DH v. CALHOUN COUNTY DEPT. OF HUMAN RES.

Decision Date07 June 2002
Citation837 So.2d 313
PartiesD.H. v. CALHOUN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES.
CourtAlabama Court of Civil Appeals

William J. Miller of Fite, Field & Miller, L.L.C., Anniston, for appellant.

Bill Pryor, atty. gen.; J. Coleman Campbell, deputy atty. gen., and John D. Harrison and Lynn S. Merrill, asst. attys. gen., Department of Human Resources, for appellee.

PITTMAN, Judge.

The Calhoun County Department of Human Resources ("DHR") filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of D.H. ("the mother") as to her five children; M.A.H. is the father of one of the children, M.A.H., Jr., but is not the father of the other children. DHR filed a petition to terminate his parental rights as to M.A.H., Jr. Following a one-day hearing, the trial court terminated the mother's parental rights as to all five children. The trial court also terminated the parental rights of M.A.H. as to M.A.H., Jr.; the older four children have never been legitimated.

Only the mother appeals; she argues (1) that there is not clear and convincing evidence to support the trial court's finding that the children are dependent and (2) that the trial court did not properly evaluate viable alternatives to termination of her parental rights before rejecting those alternatives.

A nonparent who seeks to terminate a parent's parental rights must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the child is dependent and that there are no viable alternatives to terminating the parents' parental rights. Ex parte Beasley, 564 So.2d 950 (Ala.1990).

Section 26-18-7(a) states in relevant part:

"If the 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 is such as to render them unable to properly care for the child and that such conduct or condition is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future, it may terminate the parental rights of the parents. In determining whether or not the parents are unable or unwilling to discharge their responsibilities to and for the child, the court shall consider, and in cases of voluntary relinquishment of parental rights may consider, but not be limited to, the following:
"(1) That the parents have abandoned the child, provided that in such cases, proof shall not be required of reasonable efforts to prevent removal or reunite the child with the parents.
"(2) Emotional illness, mental illness or mental deficiency of the parent, or excessive use of alcohol or controlled substances, of such duration or nature as to render the parent unable to care for needs of the child.
"(3) That the parent has tortured, abused, cruelly beaten, or otherwise maltreated the child....
"(4) Conviction of and imprisonment for a felony.
"(5) Unexplained serious physical injury to the child under such circumstances as would indicate that such injuries resulted from the intentional conduct or willful neglect of the parent.
"(6) That reasonable efforts by the [DHR] ... leading toward the rehabilitation of the parents have failed.
"....
"(8) That parental rights to a sibling of the child have been involuntarily terminated."

Section 26-18-7(b) further provides that if the child is not in the custody of the parents, the juvenile court may consider whether the parents are providing monetary support for the child, whether they are regularly exercising visitation with the child, and whether they are adjusting their "circumstances to meet the needs of the child."

We first conclude that the record contains clear and convincing evidence that the children are dependent. DHR began its involvement with the family in May 2000 after the mother, the father, and the five children along with another family of four had been involved in a car accident. The driver and the 10 passengers were in a two-door car. The four adults were legally intoxicated,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • J.C. v. State Department of Human Resources
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • 12 Octubre 2007
    ...mother's residing with the father as a factor rendering her unable to properly care for the child. Cf., D.H. v. Calhoun County Dep't of Human Res., 837 So.2d 313, 315 (Ala.Civ.App.2002)(paternal grandfather not a viable alternative resource because he resided with the father whose parental ......
  • S.T. v. Geneva Cnty. Dep't of Human Res.
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • 22 Enero 2021
    ...919 So. 2d 1197, 1214 (Ala. Civ. App. 2005); B.M. v. State, 895 So. 2d 319, 331 (Ala. Civ. App. 2004); D.H. v. Calhoun Cnty. Dep't of Human Res., 837 So. 2d 313, 315 (Ala. Civ. App. 2002); W.L.H. v. B.L.M., 829 So. 2d 173, 175 (Ala. Civ. App. Page 2 2002); and Murphree v. Murphree, 579 So. ......
  • J.W.M. v. Cleburne County Dhr
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • 31 Agosto 2007
    ...custody would expose the child to the unfit parent in violation of the purpose of the CPA. See, e.g., D.H. v. Calhoun County Dep't of Human Res., 837 So.2d 313, 315 (Ala.Civ.App.2002); and S.T. v. State Dep't of Human Res., 579 So.2d 640, 643 (Ala.Civ.App.1991) (citing Moore v. State Dep't ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT