K.H. v. Madison County Department of Human Resources ( 2023 )

Rel: April 7, 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-2022-0917
_________________________
K.H.
v.
Madison County Department of Human Resources
Appeal from Madison Juvenile Court
(JU-20-671.01)
_________________________
CL-2022-0918
_________________________
K.H.
v.
Madison County Department of Human Resources
CL-2022-0917, CL-2022-0918, CL-2022-0919, and CL-2022-0920
Appeal from Madison Juvenile Court
(JU-20-671.02)
_________________________
CL-2022-0919
_________________________
K.H.
v.
Madison County Department of Human Resources
Appeal from Madison Juvenile Court
(JU-20-672.01)
_________________________
CL-2022-0920
_________________________
K.H.
v.
Madison County Department of Human Resources
Appeal from Madison Juvenile Court
(JU-20-672.02)
THOMPSON, Presiding Judge.
Two children, C.I., born in May 2011, and M.H., born in August
2020, were born of the relationship of K.H. ("the mother") and D.I. ("the
2
CL-2022-0917, CL-2022-0918, CL-2022-0919, and CL-2022-0920
father").1 When M.H. was born, that child tested positive for opiates. As
a result, in September 2020, the Morgan County Department of Human
Resources ("Morgan County DHR") filed in the Morgan Juvenile Court
petitions seeking to have C.I. and M.H. ("the children") declared
dependent. The Morgan Juvenile Court issued a pick-up order on
September 2, 2020, and, also on that date, it ordered that the actions be
transferred to the Madison Juvenile Court ("the juvenile court"), which it
had determined was the proper venue for the dependency actions. The
juvenile court assigned case number JU-20-671.01 to the dependency
action concerning C.I. and case number JU-20-672.01 to the dependency
action concerning M.H.; we refer to those two actions together as "the
dependency actions." The children were placed in the custody of the
Madison County Department of Human Resources ("DHR").
On November 4, 2020, the juvenile court entered orders in the
dependency actions finding the children dependent and leaving the
children in the custody of DHR. Additional orders making similar
findings were entered during the pendency of the dependency actions. On
1The record does not explain why C.I. and M.H. have different last
names.
3
CL-2022-0917, CL-2022-0918, CL-2022-0919, and CL-2022-0920
May 5, 2021, the juvenile court entered orders continuing the award of
custody of the children to DHR and ordering that the mother's visitation
with the children be suspended because of her continued failure to comply
with DHR's reunification efforts and services. Subsequent orders entered
in the dependency actions continued the suspension of the mother's
visitation rights.
On September 16, 2021, DHR filed in the juvenile court petitions
seeking to terminate the parental rights of the mother and the father.
The juvenile court assigned case number JU-20-671.02 to the
termination-of-parental-rights action pertaining to C.I. and case number
JU-20-672.02 to the termination-of-parental-rights action pertaining to
M.H. The juvenile court accepted ore tenus evidence at a hearing on the
termination-of-parental-rights petitions over the course of two days, July
14, 2022, and August 2, 2022. On August 15, 2022, the juvenile court
entered judgments in the termination-of-parental rights actions in which
it ordered that the parental rights of the mother and the father be
terminated.
The mother filed notices of appeal in each of the dependency actions
and from each of the August 15, 2022, judgments entered in the
4
CL-2022-0917, CL-2022-0918, CL-2022-0919, and CL-2022-0920
termination-of-parental-rights actions. This court's clerk assigned appeal
number CL-2022-0917 to the mother's appeal in juvenile-court case
number JU-20-671.01, and appeal number CL-2022-0919 to the mother's
appeal in juvenile-court case number JU-20-672.01; those two appeals
pertain to the dependency actions. This court assigned appeal number
CL-2022-0918 to the mother's appeal of the judgment entered in juvenile-
court case number JU-20-671.02, and appeal number CL-2022-0920 to
the mother's appeal of the judgment entered in juvenile-court case
number JU-20-672.02; those appeals concern the August 15, 2022,
termination-of-parental-rights judgments.
The father did not participate in reunification services offered by
DHR, and he did not take part in the dependency actions or the
termination-of-parental-rights actions. The father did not appeal the
judgments terminating his parental rights. Therefore, this opinion
discusses facts pertaining to the father to the extent that they might be
relevant to the arguments asserted by the mother in her appeals.
The record reveals the following pertinent facts. After having
rescheduled the termination-of-parental-rights hearing once before, the
juvenile court, on May 11, 2022, again entered an order rescheduling that
5
CL-2022-0917, CL-2022-0918, CL-2022-0919, and CL-2022-0920
hearing for July 14, 2022. The mother did not appear at the hearing on
July 14, 2022. Instead, at the beginning of the hearing, the mother
addressed the juvenile court via Zoom, a videoconferencing service, and
asked that she be allowed to participate in the termination-of-parental-
rights hearing via Zoom because, she said, she had contracted the
COVID-19 virus. On questioning by the juvenile court, the mother, who
was not sworn in as a witness, represented to the juvenile court that she
had tested positive for the COVID-19 virus one week earlier, although
she admitted that she was experiencing no symptoms of that virus. The
juvenile court expressed its concern that if the mother did not attend the
hearing in person, she would be prevented from assisting and consulting
with her attorney, who was present in the courtroom, during the hearing.
The juvenile court informed the mother that it would allow her to
participate in the termination-of-parental-rights hearing via Zoom until
a break was taken to the portion of the hearing held on July 14, 2022 (i.e.,
the first day of the termination-of-parental-rights hearing). The juvenile
court instructed the mother that, during the lunch break, the mother was
expected to provide proof of a positive COVID-19 test for that day or she
was expected to travel to the courtroom to attend the afternoon portion
6
CL-2022-0917, CL-2022-0918, CL-2022-0919, and CL-2022-0920
of the hearing that day. The juvenile court also informed the mother that
COVID-19 tests were available in the courtroom if she did not have a test
or did not want to purchase one and that she would be allowed to
participate via Zoom only if she tested positive for the COVID-19 virus.
The testimony of the witnesses at the hearing set forth the following
facts. D'Koya Mathis, the DHR social worker assigned to the children's
cases from February 2020 through March 2022, stated that she was not
the initial social worker assigned to the children's cases. Mathis
explained that because the mother was not initially compliant with DHR
reunification services, a DHR supervisor had reassigned Mathis to the
children's cases in the hope that Mathis might be able to work more
effectively with the mother.
Mathis testified that following M.H.'s birth at a hospital in late
August 2020, M.H. remained hospitalized because of complications
resulting from having been born with opiates in her system. According to
Mathis, in early September 2020, the mother left the hospital where M.H.
had been born and "abandoned" M.H. by not returning to the hospital.
