-0271

said that both she and Govan had continued to have difficulty contacting

the mother.

     With regard to the condition of the mobile home in which the

parents resided, DHR presented evidence indicating that the home was

dirty and in disarray, and that, when the four children were removed

from the parents' custody in December 2020, the home had no plumbing.

McNeely testified that the four children had played and slept in the living

room of the mobile home. The outside of the mobile home was also a

safety concern identified by DHR. Evidence presented by DHR

demonstrated that the front porch was high off the ground and cluttered

with debris and that spindles serving as a partial guardrail were missing

in places. In addition, there were no steps to reach the front porch. During

the pendency of the underlying dependency actions, the front porch was

further damaged by a fire. The DHR social workers described the back

porch as cluttered and as containing a nonfunctioning refrigerator.

     Tammy Summers, a worker in the court-appointed-special-

advocate ("CASA") program who was assigned to the four children's cases

from June 2021 through October 13, 2022, testified and confirmed Parr's

descriptions of the inside and the outside of the mobile home in which the

                                    12
CL-2023-0263; CL-2023-0264, CL-2023-0265, CL-2023-0266, CL-2023-
0268, CL-2023-0269, CL-2023-0270, and CL-2023-0271

parents resided. Summers also testified regarding the services that had

been provided to the parents. Summers acknowledged that the father did

not have his own transportation and that that had impacted his ability

to access some services. However, Summers said, DHR had provided taxi

services for the father until the taxi company refused to transport the

father any longer; the juvenile court sustained the father's objection to

additional testimony on that issue, thereby preventing Summers from

explaining the reason the taxi company would no longer transport the

father.

     Parr testified that, at the time she stopped being the social worker

assigned to the four children's cases in May 2022, the inside of the mobile

home was much improved. The mother testified that she had worked on

the inside of the mobile home and had placed beds in bedrooms for the

four children; she also stated that she had decorated the four children's

bedrooms. Parr stated that, at the time of her last visit to the home, her

only concerns were some open food containers and some broken glass in

a bedroom. Parr stated, however, that outside of the mobile home, the

yard was overgrown and the porches remained a safety concern.

                                    13
CL-2023-0263; CL-2023-0264, CL-2023-0265, CL-2023-0266, CL-2023-
0268, CL-2023-0269, CL-2023-0270, and CL-2023-0271

     On April 1, 2022, approximately one month before Parr stopped

being the social worker assigned to the four children's cases, DHR filed

petitions seeking to terminate the parental rights of the mother and the

father to each of the four children. Parr testified that, when she left the

four children's cases in May 2022, the father was not receiving substance-

abuse treatment and had not attended anger-management classes. In the

dependency actions, the juvenile court entered adjudicatory orders on

April 22, 2022, in which it found the four children dependent based on

the admissions of the parents and awarded custody of the four children

to DHR.

     One month later, on May 18, 2022, the mother gave birth to a fifth

child ("the youngest child"). The youngest child was immediately placed

in the custody of A.M., a family friend, pursuant to a safety plan. It is

undisputed that, at the time of the final hearing, the youngest child

remained in the custody of A.M. The mother testified that she visits with

the youngest child almost daily and that A.M. is a friend who provides

her emotional support.

     The mother stated that, when the youngest child was born, she

began seeing a change in the father. The father initially stated that he

                                    14
CL-2023-0263; CL-2023-0264, CL-2023-0265, CL-2023-0266, CL-2023-
0268, CL-2023-0269, CL-2023-0270, and CL-2023-0271

stopped using methamphetamine in May 2022 but then stated that he

continued to use that drug on occasion when he felt "down and defeated"

through early June 2022. The father testified that he began substance-

abuse treatment with Dr. Earl Jones at Houston County Drug

Treatment. The record, including Dr. Jones's testimony, establishes that

the father began that 12-week intensive outpatient substance-abuse-

treatment program ("the treatment program") on June 7, 2022, and that

he completed that program in September 2022. The father testified that

he had "made a conscious decision" to seek substance-abuse treatment

"for the kids." However, later testimony established that the father had

been referred to the treatment program through a court referral as a

result of a criminal charge against him; it is not clear whether that

criminal charge was recent or related to earlier charges against the

father that had not yet been resolved.

