A.H. v. Madison Cnty. Dep't of Human Res., 2150160
Citation | 215 So.3d 560 |
Decision Date | 01 July 2016 |
Docket Number | 2150160,2150201. |
Parties | A.H. v. MADISON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES. J.P., Sr. v. Madison County Department of Human Resources. |
Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Brian D. Clark, Huntsville, for appellant A.H.
Melissa Skipper Liebrecht, Huntsville, for appellant J.P., Sr.Luther Strange, atty. gen., and Sharon E. Ficquette, gen. counsel, and Elizabeth L. Hendrix, asst. atty. gen., Department of Human Resources, for appellee.
On June 11, 2015, the Madison County Department of Human Resources ("DHR") filed in the Madison Juvenile Court ("the juvenile court") four separate petitions seeking to terminate the parental rights of A.H. ("the mother") and J.P. ("the father") to their four minor children, all of whom were born between 2011 and January 2015. The juvenile court consolidated the four actions and conducted an ore tenus hearing on DHR's petitions on October 28, 2015.
On November 2, 2015, the juvenile court entered four virtually identical judgments in which it ordered that the mother's and the father's parental rights be terminated to each of their four children. On November 9, 2015, the mother filed a "motion to reconsider," and on November 10, 2015, she filed a motion requesting a new trial in each of the four actions. The father filed a postjudgment motion in each action on November 10, 2015. The juvenile court entered orders on November 10, 2015, denying the mother's postjudgment motions, and it denied the father's postjudgment motions on November 12, 2015. Both parents timely appealed to this court; this court consolidated the appeals.
The grounds warranting a termination of parental rights are set forth in § 12–15–319, Ala.Code 1975. With regard to the consideration of a petition seeking to terminate parental rights, this court has explained:
"A juvenile court is required to apply a two-pronged test in determining whether to terminate parental rights: (1) clear and convincing evidence must support a finding that the child is dependent; and (2) the court must 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) ) (emphasis added). The appellate courts must apply a presumption of correctness in favor of the juvenile court's judgment in a termination-of-parental-rights action. J.C. v. State Dep't of Human Res., 986 So.2d 1172, 1183 (Ala.Civ.App.2007). "Additionally, we 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." Id.
In their briefs submitted to this court, each parent argues only that the juvenile court erred in determining that there were no viable alternatives to the termination of his or her parental rights. See Ex parte Beasley, supra. Neither the mother nor the father argues that the juvenile court erred in its dependency determinations or in determining that grounds existed under § 12–15–319 warranting the termination of their parental rights. Arguments not asserted on appeal are deemed to have been waived. Boshell v. Keith, 418 So.2d 89, 92 (Ala.1982) ().
The juvenile court made the following relevant factual findings in its judgments:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
M.H. v. Calhoun Cnty. Dep't of Human Res.
...of the juvenile court, and they are entitled to a presumption of correctness on appeal." A.H. v. Madison Cty. Dep't of Human Res., 215 So. 3d 560, 570 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016). See also M.H.J. v. State Dep't of Human Res., 785 So. 2d 372, 376 (Ala. Civ. App. 2000) ("Given all these factors, we......
-
M.H. v. Calhoun Cnty. Dep't of Human Res. J.D.C.
...of the juvenile court, and they are entitled to a presumption of correctness on appeal."A.H. v. Madison Cty. Dep't of Human Res., 215 So. 3d 560, 570 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016). See also M.H.J. v. State Dep't of Human Res., 785 So. 2d 372, 376 (Ala. Civ. App. 2000) ("Given all these factors, we ......
-
Vest v. Vest, 2150113.
...Graham, 590 So.2d 293, 295 (Ala.Civ.App.1991) ). The provision in the judgment concerning the exchange of the child for visitation states:215 So.3d 560"For so long as the children [sic] reside in Limestone County, Alabama, all visitation will be accomplished by the non-custodial parent pick......
-
T.C. v. B.C.
...P.; Ala. Code 1975, § 26-17-609(b); K.S.B. v. M.C.B., 219 So.3d 650, 653 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016); A.H. v. Madison Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 215 So.3d 560, 562 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016); S.S. v. Jefferson Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 154 So.3d 1049, 1054 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014); J.K. v. Jefferson Cnty.......