Morgan County DHR initiated the dependency actions on September 2,
2020, and the children were placed in DHR's custody on that same date.
7
CL-2022-0917, CL-2022-0918, CL-2022-0919, and CL-2022-0920
Mathis testified that when the children were first placed in foster
care, DHR offered the mother reunification services that included
substance-abuse treatment through the Aletheia House, a parenting
assessment offered by the Aletheia House, random drug screens on a
color-code system, and a psychological evaluation. In addition, DHR
asked the mother to obtain and maintain stable housing and
employment.
We note that the attorneys for the parties seldom asked, and the
two DHR witnesses did not testify, regarding the specific dates on which
the mother attempted certain services. However, it is undisputed that
between 2020 and 2021, the mother unsuccessfully attempted three
substance-abuse programs. Mathis explained that the mother entered
the Aletheia House in Huntsville and left that substance-abuse program
before completing it. DHR then referred the mother to the Aletheia House
program in Rogersville, and the mother failed to complete that program.
The mother was then referred to the Aletheia House substance-abuse
program in Birmingham, and, again, the mother left that program before
completing it. Mathis testified that the three Aletheia House substance-
abuse programs each offered the parenting assessment that DHR had
8
CL-2022-0917, CL-2022-0918, CL-2022-0919, and CL-2022-0920
requested for the mother, but that the mother failed to take part in a
parenting assessment during her time in those three substance-abuse
programs. Mathis also testified that DHR referred the mother for a
psychological evaluation with Dr. Barry Wood but that the mother did
not complete that evaluation.
In total, DHR conducted nine individualized-service-plan ("ISP")
meetings during the time that Mathis was assigned to the children's
cases; those ISP meetings were held to address services to be offered to
the mother. Mathis stated that the mother had at times seemed
interested in obtaining help with her substance-abuse issues but that she
did not follow through with reunification services. Mathis stated that
when she was initially assigned to the children's cases, the mother
communicated well with her, but, she said, that communication became
less frequent because the mother moved often and frequently changed
her telephone number. Also, the mother was briefly incarcerated twice
during the time that Mathis was assigned to the children's cases,
although the dates of those incarcerations and the reasons for those
incarcerations are not set forth in the record. Mathis stated that during
the time that she was assigned to the children's cases, the mother
9
CL-2022-0917, CL-2022-0918, CL-2022-0919, and CL-2022-0920
remained noncompliant with DHR's reunification efforts and did not
complete any reunification services.
The mother initially attended her weekly, supervised visitations
with the children. However, Mathis testified that the mother appeared
at one visitation clearly under the influence of an intoxicant. Mathis
testified that the mother initially asserted that she was sober at that
visitation. However, Mathis stated that the mother later admitted to
Mathis that she had taken some medications that, the mother had
claimed, made her drowsy during that visitation. Mathis also testified
that the mother did not appear intoxicated at any later visitations with
the children.
At some point in the spring of 2021, possibly at a review hearing
conducted in early May 2021, the children's guardian ad litem requested
that the juvenile court suspend the mother's visitation with the children
because the mother had failed to take part in reunification services. On
May 5, 2021, the juvenile court entered an order suspending the mother's
visitation with the children "until such time as the mother … [is]
compliant with [DHR] services as outlined" in the ISP agreements. The
10
CL-2022-0917, CL-2022-0918, CL-2022-0919, and CL-2022-0920
mother's visitation remained suspended at the time of the termination-
of-parental-rights hearing in these matters.
In late 2021, the mother gave birth to a third child ("the half-
sibling"), born of her relationship with I.P. ("the boyfriend").2 Following
the half-sibling's birth, DHR placed that child in the custody of the
boyfriend pursuant to a safety plan. Scott testified that the mother lives
with the boyfriend and the half-sibling. Scott also stated that she did not
have concerns about the mother's ability to care for the half-sibling.
However, Scott stated, the terms of the safety plan required that the
boyfriend not allow the mother to be alone with the half-sibling and to
supervise the mother's interactions with the half-sibling.
Mathis also testified that although the mother reported being
employed at various times after the children were placed in foster care,
the mother never provided proof to DHR of her employment. Also,
according to Mathis, during the time she was assigned to the children's
2There is some confusion in the record concerning whether the
mother has three or four children. Although one witness referred to the
child born in 2021 of the mother's relationship with the boyfriend as the
mother's "fourth" child, other references indicate that that child is the
mother's third child. No fourth child of the mother's was ever identified
in the record. However, the father has a child born of his relationship
with a woman other than the mother.
11
CL-2022-0917, CL-2022-0918, CL-2022-0919, and CL-2022-0920
cases, the mother was never able to maintain stable housing. Mathis
testified that she inspected one of the mother's homes in 2022 and that it
was clean and appropriate for the children. However, Mathis stated that
at the time she inspected that home, the mother and her boyfriend
informed Mathis that they were in the process of relocating to yet another
residence.
Jessica Scott, the DHR social worker assigned to the children's
cases between March 2022 and the time of the termination-of-parental-
rights hearing, testified that she had seen the mother's most recent
residence, which was a two-bedroom apartment that the mother shared
with the boyfriend and the half-sibling. Scott stated that the apartment
was clean and appropriate for children. However, she said that she
believed that the mother needed a larger home to accommodate the
addition of the children if they were to be returned to the mother's
custody. On cross-examination, Scott admitted that the children could
share a bedroom with the half-sibling. However, even assuming that the
mother's apartment was large enough, Scott stated, because the mother
had failed to comply with reunification efforts, and especially because the
12
CL-2022-0917, CL-2022-0918, CL-2022-0919, and CL-2022-0920
mother had consistently failed to submit to drug screens, DHR had not
attempted to transition the children into the mother's home.
Scott testified that when she took over the children's cases in March
2022, which was approximately six months after DHR had filed its
termination-of-parental-rights petitions in these matters, the mother
still needed to complete a psychological evaluation, substance-abuse
treatment, and a parenting assessment. In addition, Scott said, the
mother also needed to submit consistently to drug screens. Scott testified
that the mother communicated with her regularly and began
participating in reunification services in the late spring of 2022. We note
that Scott admitted that she had not discussed a parenting assessment
with the mother. Scott explained that the parenting assessment had been
available through the Aletheia House substance-abuse programs, and
that the mother had not availed herself of those services in her three
attempts at substance-abuse treatment through the programs from the
Aletheia House.
The mother took part in a psychological evaluation with Dr. Lois
Petrella on May 25, 2022. Dr. Petrella testified that the mother answered
her questions appropriately and that the mother did not appear to be
13
CL-2022-0917, CL-2022-0918, CL-2022-0919, and CL-2022-0920
under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of that psychological
evaluation. However, Dr. Petrella also stated that the mother spent a
great deal of time playing on her telephone during the psychological
evaluation, although Dr. Petrella stated that the mother's doing so had
not been a significant problem. According to Dr. Petrella, the mother's IQ
is 92, and most of the mother's diagnoses were normal. However, Dr.