     The father testified that because SpectraCare would no longer take

him as a patient, he had "applied my own money and paid my own money

to get services by myself" through the treatment program. However, on

direct questioning from the juvenile court, the father stated that the

mother's stepfather had paid for the treatment program. The costs of the

                                   15
CL-2023-0263; CL-2023-0264, CL-2023-0265, CL-2023-0266, CL-2023-
0268, CL-2023-0269, CL-2023-0270, and CL-2023-0271

treatment program were $185, plus $35 per week for a urine drug screen.

The father stated that he has been "clean" since June 6, 2022.

     Dr. Jones, the director of Houston County Drug Treatment, the

entity that offered the treatment program, testified that the father had

been referred to the treatment program by a court referral office. Dr.

Jones stated that, although the father had an initial positive drug screen

upon entering the treatment program, the father's drug screens during

his participation in the treatment program had been negative. Further,

based on the father's appearance and demeanor, he opined that the father

had maintained his sobriety after completing the treatment program.

The father testified that he continued to see Dr. Jones, and Dr. Jones

explained that the father had occasionally stopped in at the facility where

the treatment program is offered. Dr. Jones stated that the father had

taken drug screens on those occasions, but he admitted that the father

had determined the timing of those drug screens, i.e., that they were not

random.

     Both the mother and the father testified about an incident that had

occurred on July 25, 2022. The mother testified that, on that date, she

and the father were traveling to visit the youngest child and A.M. in

                                    16
CL-2023-0263; CL-2023-0264, CL-2023-0265, CL-2023-0266, CL-2023-
0268, CL-2023-0269, CL-2023-0270, and CL-2023-0271

Panama City, Florida. Houston County Sheriff's Deputy Charles Gray

conducted a traffic stop on the parents' vehicle because of speeding.

Deputy Gray discovered that both parents had outstanding warrants,

and he placed the mother and the father under arrest and transported

them to the Dothan police department. The mother testified that Deputy

Gray repeatedly warned the parents that he would search his police

vehicle after they left the vehicle and that if they had any illegal

substances with them, it would be better to inform him rather than for

him to find them in his vehicle.

     Deputy Gray confirmed that part of the mother's testimony. He

explained that, before he leaves in his police vehicle at the beginning of

his shift, he checks to make sure the back of the vehicle is clean and he

lifts the back seat to ensure that nothing has been left in the vehicle.

Deputy Gray testified that he completed that inspection of his police

vehicle at the beginning of his shift on July 25, 2022, and that the parents

were the first occupants of his vehicle on that date. Deputy Gray also

stated that, after the parents left his police vehicle and were placed in

the custody of the Dothan police department, he again searched the

                                    17
CL-2023-0263; CL-2023-0264, CL-2023-0265, CL-2023-0266, CL-2023-
0268, CL-2023-0269, CL-2023-0270, and CL-2023-0271

vehicle and located a small plastic sack that was later determined to

contain methamphetamine.

      The mother and the father each denied that they had any

methamphetamine with them or that they had intended to use that

illegal   drug   while   in   Florida.    The   father   insisted   that   the

methamphetamine was already in the police vehicle and that Deputy

Gray must have been mistaken that he had thoroughly searched the

vehicle before the parents entered the vehicle. Regardless, because of the

substance found in Deputy Gray's police vehicle, the father was charged

with possession of a controlled substance.

      The father testified that, on the day following that arrest, he

attended the treatment program and requested a drug screen; Dr. Jones

confirmed that the results of that drug screen were negative. DHR

questioned the father regarding whether he had the methamphetamine

with him and intended to use it at the beach while visiting the youngest

child and A.M. The father denied that that had been his intention, and

Dr. Jones stated that he believed that if the father had had

methamphetamine, the father likely would have used it immediately.

                                     18
CL-2023-0263; CL-2023-0264, CL-2023-0265, CL-2023-0266, CL-2023-
0268, CL-2023-0269, CL-2023-0270, and CL-2023-0271

     The mother testified that in August 2022 she and the father began

living together again. At that time, she said, the father was sober and

doing well. She stated that she believed that the father had gotten "with

the program" and had adjusted his life to be able to parent the four

children. Anna Starling was the DHR social worker assigned to the four

children's cases from May 2022 through September 2022 and again from

December 2022 through the dates of the final hearing in March 2023.2

Starling testified that DHR had suspected that the parents had resumed

their relationship because they had been arriving for and leaving

visitations together for some time. However, she said, it was not until

January 2023 that the parents first admitted to DHR that they had

resumed living together.

