Court Opinion

ID: 9381994
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-24 15:02:01.742171+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:36.249544
License: Public Domain

Rel: March 24, 2023

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter.
Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue,
Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections
may be made before the opinion is published in Southern Reporter.

 ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
                               OCTOBER TERM, 2022-2023
                                _________________________

                             CL-2022-0799 and CL-2022-0800
                                _________________________

                                                    R.H.

                                                      v.

            Madison County Department of Human Resources
                       _________________________

                             CL-2022-0813 and CL-2022-0814
                                _________________________

                                                    A.H.

                                                      v.

            Madison County Department of Human Resources
                       _________________________

                       Appeals from Madison Juvenile Court
                         (JU-21-131.02 and JU-21-132.02)
CL-2022-0799, CL-2022-0800, CL-2022-0813, and CL-2022-0814

FRIDY, Judge.

     In these consolidated appeals R.H. ("the father") and A.H. ("the

mother") appeal from judgments of the Madison Juvenile Court ("the

juvenile court") terminating their parental rights to N.H. and A.G.H.,

their two children. We reverse and remand.

                                Background

     When the juvenile court tried these actions on May 31, 2022, the

father was twenty-eight years old; the mother was twenty-nine years old;

N.H., the older child, was four years old; and A.G.H. was a few months

shy of two. The older child is autistic.

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

first became involved with the mother and the father's family on

February 10, 2021, after it received a report that the residence where the

family was living was filthy and unhealthy and that the children did not

have proper hygiene. DHR investigated and found that the residence was

extremely dirty and cluttered and that the children appeared to be

neglected. The father told DHR that he had to work twelve hours a day,

that he was too tired to clean the house when he came home from work,

and that he had delegated the household chores to the mother. The

                                      2
CL-2022-0799, CL-2022-0800, CL-2022-0813, and CL-2022-0814

mother did not work but appeared to the DHR caseworker to have

mental-health issues that prevented her from cleaning the residence and

properly caring for the children.

       Initially, DHR placed the children with the children's maternal

uncle pursuant to a safety plan; however, DHR terminated that safety

plan after the maternal uncle tested positive for marijuana. DHR then

placed the children in foster care on February 17, 2021. Thereafter, the

Huntsville Housing Authority ("the housing authority"), the parents'

landlord, evicted them from the residence where they had been living

because of the condition of the residence. The housing authority also

imposed a charge for damage to the residence, which the parents still

owe.

       DHR began providing the parents with services and commenced

dependency actions regarding the children. DHR provided the parents

with psychological evaluations and hired Donnie Thompson, a woman

who is an independent service provider, to provide the parents with

parenting instruction and assistance in finding housing and in finding

employment for the mother. Thompson met with the parents three to four

times per month. Thompson testified that the parents were slow to take

                                    3
CL-2022-0799, CL-2022-0800, CL-2022-0813, and CL-2022-0814

any action to obtain stable housing. The mother obtained employment

with a company that provides other companies with temporary workers.

According to Thompson, the parents did not make much progress in

learning parenting skills. Thompson was still working with the parents

when the juvenile court tried these actions.

     Thompson testified that the parents had found a house that they

wanted to rent. A relative of the owner of the house told the parents that

they could move in, and they did. However, the owner of the house never

executed a written lease granting them the legal right to live in the

house, even though the parents paid rent. The parents moved out of the

house after approximately six months. Thompson testified that the

furniture she had observed in that house when she met with the parents

had belonged to a previous occupant of the house and that the parents

had no belongings in the house other than their clothes.

     Thompson testified that the parents have a bond with the children,

that the parents' interactions with the children appeared to be loving,

and that she had never witnessed the parents do anything that was

detrimental to the children. She said that she had received a report that

the mother had said that the father had not gone to one of the parents'

                                    4
CL-2022-0799, CL-2022-0800, CL-2022-0813, and CL-2022-0814

scheduled visitations with the children because, he had said, he did not

know what he might do to the children. The father testified that what he

had said to the mother on that occasion was not intended to indicate that

he might physically or intentionally hurt the children. He testified that

he was indicating that he had had a very stressful day at work, that he

was in a bad mood as a result, and that he did not want the children to

think that they were the cause of his bad mood. He said that his work

had been stressful that day because, he said, three different customers

had yelled at him. The father testified that he had never committed a

violent act and that no government agency had ever investigated an

allegation that he had committed a violent act.

     The father testified that, on the day of the trial, he and the mother

were living in an extended-stay motel; however, he testified that, when

he got paid the next day, he would pay the $50 application fee for an

application to rent an apartment at an apartment complex. He said that

he and the mother had already submitted the application but that the

apartment complex would not consider the application until they had

paid the $50 application fee.