Petrella testified that the mother exaggerated her parenting abilities and
seemed to be overconfident in those abilities. In addition, Dr. Petrella
stated that the mother had informed her that she had last used illegal
drugs one year earlier. Dr. Petrella stated that she had wanted to conduct
a more thorough parenting assessment on the mother, but, she said, the
mother had to leave the psychological evaluation early to take a drug
screen. Regardless, Dr. Petrella stated that she would not recommend
that the mother be reunited with the children until the mother could
demonstrate that she was substance free.
Although DHR recommended inpatient substance-abuse treatment
for the mother, the mother attended an outpatient program through
Bradford, a substance-abuse-treatment program. She completed that
program on June 22, 2022, which was approximately six weeks before the
14
CL-2022-0917, CL-2022-0918, CL-2022-0919, and CL-2022-0920
first part of the termination-of-parental-rights hearing. We note that
during the pendency of the dependency actions, the juvenile court had
ordered the mother to take part in a drug-court program. In response to
questioning by the juvenile court, Scott testified that the mother had not
complied with that earlier order and had not attended the drug-court
program.
The record demonstrates that from late September 2020 through
February 10, 2022, the mother failed to submit to any drug screens. The
mother tested negative on seven random drug screens administered
between February 11, 2022, through June 2, 2022. However, on June 6,
2022, when she was attending the outpatient substance-abuse program,
the mother tested positive for opiates. The mother tested negative for
opiates on June 13, 2022, July 19, 2022, and July 25, 2022, but she failed
to appear for drug screens on June 24, 2022, June 30, 2022, July 14, 2022,
and August 1, 2022. The exhibit setting forth all except the last four of
the mother's drug screens indicates that, during the 18 months that the
children have been in foster care, the mother failed to appear for 78 of
the 90 drug screens for which she was eligible on the color-code system,
i.e., the mother failed to submit to 87 percent of the drug screens on the
15
CL-2022-0917, CL-2022-0918, CL-2022-0919, and CL-2022-0920
color-code system. The mother also failed to appear for two of the final
four drug screens immediately before the termination-of-parental-rights
hearing.
According to Scott, even after the mother completed the outpatient
substance-abuse program, the mother claimed to have been prescribed
opiate pain medication for an unspecified injury to her back. Scott stated
that she asked the mother several times for verification of that claim but
that the mother never explained the exact nature of her pain and failed
to produce a prescription for pain medication.
The mother has not paid any child support for the benefit of the
children. Mathis testified that, when the mother had visitation with the
children, the mother did not bring any supplies, clothes, or gifts for the
children to the visits, and she did not send the children gifts on their
birthdays or at Christmas.
Mathis testified that C.I. is an excellent student who, after being
placed in foster care, entered the gifted program at her school. Mathis
explained that C.I. experienced difficulties with the transition into foster
care and that that child had had some behavioral outbursts. For that
reason, DHR arranged for C.I. to have individual counseling. According
16
CL-2022-0917, CL-2022-0918, CL-2022-0919, and CL-2022-0920
to Mathis, after approximately one year, C.I.'s behavioral issues
improved, and DHR ended her individual counseling. However, Scott
testified that C.I. was again in counseling at the time of the termination-
of-parental-rights hearing because C.I. was upset about the possibility of
being permanently separated from the mother.
Dominique Dillard, the psychologist who was treating C.I. at the
time of the termination-of-parental-rights hearing, testified that during
her first session with C.I., C.I. disclosed that she was being physically
abused in the foster home in which she was then residing. Dillard
reported that allegation to Scott, and C.I. was immediately moved to
another foster home. Dillard stated that after C.I. was removed from the
allegedly abusive foster home, C.I.'s outlook and disposition became
brighter and more normal. Dillard testified that C.I. is emotionally strong
and articulate and that C.I. needs to continue with individual counseling
to assist her in moving forward, especially if the mother's parental rights
were terminated.
Scott testified that, at some point after she began working on the
children's cases, it was discovered that C.I. had been communicating with
the mother over social media, apparently on a computer, and by
17
CL-2022-0917, CL-2022-0918, CL-2022-0919, and CL-2022-0920
telephone when she borrowed a foster sibling's telephone. Scott testified
that DHR believed that the mother had remained in contact with C.I.
from the time that the children had entered foster care, even after the
juvenile court suspended the mother's visitation with the children;
therefore, she said, that communication was in opposition to the juvenile
court's orders. Scott and Dillard each stated that C.I. has a close
relationship with the mother and that she wanted to be returned to the
mother's custody. Scott stated that, in the new foster home in which C.I.
resided at the time of the termination-of-parental-rights hearing, C.I.'s
internet access was closely monitored. She also stated that Dillard had
agreed to supervise any further communication between the mother and
C.I. if the juvenile court were to allow that communication to continue.
Dillard testified that she had recommended that DHR conduct a
bonding assessment for C.I. and the mother to determine whether C.I.
had a current, beneficial bond with the mother or whether the child's
bond with the mother was based on memories of having lived with the
mother. Dillard explained that, as is normal for children, C.I. tended to
have only positive memories of the mother and that C.I. did not seem to
recall the detriment and dysfunction she had experienced while she was
18
CL-2022-0917, CL-2022-0918, CL-2022-0919, and CL-2022-0920
in the mother's custody. Scott testified that she had attempted to
schedule a bonding assessment for the mother and C.I. but that she was
unable to schedule that assessment before the termination-of-parental-
rights hearing.
On May 3, 2022, the mother filed in the dependency actions a
request that she be allowed to resume visitation with the children. On
July 1, 2022, the mother filed in the two termination-of-parental-rights
actions a motion to have telephone visitation with C.I.; that motion
appears to have been filed shortly after DHR discovered that the mother
had been surreptitiously communicating with C.I. The juvenile court
denied those motions on July 14, 2022, i.e., on the first day of the
termination-of-parental-rights hearing.
Mathis and Scott testified that there were no relatives willing or
able to provide a placement for the children. Mathis testified that the
mother and the father provided DHR the names of a few relatives but
that only one of those relatives, the father's brother, T.I., was either
willing to serve as a placement or was deemed to be an appropriate
placement for the children. Mathis explained that T.I. had expressed an
interest in providing a home for the children but that he did not have
19
CL-2022-0917, CL-2022-0918, CL-2022-0919, and CL-2022-0920
stable housing. Scott testified that when she was assigned to the
children's cases, she inquired about relative resources but that the
mother did not provide the names of any relatives who could serve as a
possible relative placement for the children. Scott testified that she
contacted T.I. to determine whether his housing situation had stabilized
such that he could provide a placement for the children, but, she said,
T.I. reported that his housing situation remained unstable.