     At the final hearing, the father testified that he had been a drug

addict but that he was not any longer. The father testified that he was a

different   person   than   the   person   he   had   been   when   using

methamphetamine, and he insisted that he would not return to using

     2Starling explained that in September 2022 the four children's
cases were assigned to another DHR social worker because Starling had
too many cases assigned to her at that time. However, the other social
worker left DHR in December 2022, and the four children's cases were
again assigned to Starling.
                                    19
CL-2023-0263; CL-2023-0264, CL-2023-0265, CL-2023-0266, CL-2023-
0268, CL-2023-0269, CL-2023-0270, and CL-2023-0271

illegal drugs. The father admitted that he had missed a lot of the four

children's lives because of the use of illegal drugs and because that drug

use had resulted in the four children being placed in DHR's custody. Parr

stated that, at the time of the final hearing, the father looked much

different than he had when she first met him in February 2021, when,

she said, he exhibited characteristics consistent with the use of

methamphetamine, such as being jittery, dilated pupils, and profuse

sweating. Parr stated that the father had also gained some weight.

     The father stated that he had had a domestic-violence charge and a

shoplifting charge from before the time the four children were removed

from his custody. The father had also been arrested several times while

the four children were in foster care because of his failure to appear for

court hearings on several criminal charges pending against him. The

father admitted that he still has to pay fines and attend court hearings

pertaining to those charges. Also, at the time of the final hearing, the

father was still facing a charge for the possession of a controlled

substance in relation to the July 2022 arrest.

     Starling testified that, when she began working on the four

children's cases in May 2022, the inside of the parents' home was

                                   20
CL-2023-0263; CL-2023-0264, CL-2023-0265, CL-2023-0266, CL-2023-
0268, CL-2023-0269, CL-2023-0270, and CL-2023-0271

sometimes not clean, often had food left on the counters, and had cleaning

supplies left out, implying that the cleaning supplies would be accessible

to young children. Starling's testimony indicated that the condition of the

porches to the mobile home remained the same as already described

herein. However, the mother and the father each testified that they had

repaired the porches in the three weeks before the first day of the final

hearing on March 14, 2023. Starling testified that she had visited the

parents' mobile home a week before the second day of the final hearing

and confirmed that those repairs had been made. Starling stated,

however, that she was concerned that the parents had not addressed the

repairs to the porches earlier.

     The mother testified that she and the father had struggled to repair

the porches but that, at the time of the final hearing, those repairs had

been made. Also, the mother testified that, at the time of the final

hearing, the maternal grandmother was no longer living on the property

on which the mobile home was located.

     Lori Killingsworth, a CASA-program worker assigned to the family

since December 2022, testified that, during the three months that she

had worked on the cases before the final hearing, the parents appeared

                                    21
CL-2023-0263; CL-2023-0264, CL-2023-0265, CL-2023-0266, CL-2023-
0268, CL-2023-0269, CL-2023-0270, and CL-2023-0271

remorseful about their conduct that had resulted in the four children

being placed in foster care. Killingsworth said that her interactions with

the parents had been positive, that the four children were bonded with

the parents and were happy to see them at visits, and that she believed

that the four children should be returned to the parents' custody.

Killingsworth also acknowledged that each of the four children were also

bonded with their respective foster parent or foster parents.

     With regard to employment, the father admitted that he had been

unemployed for approximately one and a half years while the four

children were out of his custody. He explained that his use of illegal drugs

had prevented his being able to obtain or maintain employment. The

father testified that he had been briefly employed in November 2022 and

that in January 2023 he had worked at a chain restaurant but he had not

been assigned enough work hours to earn sufficient income. For that

reason, the father said, he had opted to work for a different restaurant.

The father testified, however, that he lost his wallet and his identification

and that, because he lacked identification, he could not be placed on the

payroll for the second restaurant. The father testified that, after he left

his employment at the second restaurant in February 2023, he began

                                     22
CL-2023-0263; CL-2023-0264, CL-2023-0265, CL-2023-0266, CL-2023-
0268, CL-2023-0269, CL-2023-0270, and CL-2023-0271

working for a landscaping company. The mother stated that the father

had been working for the landscaping company for approximately two

weeks. The mother and the father each stated that the father expected to

receive his first paycheck from the landscaping company on the Friday

after the March 14, 2023, portion of the final hearing; for that reason, the

mother said, she did not know the amount of the father's current income.