                                   5
CL-2022-0799, CL-2022-0800, CL-2022-0813, and CL-2022-0814

     The father testified that he is employed as an assistant manager at

an automobile-rental company. He said that he works twelve hours per

day on four days of each week, that he works thirteen hours on one day

each week, and that he works eight hours on one day of each week. He

earns $15 per hour for the first forty hours that he works each week and

earns $22.50 per hour for all hours that he works after the first forty. He

testified that his boss is the only person who can cover for him if he misses

work.

     The father testified that, after the housing authority evicted him

and the mother from the residence that they were renting in 2021, he and

the mother had not been able to obtain housing through the housing

authority.

     The father testified that, because of his work schedule, the only

time he could visit the children was on Sunday nights after he got off

work at 5:00 p.m. The father testified that he loves his children very

much, that he has a bond with them, and that they always smile when

they see him coming.

     The father testified that the mother had damaged their only

automobile when she hit a concrete culvert; that they had not then had

                                     6
CL-2022-0799, CL-2022-0800, CL-2022-0813, and CL-2022-0814

enough money to pay for repairs to the automobile; that, consequently,

he had had to rent transportation from the automobile-rental company

where he works; that the only vehicle he could rent was a cargo van that

was not suitable for transporting the children; and that he still owed

$1,500 for the rental of the cargo van. The parents were eventually able

to pay for the repairs to their automobile.

     The father testified that the older child, who is autistic, has a habit

of hitting people and things. The father testified that, when the older

child does that, the father talks to him and tells him that he should not

hit people and things. If the child persists, the father puts him in time

out for three to five minutes. The father testified that the younger child's

behavior is not normal but that she has not been formally diagnosed with

a disorder.

     The mother testified that, when she was a teenager, she had been

diagnosed with ADHD and depression and had been prescribed

medication. She said that the medications had helped her but that, when

she was nineteen, she thought she knew better than the doctors and

stopped taking the medications. She testified that she had not taken any

medication for her mental-health problems from the time she stopped

                                     7
CL-2022-0799, CL-2022-0800, CL-2022-0813, and CL-2022-0814

taking them at age nineteen until DHR became involved in February

2021. She testified that, after DHR became involved, she had seen a

psychiatrist, who prescribed medication that had greatly improved her

mood and her ability to function. She said that the psychiatrist had

changed her medication several times and that, when these actions were

tried, she was taking trazadone and bupropion. She testified that, before

she started taking the medications that the psychiatrist had prescribed,

she had had difficulty waking up in the morning and staying awake;

however, the medication had alleviated those problems. She said that her

interactions with the children had also improved since she began taking

medication. She testified that she and the father have good relationships

with the children and that she wanted to keep working on herself so that

she could regain custody of them. She admitted that she and the father

still had not obtained stable housing.

     C.P., the children's foster parent, testified that she had known the

mother before DHR became involved with the mother and father's family;

her daughter was married to the mother's brother for a period, although

they are now divorced. C.P. was not licensed as a foster parent when DHR

                                    8
CL-2022-0799, CL-2022-0800, CL-2022-0813, and CL-2022-0814

first became involved; she obtained a license to act as a foster parent for

the specific purpose of serving as the children's foster parent.

     C.P. testified that spending time with the mother and the father

makes the children happy; that, in her opinion, the children need the

mother and the father to remain involved in their lives; that the mother

and father's continued involvement in the children's lives would benefit

the children; and that, regardless of whether the juvenile court

terminated the mother's and the father's parental rights, she would allow

the mother and the father to remain involved in the children's lives.

     After the trial, the juvenile court, on June 17, 2022, entered

essentially identical judgments terminating the mother's and the father's

parental rights to both of the children. The judgments contained

extensive findings of fact. Regarding the issue whether there were viable

alternatives to terminating the mother's and the father's parental rights,

the judgments stated:

     "[DHR] has made reasonable efforts to identify and locate
     suitable relatives in order to determine whether such
     relatives might provide care for the child[ren], thus avoiding
     the necessity of terminating parental rights. Neither [DHR],
     the Court, the guardian ad litem, nor the parents have been
     able to identify any relative who might assume custody of
     either child. Relatives who were considered were either

                                     9
CL-2022-0799, CL-2022-0800, CL-2022-0813, and CL-2022-0814

     unwilling or unable to assume custody and provide
     permanency for them.

           "….

     "Neither [DHR] nor this Court believes that there is any
     alternative less drastic than termination of parental rights
     available to serve the best interests of the [children].
     Placement alternatives which were considered were
     determined not to be in [the children's] best interests. Despite
     a diligent search, [DHR] has been unable to locate a suitable
     relative to assume custody of the [children]."