Mathis and Scott testified that the permanency plan for the
children is adoption, and Scott testified that both children are adoptable.
Mathis testified that a previous foster mother was willing to adopt M.H.
but that that foster mother was not willing to adopt C.I. Both Mathis and
Scott testified that, because of the close bond between the children, it was
in the children's best interests that they be placed in the same adoptive
home. For that reason, Mathis stated, DHR had decided not to allow the
previous foster parent to adopt M.H.
Instead, Mathis testified, DHR planned to allow the children to be
adopted by another foster parent ("the prospective adoptive resource")
with whom the children had not yet resided. Scott explained that the
prospective adoptive resource "is willing to adopt these children, but she
20
CL-2022-0917, CL-2022-0918, CL-2022-0919, and CL-2022-0920
would prefer that … the parents' rights be terminated before she starts
that relationship." Scott later reiterated that the prospective adoptive
resource remained willing to adopt the children but that she wanted to
ensure that there was a termination of parental rights first. Scott stated
that the prospective adoptive resource could provide the children the
individualized attention that they need. Scott also testified that, if for
any reason the prospective adoptive resource did not adopt the children,
the children's current foster parent was willing to adopt the children to
ensure that the children remained together in the same home. However,
Scott explained, the current foster parent preferred to allow the children
to be adopted by the prospective adoptive resource because the current
foster parent had other foster children in her home and could not give the
children much individualized attention.
The mother presented no evidence at the termination-of-parental-
rights hearing.
At the close of the morning session of the portion of the termination-
of-parental-rights hearing on July 14, 2022, the juvenile court again
instructed the mother to obtain a COVID-19 test during the lunch break
and either to appear for the afternoon session of the hearing or to provide
21
CL-2022-0917, CL-2022-0918, CL-2022-0919, and CL-2022-0920
proof of her positive COVID-19 test. When court resumed after the lunch
break, the mother had not appeared in the courtroom or provided proof
of a positive COVID-19 test. The mother's attorney represented to the
juvenile court that the mother had claimed to him, shortly before the
hearing resumed, that she lacked transportation to travel to the
courthouse. The juvenile court offered to wait for the mother and to pay
for a ride share to transport the mother to the hearing. DHR's attorney
stated that DHR was attempting to contact the mother to arrange
transportation to bring the mother to the courtroom. The mother's
attorney then stated that the mother had just informed him via text
message that she was on her way to the courthouse at that time. Court
was recessed to wait for the mother to appear.
The hearing resumed at approximately 3:00 p.m., and the mother
was not in the courtroom and had not responded to the attempts made
by her attorney to contact her. The juvenile court then released DHR and
its witnesses from the hearing, but it instructed the mother's attorney to
wait an additional 30 minutes to see if the mother arrived in the
courtroom. The juvenile court instructed the mother's attorney that if the
mother did appear in the courtroom, the mother was to submit to both a
22
CL-2022-0917, CL-2022-0918, CL-2022-0919, and CL-2022-0920
COVID-19 test and to a court-sponsored drug screen. The juvenile court
also stated that it would consider the mother's failure to appear when
assessing her credibility if she testified at a later portion of the
termination-of-parental-rights hearing. The mother did not appear.
The termination-of-parental-rights hearing resumed on August 2,
2022. At the beginning of that part of the hearing, the mother's attorney
stated that the mother had informed him that she would be attending
that day's hearing, and, although the mother was not present at that
time, he speculated that the mother might be on her way to the
courtroom. The mother's attorney later checked the hallway outside the
courtroom to see if the mother was waiting outside, but, he said, she had
not appeared. The juvenile court received additional testimony on August
2, 2022; that testimony is already set forth in this opinion. When the
termination-of-parental-rights hearing ended, the mother had still not
appeared in the courtroom.
As an initial matter, we note that in her notices of appeal filed in
the dependency actions, the mother indicated that she was appealing
judgments entered on August 15, 2022, in those actions. However, the
record contains no August 15, 2022, judgments entered in the
23
CL-2022-0917, CL-2022-0918, CL-2022-0919, and CL-2022-0920
dependency actions. The only orders entered in the dependency actions
on August 15, 2022, scheduled a hearing via Zoom for February 23, 2023.
On August 14, 2022, the juvenile court entered in the dependency actions
orders allowing the parties to inspect certain records concerning the
children and orders denying the mother's motions to resume her
visitation with the children. Even assuming that the mother intended to
appeal any or all of those orders, none of those orders is sufficiently final
to support the mother's appeals. Moreover, the mother makes no
argument concerning any of those orders in her appellate brief. Instead,
the mother's arguments on appeal concern only the August 15, 2022,
judgments entered in the termination-of-parental-rights actions.
Accordingly, we dismiss appeal number CL-2022-0917 and appeal
number CL-2022-0919, i.e., the appeals the mother filed in the
dependency actions. as moot. Reeves v. Reeves, [Ms. 2200216, Oct. 1,
2021] ___ So. 3d ___, ___ (Ala. Civ. App. 2021); see also C.C. v. L.B., [Ms.
2210410, Nov. 10, 2022] ___ So. 3d ___, ___ (Ala. Civ. App. 2022).
With regard to appeal number CL-2022-0918 and appeal number
CL-2022-0920, which are the mother's appeals from the August 15, 2022,
judgments entered in the termination-of-parental-rights actions, the
24
CL-2022-0917, CL-2022-0918, CL-2022-0919, and CL-2022-0920
grounds warranting a termination of parental rights are set forth in § 12-
15-319, Ala. Code 1975, of the Alabama Juvenile Justice Act ("the AJJA"),
§ 12-15-101 et seq., Ala. Code 1975. Section 12-15-319 provides, in
pertinent part:
"(a) If the juvenile court finds from clear and convincing
evidence, competent, material, and relevant in nature, that
the parents of a child 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
care for the child and that the conduct or condition is unlikely
to change in the foreseeable future, it may terminate the
parental rights of the parents. In a hearing on a petition for
termination of parental rights, the court shall consider the
best interests of the child. In determining whether or not the
parents are unable or unwilling to discharge their
responsibilities to and for the child and to terminate the
parental rights, the juvenile court shall consider the following
factors including, but not limited to, the following:
"….
"(2) Emotional illness, mental illness, or
mental deficiency of the parent, or excessive use of
alcohol or controlled substances, of a duration or
nature as to render the parent unable to care for
the needs of the child.
"….
"(7) That reasonable efforts by the
Department of Human Resources or licensed
public or private child care agencies leading
toward the rehabilitation of the parents have
failed.
25
CL-2022-0917, CL-2022-0918, CL-2022-0919, and CL-2022-0920
"….