The father testified that he had been hired for a full-time position at a

rate of pay of $12.50 per hour. No evidence was presented at the March

27, 2023, portion of the final hearing regarding whether the father had

received that paycheck or remained employed by the landscaping

company.

     Starling testified that, when she last spoke to the father, he had

stated that he was unemployed but planned to begin working for a

landscaping company. Starling testified that she had asked the father to

bring his paperwork for that job to the most recent visitation with the

four children but that he had not done so.

     At the time of the final hearing, the mother had been employed for

approximately nine months at a beauty-supply store. The mother

testified that she often opened or closed that store and that she had the

                                    23
CL-2023-0263; CL-2023-0264, CL-2023-0265, CL-2023-0266, CL-2023-
0268, CL-2023-0269, CL-2023-0270, and CL-2023-0271

keys to that store. The mother's store manager testified that the mother

was a good employee and that the mother worked approximately 29 hours

a week because the store management had initially wanted the mother

to be a part-time employee. However, the store manager said, she

expected to be able to promote the mother to a full-time assistant-

manager position in April 2023.

     Evidence was presented indicating that neither the mother nor the

father had contributed to the four children's support during the time they

had been out of the parents' custody. The mother testified that there were

toys and clothes for the four children at the mobile home but that she was

waiting to use them upon the return of the four children to her custody.

The father testified that he had recently discussed with DHR social

workers the possibility of providing clothes to the four children's

respective foster parents. A few months before the final hearing, the

mother had provided some clothes for the four children. The mother had

also provided the four children with gifts of toys during some visits.

     At the time of the final hearing, each of the four children was in a

separate foster home. The current foster mothers for each of the four

children testified at the final hearing. That testimony indicated that two

                                    24
CL-2023-0263; CL-2023-0264, CL-2023-0265, CL-2023-0266, CL-2023-
0268, CL-2023-0269, CL-2023-0270, and CL-2023-0271

of the four children had been in the same, but separate, foster homes

since they had been removed from the parents' custody in December

2020. The youngest of the four children was three years old at the time

of the final hearing and had been in the same foster home since June 1,

2021; that child had spent more time in his foster home than he had in

the custody of the parents. The oldest of the four children was seven years

old at the time of the final hearing, and he had transferred foster homes

several times because of his behavioral outbursts. At the time of the final

hearing, that child had been in his current foster home for 10 months,

and he was doing well.

     All of the foster parents who testified at the final hearing stated

that the four children were doing well in their respective foster homes

and benefiting from the routine provided in their homes. Each of those

foster parents stated that they were emotionally bonded with their foster

child, that their foster child loved them and their family, and that they

wanted to adopt their foster child if the mother's and the father's parental

rights were terminated.

     The parents have had one hour of visitation with the four children

each week, and each has exercised that visitation consistently. The DHR

                                    25
CL-2023-0263; CL-2023-0264, CL-2023-0265, CL-2023-0266, CL-2023-
0268, CL-2023-0269, CL-2023-0270, and CL-2023-0271

social workers testified that, other than the incident before the April 2021

visit, the parents' visitations with the four children went well. Summers

testified that the four children are bonded with the parents and with each

other. Two of the foster mothers stated that they had observed a bond

between the parents and the four children in their care.

     Summers and Starling pointed out in their testimony that, at the

time of the final hearing, the four children had been in foster care for two

years and three months. They both opined that the parents had had

sufficient time to attempt to reunite with the four children and to

demonstrate their long-term ability to parent the four children. DHR also

presented evidence indicating that there were no relatives who were

willing or appropriate placement alternatives for the four children.

     In a termination-of-parental-rights action, a juvenile court must

apply a two-pronged test by determining whether the child is dependent,

i.e., whether there are grounds warranting the termination of the

parent's parental rights, and whether there exists a viable alternative to

termination. Ex parte T.V., 971 So. 2d 1, 4 (Ala. 2007) (citing Ex parte

Beasley, 564 So. 3d 950, 945-55 (Ala. 1990)). Section 12-15-319, Ala. Code

1975, which is a part of the Alabama Juvenile Justice Act ("the AJJA"),

                                    26
CL-2023-0263; CL-2023-0264, CL-2023-0265, CL-2023-0266, CL-2023-
0268, CL-2023-0269, CL-2023-0270, and CL-2023-0271

§ 12-15-101 et seq., Ala. Code 1975, sets forth the grounds for termination

of parental rights and a nonexclusive list of factors for a juvenile court to

consider when determining whether to terminate a parent's parental

rights. Although this court has stated that, in deciding whether to

terminate parental rights, a juvenile court must determine whether a

child is "dependent" and also whether there are viable alternatives to

termination, see, e.g., B.M. v. State, 895 So. 2d 319, 331 (Ala. Civ. App.