Neither parent filed a postjudgment motion. The mother timely appealed

on June 24, 2022, and the father timely appealed on June 30, 2022.

                           Standard of Review

     Appellate courts must apply a presumption of correctness in favor

of the juvenile court's findings based on ore tenus evidence presented in

a termination-of-parental-rights action and will reverse a juvenile court's

judgment terminating parental rights only if the record shows that the

judgment is not supported by clear and convincing evidence. J.C. v. State

Dep't of Hum. Res., 986 So. 2d 1172, 1183 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007). "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." K.S.B. v.

M.C.B., 219 So. 3d 650, 653 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016). Clear and convincing

                                    10
CL-2022-0799, CL-2022-0800, CL-2022-0813, and CL-2022-0814

evidence is evidence 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." § 6-11-20(b)(4), Ala. Code 1975. "Proof by clear and

convincing evidence requires a level of proof greater than a

preponderance of the evidence or the substantial weight of the evidence,

but less than beyond a reasonable doubt." Id.

                                  Analysis

      Under well-settled law, a juvenile court may terminate a parent's

parental rights if the party seeking the termination (1) proves, by clear

and convincing evidence, that one of the grounds for termination

specified in § 12-15-319(a), Ala. Code 1975, exists and (2) proves, by clear

and convincing evidence, that no viable alternative to terminating the

parent's parental rights exists. See, e.g., J.C.L. v. J.B.L., [Ms. 2200841,

Aug. 5, 2022] ___ So. 3d ___ , ___ (Ala. Civ. App. 2022). Section 12-15-

319(a) provides that grounds for terminating parental rights exist if clear

and convincing evidence supports a finding that the parents "are unable

or unwilling to discharge their responsibilities to and for the child, or that

the conduct or condition of the parents renders them unable to properly

                                     11
CL-2022-0799, CL-2022-0800, CL-2022-0813, and CL-2022-0814

care for the child and that the conduct or condition is unlikely to change

in the foreseeable future." Section 12-15-319(a) also specifies factors for

a juvenile court to consider in determining whether grounds for

termination exist.

      The second part of the test for determining whether parental rights

can be terminated is whether there is clear and convincing evidence

indicating that no viable alternative to termination exists. If there is

another viable alternative that will protect the child and is less drastic

than termination, termination would violate the parent's due-process

rights. See Ex parte T.V., 971 So. 2d 1, 9 (Ala. 2007) ("The need to

consider all viable alternatives is rooted, in part, in the recognition that

the termination of parental rights is a drastic step that once taken cannot

be withdrawn and that implicates due process.").

     On appeal, the mother and the father make several arguments

challenging the judgments terminating their parental rights; however,

we find that the dispositive issue is whether DHR proved by clear and

convincing evidence that there was no viable alternative to termination

of their parental rights. Based on this court's holdings in A.B. v.

Montgomery County Department of Human Resources, [Ms. 2210106,

                                    12
CL-2022-0799, CL-2022-0800, CL-2022-0813, and CL-2022-0814

Aug. 19, 2022] ___ So. 3d ___, ___ (Ala. Civ. App. 2022), and P.M. v. Lee

County Department of Human Resources, 335 So. 3d 1163, 1172 (Ala.

Civ. App. 2021), we conclude that DHR did not prove by clear and

convincing evidence that there was no viable alternative to termination

of the mother's and the father's parental rights. "As we explained in P.M.

[v. Lee County Department of Human Resources, 335 So. 3d 1163, 1172

(Ala. Civ. App. 2021)], when foster parents are amenable to continued

contact between the child and the parent and when the evidence suggests

that such contact is beneficial for the child, maintenance of the status

quo or permanent placement with the foster parents can be a viable

alternative to the termination of a parent's parental rights." A.B., ___ So.

3d at ___.

     In the present case, C.P., the children's current foster parent, who

had had a relationship with the mother that preexisted DHR's

involvement, testified that spending time with the mother and the father

made the children happy; that, in her opinion, it was important that the

mother and the father remain a part of the children's lives; that, in her

opinion, the children needed the mother and the father; and that,

regardless of whether the juvenile court terminated the mother's and the

                                    13
CL-2022-0799, CL-2022-0800, CL-2022-0813, and CL-2022-0814

father's parental rights, she would allow the mother and the father to

remain active and engaged in the children's lives. Thompson, the

independent service provider, also testified that the parents have a bond

with the children and that their interactions with the children appear to

be loving. The mother testified that she and the father have good

relationships with the children and that she wanted to keep working on

herself so that she could regain custody of them. In addition, the father

testified that he loves his children very much and that he has a bond with

them. Thus, like in A.B. and P.M., the foster parent in the present case

was amenable to continued contact between the children and the parents,

and the evidence indicated that such contact benefited the children.