"(9) Failure by the parents to provide for the
material needs of the child or to pay a reasonable
portion of support of the child where the parent is
able to do so.
"(10) Failure by the parents to maintain
regular visits with the child in accordance with a
plan devised by the Department of Human
Resources, or any public or licensed private child
care agency, and agreed to by the parent.
"(11) Failure by the parents to maintain
consistent contact or communication with the
child.
"(12) Lack of effort by the parent to adjust his
or her circumstances to meet the needs of the child
in accordance with agreements reached, including
agreements reached with local departments of
human resources or licensed child-placing
agencies, in an administrative review or a judicial
review."
In addition to determining whether a child is dependent and
whether grounds exist under § 12-15-319 that support a termination of
parental rights, a juvenile court must also "properly consider and reject
all viable alternatives to a termination of parental rights." B.M. v. State,
895 So. 2d 319, 331 (Ala. Civ. App. 2004) (citing Ex parte Beasley, 564
So. 2d 950, 954 (Ala. 1990)).
26
CL-2022-0917, CL-2022-0918, CL-2022-0919, and CL-2022-0920
"On appeal from ore tenus proceedings, this court
presumes the correctness of the juvenile court's factual
findings. See J.C. v. State Dep't of Human Res., 986 So. 2d
1172 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007). This court is bound by those
findings if the record contains substantial evidence from
which the juvenile court reasonably could have been clearly
convinced of the fact sought to be proved. See Ex parte
McInish, 47 So. 3d 767 (Ala. 2008) (explaining standard of
review of factual determinations required to be based on clear
and convincing evidence)."
C.C. v. L.J., 176 So. 3d 208, 211 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015).
In its August 15, 2022, termination-of-parental-rights judgments,
the juvenile court set forth a number of detailed factual findings,
including, in part:
"[DHR] afforded the parents reunification services, but
those efforts were not successful. The father never
participated in services. The mother was in and out of jail,
would start services then stop, or have short periods of
sobriety, then relapse. The mother failed to appear for most,
if not all, of the hearings regarding the children. [DHR]
continued to offer services to the mother throughout the case,
including up to the time of the termination-of-parental-rights
hearing. However, the mother failed to comply with those
services. The mother did not visit with the children from
January through May of 2022.[3] The mother started two drug-
3In response to questioning, Mathis stated that the mother had not
visited the children in 2022 and that she then stated that there had been
no visitation between January 2022 and April 2022. Other evidence in
the record established that the mother had last visited the children in
March 2021.
27
CL-2022-0917, CL-2022-0918, CL-2022-0919, and CL-2022-0920
treatment programs and quit the programs without
completing [them].[4] The Court requested that she participate
in Family Drug Court, and she did not. The mother had
periods of negative drug screens, then would relapse or stop
complying with drug screens. She had missed the last two
drug screens before the setting of th[e termination-of-
parental-rights] hearing. The mother appeared at a visit with
the children and appeared to be under the influence. She
admitted to taking medicines that made her sleepy but has
never presented a prescription to anyone involved in this case,
even after numerous requests to do so. The mother finally
completed Bradford substance-abuse program but has tested
positive since completing that program,[5] and she admitted to
being on pain medications in June 2022 to Scott, the social
worker in the case at the time, but did not provide proof of the
prescription or the underlying reason for the pain
medications.
"[DHR] did refer the mother for a psychological
evaluation to determine if additional services could be offered.
The psychologist noted that the mother was more preoccupied
with her telephone than with engaging in the process. There
was a second appointment that the mother left early and
never completed testing. There were no significant findings
which would show that the mother could not parent her
children. However, the mother also told the psychologist that
4The record shows that the mother had attempted three separate
substance-abuse programs between 2020 and 2021; the error with regard
to this finding is not material.
5The record does not contain any evidence indicating that the
mother tested positive after she completed the Bradford substance-abuse
program on June 22, 2022. Rather, the mother tested positive on June 2,
2022, while still participating in that program, and she failed to
participate in four drug screens scheduled between June 22, 2022, and
August 1, 2022, which was the day before the last day of testimony in the
termination-of-parental-rights hearing.
28
CL-2022-0917, CL-2022-0918, CL-2022-0919, and CL-2022-0920
she had no drug issues and had not used drugs in more than
a year. This is not what the evidence bore out in court.
"[T]he mother appeared through Zoom for the first four
hours of the termination-of-parental-rights hearing. The court
did observe concerning behavior, such as moving around the
residence a lot and points of inattention. Given some
concerning behavior over the Zoom link, the failure of the
mother to produce any screening or other medical paperwork
on her claimed COVID issues, and the recent missed drug
screens, the court ordered the mother to appear in court for
the second part of the day. The mother was present on Zoom
when ordered and stated she understood. The mother never
appeared to the court thereafter."
In addition to the foregoing, in its August 15, 2022, judgments, the
juvenile court found that the children remained dependent, that DHR
had made reasonable efforts toward reunification, that the mother was
unable or unwilling to adjust her circumstances to meet the needs of the
children, that there were no viable alternatives to the termination of the
mother's parental rights, and that the termination of the mother's
parental rights would serve the children's best interests.
The mother first argues that the juvenile court erred in determining
that the evidence in the record supports the juvenile court's
determination that there were grounds under § 12-15-319 warranting the
termination of her parental rights. We note that the mother does not
dispute that she has an extensive history of drug use, that she did not
29
CL-2022-0917, CL-2022-0918, CL-2022-0919, and CL-2022-0920
comply with reunification services until six months after DHR filed its
termination-of-parental-rights petitions, and that she missed 87% of her
drug screens even when that failure to participate in those screens
resulted in the continued suspension of her visitation with the children,
and that she failed to rebut the results of her positive drug screens by
producing evidence of prescriptions she claimed to have for opiate pain
medication.
Instead, in her argument on this issue, the mother asserts that the
juvenile court failed to consider "evidence of [her] current conditions or
conduct" in determining that she was unwilling or unable to meet the
children's needs. See D.O. v. Calhoun Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 859 So.
2d 439, 444 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003). The mother contends in her appellate
brief that the evidence demonstrated that, at the time of the termination-
of-parental-rights hearing, her circumstances were changing and she was
making progress toward reunification. The mother alleges that she had
stable housing at the time of the termination-of-parental-rights hearing
and that she has demonstrated her ability to parent a child because she
is currently living with the boyfriend and the half-sibling. We note,
however, that the record indicates that the mother obtained her current
30
CL-2022-0917, CL-2022-0918, CL-2022-0919, and CL-2022-0920
housing sometime after March 2022, and, therefore, at the time of the
termination-of-parental-rights hearing, she had had that housing, at
most, for only four months.6 Further, the mother's youngest child, the
half-sibling, is in the custody of the boyfriend, who is not the children's
father, pursuant to a safety plan that specifies that the mother not be left
alone with that child. Therefore, the record does not demonstrate that
the mother is successfully parenting that child on her own or without
supervision and assistance.