2004), and similar cases, the use of the term "dependent" within the

framework of a termination-of-parental-rights action is inaccurate or

misleading. In the context of a termination-of-parental-rights action, the

courts' use of the term "dependent" in previous cases does not refer to

that term as defined by the AJJA in § 12-15-102(8), Ala. Code 1975.

Instead, "[i]n order for the juvenile court to make a finding that a child is

dependent in a case involving termination of parental rights, the juvenile

court must first determine by clear and convincing evidence that grounds

[under § 12-15-319] for termination of parental rights exist." Talladega

Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res. v. J.J., 187 So. 3d 705, 711 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015).

See also Ex parte T.V., 971 So. 2d 1, 4 (Ala. 2007) ("For a finding of

dependency, the court must consider whether there are grounds for

                                     27
CL-2023-0263; CL-2023-0264, CL-2023-0265, CL-2023-0266, CL-2023-
0268, CL-2023-0269, CL-2023-0270, and CL-2023-0271

terminating the parental rights, including but not limited to the grounds

specified in [former] § 26-18-7[, Ala. Code 1975, now § 12-15-319, Ala.

Code 1975]."). Therefore, in considering an action involving a claim

seeking to terminate a parent's parental rights, the courts must apply

the two-pronged test.

           " 'Once the court has complied with this two-prong test --
     that is, once it has determined that the petitioner has met the
     statutory burden of proof and that, having considered and
     rejected other alternatives, a termination of parental rights is
     in the best interest of the child -- it can order the termination
     of parental rights . ' "

Ex parte T.V., 971 So. 2d at 5 (quoting Ex parte Beasley, 564 So. 2d at

945-55).

              "A judgment terminating parental rights must be
     supported by clear and convincing evidence, which is
     ' " '[e]vidence that, when weighed against evidence in
     opposition, will produce in the mind of the trier of fact a firm
     conviction as to each essential element of the claim and a high
     probability as to the correctness of the conclusion.' " ' C.O. v.
     Jefferson Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 206 So. 3d 621, 627 (Ala.
     Civ. App. 2016) (quoting L.M. v. D.D.F., 840 So. 2d 171, 179
     (Ala. Civ. App. 2002), quoting in turn Ala. Code 1975, § 6-11-
     20(b)(4)).

                " ' "[T]he  evidence necessary for
                appellate affirmance of a judgment
                based on a factual finding in the
                context of a case in which the ultimate
                standard for a factual decision by the

                                    28
CL-2023-0263; CL-2023-0264, CL-2023-0265, CL-2023-0266, CL-2023-
0268, CL-2023-0269, CL-2023-0270, and CL-2023-0271

                 trial court is clear and convincing
                 evidence is evidence that a fact-finder
                 reasonably could find to clearly and
                 convincingly ... establish the fact
                 sought to be proved."

     " ' KGS Steel[, Inc. v. McInish,] 47 So. 3d [749] at 761 [(Ala.
     Civ. App. 2006)].

                 " '… [F]or trial courts ruling ... in civil cases
           to which a clear-and-convincing-evidence standard
           of proof applies, "the judge must view the evidence
           presented through the prism of the substantive
           evidentiary burden[,]" [Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
           Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 254, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed.
           2d 202 (1986)]; thus, the appellate court must also
           look through a prism to determine whether there
           was substantial evidence before the trial court to
           support a factual finding, based upon the trial
           court's weighing of the evidence, that would
           "produce in the mind [of the trial court] a firm
           conviction as to each element of the claim and a
           high probability as to the correctness of the
           conclusion." '

     "Ex parte McInish, 47 So. 3d 767, 778 (Ala. 2008). This court
     does not reweigh the evidence but, rather, determines
     whether the findings of fact made by the juvenile court are
     supported by evidence that the juvenile court could have
     found to be clear and convincing. See Ex parte T.V., 971 So.
     2d 1, 9 (Ala. 2007). When those findings rest on ore tenus
     evidence, this court presumes their correctness. Id."

E.A.D. v. Randolph Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 369 So. 3d 1069, 1071-72

(Ala. Civ. App. 2022).