Consequently, like in A.B. and P.M., maintaining the status quo or

permanent placement with the foster mother was a viable alternative to

terminating the mother's and the father's parental rights.

     DHR argues that the mother has not argued in her appellate brief

that maintaining the status quo was a viable alternative to terminating

her parental rights; however, on page 24 of her appellate brief, the

mother argues:

           "Even if there is a finding of dependency, a trial court
     'also must find by clear and convincing evidence that there are

                                   14
CL-2022-0799, CL-2022-0800, CL-2022-0813, and CL-2022-0814

     no viable alternatives to the termination of parental rights.'
     Ex parte T.V., 971 So. 2d 1, 7 (Ala. 2007). A viable alternative
     to termination of a person's parental rights is for a child to
     remain in the safe and stable home of a foster parent who is
     willing to allow the continued contact between a parent and
     child. A.B. v. Montgomery County Department of Human
     Resources, [Ms. 2210106, Aug. 19, 2022] ___ So. 3d ___ (Ala.
     Civ. App. 2022). Based on the testimony of the foster parent,
     that viable alternative exists in this matter."

Accordingly, we find no merit in DHR's argument that the mother has

not argued in her appellate brief that maintaining the status quo was a

viable alternative to terminating her parental rights.

     DHR also argues that the parents failed to preserve their argument

that maintaining the status quo constituted a viable alternative to

terminating their parental rights because, DHR says, the parents did not

present that argument to the juvenile court. DHR bore the burden of

proving by clear and convincing evidence that there was no viable

alternative to terminating the parents' parental rights. See Ex parte

Ogle, 516 So. 2d 243, 247 (Ala. 1987) (holding that the party attempting

to terminate a parent's parental rights has the burden to prove, by clear

and convincing evidence, that there is no viable alternative). Thus, the

issue whether DHR met its burden of proof is a sufficiency-of-the-

evidence question. In pertinent part, Rule 52(b), Ala. R. Civ. P., provides:

                                    15
CL-2022-0799, CL-2022-0800, CL-2022-0813, and CL-2022-0814

     "When findings of fact are made in actions tried by the court
     without a jury, the question of the sufficiency of the evidence
     to support the findings may thereafter be raised whether or
     not the party raising the question has made in the court an
     objection to such findings or has made a motion to amend
     them or a motion for judgment or a motion for a new trial."
In Ex parte Vaughn, 495 So. 2d 83, 87 (Ala. 1986), our supreme court

explained:

     "Rule 52(b) [, Ala. R. Civ. P.,] provides an exemption from the
     requirement of invoking a ruling by the trial court on the issue
     of evidentiary insufficiency when written findings of fact are
     made. The trial court's ruling on the sufficiency of the
     evidence is implicit in a decree in which the trial judge is the
     trier of the facts. Moreover, by making written findings of fact,
     the trial judge has had the additional opportunity to
     reconsider the evidence and discover and correct any error in
     judgment which he or she may have made upon initial review.
     Thus, when written findings of fact are made, they serve the
     same useful purpose as does an objection to the trial court's
     findings, a motion to amend them, a motion for a new trial,
     and a motion to dismiss under [former] Rule 41(b), [Ala. R.
     Civ. P. 1] -- to permit the trial judge an opportunity to carefully
     review the evidence and to perfect the issues for review on
     appeal."

     1When    Ex parte Vaughn was decided, Rule 41 allowed a defendant
in a nonjury case to move to dismiss an action for failure of proof. See Ex
parte Vaughn, 495 So. 2d at 86 n.4. Rule 41 was amended in 1995, and
that matter is now covered by Rule 52(c), Ala. R. Civ. P. See Committee
Comments to October 1, 1955, Amendment to Rule 41 ("This amendment
deletes the provision for dismissal by the court in a nonjury case for a
failure of proof. This matter is now covered by Rule 52(c).").
                                     16
CL-2022-0799, CL-2022-0800, CL-2022-0813, and CL-2022-0814

In the present case, the juvenile court, in its judgments, made specific

findings of fact regarding whether there was a viable alternative to

terminating the parents' parental rights. Consequently, the sufficiency

of the evidence to support those findings was preserved for appellate

review.

     Because DHR failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that

there was no viable alternative to terminating the parents' parental

rights, we reverse the juvenile court's judgments and remand the causes

to the juvenile court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

     CL-2022-0799 -- REVERSED AND REMANDED.

     CL-2022-0800 -- REVERSED AND REMANDED.

     CL-2022-0813 -- REVERSED AND REMANDED.

     CL-2022-0814 -- REVERSED AND REMANDED.

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

                                    17