The mother also contends that she completed some of the
reunification services and that, beginning in the spring of 2022, she
began communicating regularly with Scott about participating in those
reunification services. The mother argues that the juvenile court failed
to consider her current conditions, i.e., the completion of the
psychological evaluation and the substance-abuse program. The mother
also contends in her appellate brief that she has maintained employment,
but the record contains no evidence concerning the mother's employment.
We also note that the mother does not address her failure to attempt to
6Scott testified that she had seen the mother's two-bedroom
apartment, but she did not state the date on which she visited that home.
31
CL-2022-0917, CL-2022-0918, CL-2022-0919, and CL-2022-0920
contribute to the children's support. Regardless, the mother contends
that the juvenile court improperly based its termination decision solely
on her past conduct, i.e., the conduct she exhibited before the late spring
of 2022.
This court has held that "[e]vidence of a parent's past conduct is
admissible if it assists the juvenile court in assessing and weighing the
evidence regarding current conditions, but evidence of past conditions
cannot be the sole basis for finding a child to be dependent." J.P. v. D.P.,
260 So. 3d 862, 872 (Ala. Civ. App. 2018). As was pointed out during the
termination-of-parental-rights hearing, the mother attended an out-
patient substance-abuse program rather than a recommended in-patient
program. Further, the mother failed to appear for four requested drug
screens between the time the mother completed the substance-abuse
program and the conclusion of the termination-of-parental-rights
hearing. Moreover, the mother did not appear at either day of the
termination-of-parental-rights hearing. The juvenile court expressly
stated that it had wanted the mother to submit to a drug screen during
the termination-of-parental-rights hearing. The juvenile court could have
interpreted the mother's failure to appear at the termination-of-parental-
32
CL-2022-0917, CL-2022-0918, CL-2022-0919, and CL-2022-0920
rights hearing, especially after she assured her attorney that she would
be present, as an attempt to avoid submitting to a drug screen during the
termination-of-parental-rights hearing. The juvenile court noted in its
judgment that the mother had had periods of sobriety followed by times
when she would again relapse. Thus, the record and the juvenile court's
findings in its judgments demonstrate that the juvenile court did not rely
solely on the mother's past conduct in reaching its decision to terminate
the mother's parental rights to the children. See J.C. v. State Dep't of
Hum. Res., 986 So. 2d 1172, 1195 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007) (holding that the
juvenile court did not err in considering a parent's past conduct when
"[t]he evidence showed that the mother had a history of abstaining from
drugs for extended periods of time only to use drugs again months later");
T.W. v. Shelby Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 293 So. 3d 386, 393 (Ala. Civ.
App. 2019); and M.E. v. Shelby Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 972 So. 2d 89,
101 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007) (plurality opinion). Moreover, in this case, the
evidence supports a conclusion that the mother had failed, or was likely
to have failed, to maintain her sobriety at the time of the termination-of-
parental-rights hearing, and, therefore, that she was unable or unwilling
to properly parent the children.
33
CL-2022-0917, CL-2022-0918, CL-2022-0919, and CL-2022-0920
We agree with the mother that the evidence indicates that,
beginning approximately six months after DHR filed its termination-of-
parental-rights petitions, she began making efforts to reunite with the
children. However, the juvenile court could have considered those late
attempts to cooperate with DHR reunification services to be merely
unpersuasive, last-minute efforts intended only to forestall termination
rather than legitimate efforts by the mother to change her circumstances.
A.M.F. v. Tuscaloosa Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 75 So. 3d 1206, 1213 (Ala.
Civ. App. 2011); K.J. v. Pike Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 275 So. 3d 1135,
1145 (Ala. Civ. App. 2018). This is particularly true here, where the
mother had failed to appear for several drug screens shortly before the
termination-of-parental-rights hearing and where the juvenile court
could have interpreted the mother's failure to attend either day of that
hearing as an effort to avoid submitting to a court-ordered drug screen.
Given the totality of the evidence, particularly that evidence that relates
to the mother's substance-abuse issues, we cannot say that the mother
has demonstrated that the juvenile court erred in determining that there
were grounds under § 12-15-319 that served as bases for the termination
of her parental rights.
34
CL-2022-0917, CL-2022-0918, CL-2022-0919, and CL-2022-0920
The mother, citing J.C. v. Madison County Department of Human
Resources, 293 So. 3d 901, 904 (Ala. Civ. App. 2019), argues that DHR
failed to show that her substance-abuse issues impacted her ability to
parent the children. In J.C., the Madison County Department of Human
Resources ("Madison County DHR") failed to present evidence concerning
the reason the child in that case had been removed from his mother's
custody and placed in the custody of Madison County DHR. It was
undisputed that the child in that case, who was a teenager, shared a close
bond with the mother such that a social worker stated that any
permanent placement for the child that was not with the mother was not
likely to be successful. This court reversed the judgment terminating the
mother's parental rights, concluding that "[Madison County] DHR
presented no evidence that the mother's drug use, although long-
standing and certainly not a desirable trait, has ever impacted her ability
to rear the child." J.C. v. Madison Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 293 So. 3d
at 909. This court further explained:
"The record contains no evidence indicating the basis for
[Madison County] DHR's initial involvement with the mother
and the child. Although [Madison County] DHR established
that the mother had a history of drug use, it did not present
evidence indicating that the child suffered neglect or abuse at
the hands of the mother as a result of her drug use. In fact,
35
CL-2022-0917, CL-2022-0918, CL-2022-0919, and CL-2022-0920
the evidence [Madison County] DHR presented was to the
effect that the child was generally polite and respectful and
that he excelled in school, both at the time of his removal from
the mother's custody and at the time of the trial."
J.C. v. Madison Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 293 So. 3d at 908-09 (footnote
omitted).
Similarly, the mother relies on another case in which the Jefferson
County Department of Human Resources ("Jefferson County DHR")
sought to terminate a mother's parental rights to her youngest child. See
P.S. v. Jefferson Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 143 So. 3d 792 (Ala. Civ. App.