                                     29
CL-2023-0263; CL-2023-0264, CL-2023-0265, CL-2023-0266, CL-2023-
0268, CL-2023-0269, CL-2023-0270, and CL-2023-0271

     In its nearly identical, April 17, 2023, judgments entered in each of

the four actions, the juvenile court found that the grounds for

terminating parental rights identified in § 12-15-319 -- specifically, that

the parents were unwilling or unable to discharge their parental

responsibilities to the four children and that their conduct or condition

was unlikely to improve in the foreseeable future -- existed. In addition,

the juvenile court determined that there was no viable alternative to the

termination of the mother's and the father's parental rights and that the

termination of the mother's and the father's parental rights was in the

four children's best interests.

     The mother argues that the juvenile court erred in terminating her

parental rights. She contends, in essence, that she had adjusted her

circumstances to meet the needs of the four children. DHR presented

little evidence regarding the mother's participation in reunification

services; it focused much of its presentation of the evidence on services

offered to the father. For example, other than admitting that, at some

point, the mother had attended a substance-abuse-treatment program

offered by SpectraCare, DHR presented no evidence concerning the

mother's substance-abuse treatment, and it submitted no evidence to the

                                    30
CL-2023-0263; CL-2023-0264, CL-2023-0265, CL-2023-0266, CL-2023-
0268, CL-2023-0269, CL-2023-0270, and CL-2023-0271

juvenile court regarding any drug screens in which the mother might

have participated.

     The mother contends that she had attained and maintained

sobriety by the time of the final hearing. The undisputed evidence in the

record is that the mother stopped using methamphetamine in September

2021, and, she said, she had been sober since that time. Thus, at the time

DHR filed its April 1, 2022, termination-of-parental-rights petitions, the

mother had been sober for approximately 7 months, and she had

remained sober for approximately 18 months by the time of the final

hearing.

     The record indicates that the mother had completed parenting

classes and anger-management classes. The mother also stated that she

had participated in psychological and psychiatric evaluations and that

she had participated in counseling offered through the Exchange Center.

Summers testified that the mother had completed the counseling. Parr

testified that counseling for the mother with a different provider had

gone well until that counselor lost contact with the mother. Other than

citing the mother's stress from the involvement of DHR in the family and

having lost custody of the four children, her veiled threats to Parr, and

                                   31
CL-2023-0263; CL-2023-0264, CL-2023-0265, CL-2023-0266, CL-2023-
0268, CL-2023-0269, CL-2023-0270, and CL-2023-0271

her statement that she would fight to the death for her children, DHR

failed to present any evidence indicating that the mother had a

psychological or psychiatric condition for which further counseling was

recommended or necessary.

     The mother also obtained employment in June 2022. Although it

might be argued that the mother obtained employment only after DHR

had filed its termination-of-parental-rights petitions, we note that the

mother gave birth to the youngest child in May 2022, shortly after DHR

had filed those termination petitions. Thus, the mother obtained

employment shortly after the birth of her youngest child. The record

demonstrates that the mother has maintained that employment, and she

presented evidence indicating that she was to be promoted to a

managerial position shortly after the final hearing.

     The condition of the interior of the mobile home in which the

parents lived did not appear to be an issue for DHR by mid-2021.

However, until three weeks before the final hearing, the parents had

failed to repair the porches to address safety concerns about the outside

of their home. In addition, the record would support the conclusion that

both the mother and the father were untruthful about and minimized the

                                   32
CL-2023-0263; CL-2023-0264, CL-2023-0265, CL-2023-0266, CL-2023-
0268, CL-2023-0269, CL-2023-0270, and CL-2023-0271

extent of the domestic violence between them and that, other than the

mother providing toys and clothes on one occasion, neither parent has

contributed to the support of the four children. We do not consider those

issues to be unimportant. However, DHR's evidence indicates that the

most recent incident of possible domestic violence between the mother

and the father occurred in April 2021, which was before either parent

stopped using methamphetamine. Also, DHR's child-support division did

not obtain an order requiring the mother and/or the father to pay child

support during the time the four children have been out of their custody.

The record does not indicate whether DHR social workers encouraged the

mother and/or the father to provide financial or other forms of support

for the four children.

     The    record   indicates   that,   when   she   first   ceased   using

methamphetamine, the mother made the father move out of the family's

mobile home because he was continuing to abuse illegal drugs. The father

presented evidence indicating that he had occasionally been sober for as

long as one month during the time the four children have been out of the

parents' custody. However, the mother had not allowed the father to

return to the family home until, she said, she believed that there was an

                                    33
CL-2023-0263; CL-2023-0264, CL-2023-0265, CL-2023-0266, CL-2023-
0268, CL-2023-0269, CL-2023-0270, and CL-2023-0271

actual and observable change in the father, i.e., that he had stopped, or

was legitimately attempting to stop, using illegal drugs. At the time the

father resumed living with the mother in August 2022, he had been in

substance-abuse treatment for approximately two months and was

testing negative for the use of illegal drugs. Thus, the evidence

demonstrates that the mother is willing to remove the father from her

residence if he fails to maintain his sobriety.

     In these cases, DHR filed its petitions to terminate the mother's and

the father's parental rights approximately 16 months after the four

children had been removed from the parents' custody. An additional year

elapsed between when DHR filed its petitions to terminate the mother's

and the father's parental rights and the final hearing; the record

indicates that these cases were continued twice on the motion of DHR,

once on the father's motion, and once because of a conflict in the juvenile

court's docket. During that extensive delay in bringing these cases to

trial, the four children's bonds with their respective foster parents

continued to strengthen. However, the record also demonstrates that

each of the four children remain closely emotionally bonded with their

parents and with each other.

                                    34
CL-2023-0263; CL-2023-0264, CL-2023-0265, CL-2023-0266, CL-2023-
0268, CL-2023-0269, CL-2023-0270, and CL-2023-0271

     The four children were removed from the mother's custody because

of her drug use, because of concerns of domestic violence within the home,

and because of the condition of the mobile home in which the family was

living. At the time of the final hearing, DHR did not present evidence

indicating that, with regard to the mother, those issues remained a

concern. "This court has consistently held that the existence of evidence

of current conditions or conduct relating to a parent's inability or

unwillingness to care for his or her children is implicit in the requirement

that termination of parental rights be based on clear and convincing

evidence." D.O. v. Calhoun Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 859 So. 2d 439, 444

(Ala. Civ. App. 2003) (final emphasis added). Given the mother's

circumstances at the time of the final hearing, we conclude that the

juvenile court erred in determining that DHR had presented clear and

convincing evidence indicating that the mother was unwilling or unable

to properly parent the four children. Therefore, because DHR failed to

present sufficient evidence as to one of the two prongs of the test

discussed in Ex parte T.V., supra, we hold that the juvenile court erred

in terminating the mother's parental rights. We pretermit discussion of

the mother's arguments concerning whether the evidence supports a

                                    35
CL-2023-0263; CL-2023-0264, CL-2023-0265, CL-2023-0266, CL-2023-
0268, CL-2023-0269, CL-2023-0270, and CL-2023-0271

determination that DHR made reasonable efforts to reunite her with the

four children and whether there were viable alternatives to the

termination of her parental rights.

     The father also argues that the juvenile court erred in determining

that there were grounds warranting the termination of his parental

rights, i.e., that he was either unable or unwilling to properly parent the

four children and to meet the four children's needs. The father's

argument challenging the basis for the termination of his parental rights

to the four children poses a closer question than that asserted by the

mother. The record demonstrates that the father attended parenting

classes and anger-management classes. However, it is not clear if he

participated, even briefly, in individual counseling. Also, the father did

not seriously attempt any substance-abuse treatment until two months

after DHR filed its petitions seeking to terminate his parental rights. The

evidence would support a determination that the father's attempts at

reunification with the four children were intended only to forestall the

termination of his parental rights. See A.M.F. v. Tuscaloosa Cnty. Dep't

of Hum. Res., 75 So. 3d 1206, 1213 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011); and K.J. v. Pike

Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 275 So. 3d 1135, 1145 (Ala. Civ. App. 2018).

                                      36
CL-2023-0263; CL-2023-0264, CL-2023-0265, CL-2023-0266, CL-2023-
0268, CL-2023-0269, CL-2023-0270, and CL-2023-0271

However, because of the delay in trying these cases, at the time of the

final hearing, the father had been sober and had not used illegal drugs

for approximately nine months. The father was also employed and had

stable housing with the mother.