2013). In P.S., Jefferson County DHR had been involved with the mother
regarding her older children, and, upon the child's birth, Jefferson
County DHR filed a dependency petition alleging that the mother could
not take care of the child based on her past conduct with regard to her
older children. The Jefferson Juvenile Court relieved Jefferson County
DHR of its obligation to provide reunification services for the mother and
the child in that case. Later, Jefferson County DHR filed a petition
seeking to terminate the mother's parental rights, and the Jefferson
Juvenile Court granted that petition. This court reversed, explaining:
"[Jefferson County] DHR failed to present evidence
indicating that the mother was unwilling to parent the child
or describing the conduct or condition that made the mother
36
CL-2022-0917, CL-2022-0918, CL-2022-0919, and CL-2022-0920
unable to parent the child. In other words, [Jefferson County]
DHR never revealed the mother's parenting defect. Although
we understand that, according to [Jefferson County] DHR, at
some point in 2008 the mother failed to protect K.F. [(another
of the mother's children)], our review of the record reveals no
evidence presented to the juvenile court that supports
[Jefferson County] DHR's assertion regarding K.F. Even
assuming that [Jefferson County] DHR's assertion is correct,
the record contains no evidence presented by [Jefferson
County] DHR regarding the mother's inability or
unwillingness to discharge her parental responsibility to the
child."
P.S. v. Jefferson Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 143 So. 3d at 797. In that case,
this court also held that "[Jefferson County] DHR did not provide the
mother the opportunity to correct any conduct or condition that might
have been a barrier to reunification with the child." P.S. v. Jefferson
Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 143 So. 3d at 798.
The mother in this case contends that the facts of her case are
similar to those of J.C., because, she says, the evidence demonstrates that
C.I. is an intelligent child with whom she shares a close bond. The mother
also argues that because she had parented C.I. before DHR's
involvement, there is no evidence in the record that her substance-abuse
issues would prevent her from successfully parenting the children. The
mother also contends that, as in P.S., DHR in this case did not identify
37
CL-2022-0917, CL-2022-0918, CL-2022-0919, and CL-2022-0920
the "parenting defect" that would prevent her from reuniting with the
children.
In this case, however, unlike in J.C., there is no evidence in the
record indicating the longevity of the mother's substance-abuse issues.
Therefore, although the record in this case shows that the mother was
perhaps successfully parenting C.I. before DHR's involvement with the
family, the record does not show when the mother began abusing drugs
and whether the mother was abusing drugs during a period while C.I.
was in the mother's custody.
More significantly, unlike in J.C., and P.S., the record in this case
does contain evidence demonstrating how the mother's substance-abuse
issues impacted her ability to parent. For example, when M.H. tested
positive for opiates at the time of her birth, the mother checked herself
out of the hospital, leaving M.H. at that hospital, and the mother did not
return; Mathis testified that the mother had "abandoned" M.H. Thus, the
evidence supports a conclusion that the mother's substance-abuse
problem resulted in her instinct being to protect herself or her ability to
continue to abuse drugs, rather than to attempt to care for her
hospitalized infant. Also, the social workers in J.C., had not seen the
38
CL-2022-0917, CL-2022-0918, CL-2022-0919, and CL-2022-0920
mother in that case under the influence. In this case, Mathis testified
that the mother appeared under the influence at a DHR-supervised
visitation with the children and that the mother eventually admitted to
have taken medications that made her sleepy during that visitation. The
juvenile court could have determined that that side effect the mother
described was a result of the opiates the mother was taking, i.e.,
sleepiness, would impact the mother's ability to parent the children. Such
a conclusion would be concerning especially with regard to the mother's
ability to parent M.H., who was 22 months old at the time of the
termination-of-parental-rights hearing. Furthermore, Dr. Petrella
testified that she recommended that the mother demonstrate that she
was maintaining her sobriety before reuniting the mother with the
children. Given the foregoing, it is clear that DHR presented evidence
that the children were removed from the mother's custody because of her
use of illegal drugs or abuse of prescription medication and that the
mother's substance abuse impacted the mother's ability to properly and
safely parent the children and was the primary bar to the mother's
reunification with the children. We cannot say that the mother has
demonstrated that the evidence did not support a conclusion that her
39
CL-2022-0917, CL-2022-0918, CL-2022-0919, and CL-2022-0920
substance-abuse issues impacted her ability to care for and parent the
children.
The mother also argues on appeal that the juvenile court erred in
concluding that DHR had made reasonable efforts toward reuniting her
with the children. As the mother contends, DHR has the responsibility to
provide services designed to reunite a parent and his or her child or
children. H.H. v. Baldwin Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 989 So. 2d 1094,
1104-05 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007) (plurality opinion).
"The natural starting point in any fair and serious
attempt to rehabilitate the parent and to reunite the parent
with the child is identification of that characteristic, conduct,
or circumstance that renders the parent unfit or unable to
discharge his or her parental responsibilities to the child.
Once DHR identifies the source of parental unfitness, the
overarching goal of family reunification requires DHR to
communicate its concerns to the parent and to develop a
reasonable plan with the parent that is tailored toward the
particular problem(s) preventing the parent from assuming a
proper parental role. DHR should use reasonable methods to
achieve its plan of removing or reducing the identified
obstacle(s) to family reunification 'as quickly and as safely as
possible.' Ala. Code 1975, § 12-15-1(3). Finally, at the
termination of any rehabilitation process, DHR should
determine the success of its efforts, using reasonable
evaluation tools. See In re Vincent B., 73 Conn. App. 637, 644-
47, 809 A.2d 1119, 1124-25 (2002) (holding that the burden is
on state child-protection agency to make 'reasonable efforts to
achieve reunification by engaging the [parent] and making
available services aimed at instilling in him [or her] healthy
parental skills,' to give the parent 'a window of opportunity
40
CL-2022-0917, CL-2022-0918, CL-2022-0919, and CL-2022-0920
during which reasonable efforts at reunification should have
been made,' to apprise the parent of the steps to be taken to
achieve rehabilitation, and to give the parent feedback on his
or her progress in reaching that goal)."
H.H. v. Baldwin Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 989 So. 2d at 1105 (footnote
omitted).
As part of her argument on this issue, the mother contends that
DHR, through Scott, should have offered her a parenting assessment in
spring 2022, when she began to comply with DHR reunification efforts.
In asserting that argument, the mother overlooks that on May 25, 2022,
Dr. Petrella attempted to conduct a parenting assessment during the
psychological evaluation, but that the mother left that evaluation early
and did not return to complete that assessment.
The mother also criticizes DHR for not arranging for the bonding
assessment recommended by Dillard for C.I. and the mother. However,
Scott testified that she had attempted to schedule that bonding
assessment but that no appointments had been available before the
termination-of-parental-rights hearing. The mother only truly began to
attempt reunification services six months after DHR filed its
termination-of-parental-rights petitions, and only approximately three or
four months before the termination-of-parental-rights hearing. However,
41
CL-2022-0917, CL-2022-0918, CL-2022-0919, and CL-2022-0920
Dillard, who recommended the bonding assessment, had only been
counseling C.I. for approximately three or four weeks before the
termination-of-parental-rights hearing began, and it appears that
Dillard's recommendation for the bonding assessment was made only
shortly before that hearing began. Thus, the juvenile court could have
determined that the delay in identifying the possible need for a bonding
assessment, and DHR's inability to schedule that assessment before the
termination-of-parental-rights hearing, was not the fault of DHR social
workers. Moreover, Scott testified that because it was undisputed that
the mother and C.I. have a close bond, the bonding assessment was not
truly necessary to establish that fact. Thus, the juvenile court could have
determined that the failure to conduct the bonding assessment, if it were
error on the part of DHR, was harmless.
The mother also argues that DHR could have offered her
counseling, as was recommended by Dr. Petrella in her recommendations
set forth after the mother's psychological evaluation in late May 2022.
However, it is not clear whether such counseling could have been
implemented in the approximately seven weeks between that
psychological evaluation and the termination-of-parental-rights hearing.
42
CL-2022-0917, CL-2022-0918, CL-2022-0919, and CL-2022-0920
We also note that the juvenile court could have considered that the
mother's earlier refusal or failure to attempt to complete DHR
reunification services resulted in the recommendation for individual
counseling being made so late in the process that if it had been possible
to schedule counseling for the mother immediately, only a few sessions
could have been held before the termination-of-parental-rights hearing
was conducted. Further, the juvenile court could have determined that
individual counseling for the mother would have been beneficial only if
the mother had established that she could maintain sobriety.
According to the mother, DHR did not offer her the ability to
undergo drug screening following her completion of the substance-abuse
program in late June 2022. That allegation is not supported by the
evidence in the record, which demonstrates that the mother twice tested
negative for drug use after her completion of the substance-abuse
program and that she failed to appear at four additional, DHR-requested
drug screens. More significantly, the mother's failure to appear at the
termination-of-parental-rights hearing prevented the mother from
submitting to a drug screen ordered by the juvenile court.
43
CL-2022-0917, CL-2022-0918, CL-2022-0919, and CL-2022-0920
DHR offered the mother a number of services for 18 months before
the mother began to seriously attempt reunification with the children,
and those efforts began, at most, 3 or 4 months before the termination-
of-parental-rights hearing began. DHR did implement services for the
mother in late spring 2022, well after the termination-of-parental-rights
petitions had been filed, and the mother participated in some services
immediately before the termination-of-parental-rights hearing.
However, the record supports a conclusion that those services were not
successful in assisting the mother in adjusting her circumstances to meet
the needs of the children. " 'At some point, … the child[ren]'s need for
permanency and stability must overcome the parent's good-faith but
unsuccessful attempts to become a suitable parent.' " H.H. v. Baldwin
Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 989 So. 2d at 1105 n.5 (quoting M.W. v.
Houston Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 773 So. 2d 484, 487 (Ala. Civ. App.
2000)). We cannot say that the juvenile court erred in determining that
DHR made reasonable efforts to reunite the mother with the children.
The mother last argues that the juvenile court erred in determining
that there were no viable alternatives to the termination of her parental
rights. The mother cites a plurality opinion for the proposition that a
44
CL-2022-0917, CL-2022-0918, CL-2022-0919, and CL-2022-0920
viable alternative to termination would be to place the children with a
"third party." See M.E. v. Shelby Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 972 So. 2d 89(Ala. Civ. App. 2007) (plurality opinion). In that case, the plurality
opinion stated:
"Although it appears that the mother may never
rehabilitate to the point that she can reunify with her
children, termination of parental rights is not the only
potential alternative. Placement with third parties, such as
willing and suitable relatives, see Ex parte J.R., 896 So. 2d
416 (Ala. 2004), foster parents, but see R.L.B. v. Morgan
County Dep't of Human Res., 805 So. 2d 721 (Ala. Civ. App.
2001) (asserting that foster care is not a viable alternative
when there is no opportunity for rehabilitation and
reunification), or group homes, see State Dep't of Human Res.
v. A.K., 851 So. 2d 1 (Ala. Civ. App. 2002), with varying
degrees of parental visitation rights, may be a reasonable and
less drastic alternative to termination of parental rights."
M.E. v. Shelby Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 972 So. 2d at 103.
In relying on M.E., supra, the mother contends that DHR failed to
consider placing the children in the home she shares with her boyfriend.
The mother contends that because she is successfully parenting the half-
sibling while under the boyfriend's supervision, the children could also
be placed in the home under the boyfriend's supervision. However, the
mother did not identify to DHR or to the juvenile court the possibility of
the boyfriend serving as a placement alternative for the children. Thus,
45
CL-2022-0917, CL-2022-0918, CL-2022-0919, and CL-2022-0920
she is raising that argument for the first time on appeal. See Andrews v.
Merritt Oil Co., 612 So. 2d 409, 410 (Ala. 1992) ("[An appellate court]
cannot consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal; rather,
[its] review is restricted to the evidence and arguments considered by the
trial court.").
Moreover, under the AJJA, a "relative" is
"[a]n individual who is legally related to the child by blood,
marriage, or adoption within the fourth degree of kinship,
including only a brother, sister, uncle, aunt, first cousin,
grandparent, great grandparent, great-aunt, great-uncle,
great great grandparent, niece, nephew, grandniece,
grandnephew, or a stepparent."
§ 12-15-301(14), Ala. Code 1975. The boyfriend is not the children's
relative, and there is no indication in the record that the children know
or have met the boyfriend. Furthermore, the evidence indicates that the
mother may not have been sober even while she has been living with the
boyfriend and the half-sibling. Therefore, the evidence supports a
conclusion that, if the mother has not maintained her sobriety, the
boyfriend has not noticed or has failed to notify DHR.
Although we recognize that the mother and C.I. share a close bond,
the record also demonstrates that C.I. and M.H. are closely bonded and
should remain in a placement together. DHR presented evidence that the
46
CL-2022-0917, CL-2022-0918, CL-2022-0919, and CL-2022-0920
children are adoptable and that there is an adoptive resource for the
children that would allow them to remain together in the same home. "In
a proceeding to terminate parental rights, the paramount consideration
of the trial court, and of this court, is the best interests of the children
involved." A.R.E. v. E.S.W., 702 So. 2d 138, 140 (Ala. Civ. App. 1997).
Given the evidence in the record, we cannot say that the juvenile court
erred in determining that there were no viable alternatives to the
termination of the mother's parental rights and that the best interests of
the children were served by the judgments terminating the mother's
parental rights.
CL-2022-0917 -- APPEAL DISMISSED.
CL-2022-0919 -- APPEAL DISMISSED.
Moore, Edwards, Hanson, and Fridy, JJ., concur
CL-2022-0918 -- AFFIRMED.
CL-2022-0920 -- AFFIRMED.
Edwards, Hanson, and Fridy, JJ., concur.
Moore, J., concurs in the result, without opinion.
47