     In J.G. v. Lauderdale County Department of Human Resources,

[Ms. 2210452, Jan. 13, 2023] ___ So. 3d ___, ___ (Ala. Civ. App. 2023), the

Lauderdale County Department of Human Resources ("the Lauderdale

County DHR") filed petitions to terminate the parental rights of M.G. and

J.G., the mother and the father of four children. The Lauderdale Juvenile

Court entered judgments denying the petitions to terminate M.G.'s

parental rights but granting those petitions so far as they sought to

terminate J.G.'s parental rights. The Lauderdale County DHR had found

J.G. to be "indicated" for the neglect and abuse of his children and for the

abuse of his stepchild. In addition, the record indicated that J.G. had

committed domestic violence against M.G., had failed to participate in

reunification services, had visited the four children only sporadically, and

had last visited them approximately 18 months before the termination-

of-parental-rights judgments were entered. In addition, the father had

failed to participate in substance-abuse treatment. In contrast, M.G. had

                                    37
CL-2023-0263; CL-2023-0264, CL-2023-0265, CL-2023-0266, CL-2023-
0268, CL-2023-0269, CL-2023-0270, and CL-2023-0271

cooperated with the Lauderdale County DHR's reunification efforts and

had divorced J.G. before the Lauderdale County DHR filed its

termination petitions.

     This court reversed the termination judgments in J.G., supra,

relying in part on J.C.D. v. Lauderdale County Department of Human

Resources, 180 So. 3d 900, 901 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015), stating, in part, that

the " 'termination of the parental rights of a noncustodial parent is not

appropriate in cases in which the children can safely reside with the

custodial parent and the continuation of the noncustodial parent's

relationship does not present any harm to the children.' " J.G., ___ So. 3d

at ___. In addition, this court noted that there were no potential adoptive

resources for the four children. J.G., ___ So. 3d at ___.

     In this case, unlike in J.G., supra, the mother and the father remain

in a relationship and are living together. Thus, the premise that the four

children's safety when visiting with a noncustodial parent would be

ensured by the custodial parent is not applicable here, as it was in J.G.,

supra, and in J.C.D., supra. However, the record does establish that the

mother would not allow the father to live with her while she was

attaining sobriety and he was still abusing illegal drugs. DHR presented

                                     38
CL-2023-0263; CL-2023-0264, CL-2023-0265, CL-2023-0266, CL-2023-
0268, CL-2023-0269, CL-2023-0270, and CL-2023-0271

no evidence indicating that the mother, while sober, lacked the capacity

to protect the four children from any possible negative behavior of the

father. Also, there is no limitation upon the conditions the juvenile court

may place on a future return of custody of the four children to the mother.

The juvenile court is free to specify that the father have only limited

contact with the four children until he proves that he has maintained his

own sobriety. Moreover, because we have reversed those parts of the

judgments that terminated the mother's parental rights, the four

children may not, at this time, be adopted by others even if this court

were to affirm those parts of the judgments terminating the father's

parental rights.

     In J.G., supra, this court declined to create a bright-light rule that

the ability to safely return custody of a child or children to one parent

would prevent the termination of the parental rights of the other parent,

based on the viable-alternatives prong discussed in Ex parte T.V., supra.

In these cases, we again make no such bright-line rule. Instead, we hold

that, given the progress made by the father over the nine months

preceding the final hearing, and given that we have reversed the

termination of the mother's parental rights, the juvenile court also erred

                                    39
CL-2023-0263; CL-2023-0264, CL-2023-0265, CL-2023-0266, CL-2023-
0268, CL-2023-0269, CL-2023-0270, and CL-2023-0271

in terminating the father's parental rights in these specific cases. Even

assuming that the juvenile court did not err in determining that the

father was unable or unwilling to adjust his circumstances to meet the

needs of the four children, under the particular facts of these cases, we

conclude that there was a viable alternative to the termination of the

father's parental rights. Accordingly, based on the specific facts in these

cases, we reverse the judgments and remand the causes to the juvenile

court.

     CL-2023-0263 -- REVERSED AND REMANDED.

     CL-2023-0264 -- REVERSED AND REMANDED.

     CL-2023-0265 -- REVERSED AND REMANDED.

     CL-2023-0266 -- REVERSED AND REMANDED.

     CL-2023-0268 -- REVERSED AND REMANDED.

     CL-2023-0269 -- REVERSED AND REMANDED.

     CL-2023-0270 -- REVERSED AND REMANDED.

     CL-2023-0271 -- REVERSED AND REMANDED.

     Moore, Edwards, Hanson, and Fridy, JJ., concur.

     Thompson, P.J., concurs in the result, without opinion.

                                    40