C.M.R. v. L.W.

• Decision Date: 10 January 2014
• Docket Number: 2120626.
• Citation: 144 So.3d 370
• Parties: C.M.R. v. L.W.
• Court: Alabama Court of Civil Appeals

144 So.3d 370

C.M.R.

v.L.W.

2120626.

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

Jan. 10, 2014.

J.D. Hawke, Fairhope, for appellant.

William E. Hollingsworth IV, Talladega, for appellee.

PITTMAN, Judge.

C.M.R. (“the mother”), the mother of A.N.R. and A.C.R. (collectively referred to as “the children”), appeals from judgments entered by the Talladega Juvenile Court (“the juvenile court”) that, among other things, determined that the children were dependent; awarded L.W., a woman who is not related to the mother or the children, custody of the children; and awarded the mother supervised visitation. We affirm.

Procedural History

In January 2013, C.J., the children's maternal grandmother (“the maternal grandmother”), filed separate petitions alleging that each of the children was dependent and seeking custody. The maternal grandmother alleged that the children were dependent because, she said, the mother was unemployed and was unable to provide for the children financially; the father of the children (“the father”) had abandoned the children; and the Talladega County Department of Human Resources (“DHR”) had placed the children under a safety plan because, the maternal grandmother said, R.S., the mother's boyfriend (“the boyfriend”), had been accused of sexually molesting the children. Later in January 2013, L.W. also filed separate petitions alleging that each of the children was dependent and seeking custody. L.W. alleged that the children were dependent because, she said, the mother had allowed the boyfriend to be around the children after he had been accused of sexually molesting the children and the mother had subjected the children to neglect by living in a residence with no electrical or water service for three months.

Although each of the four dependency petitions was docketed as a separate action, the juvenile court appointed a single guardian ad litem to protect the interests of the children in all four actions. The four actions were tried together in a single bench trial at which the juvenile court received evidence ore tenus. All the parties except the father appeared at trial and presented evidence. In April 2013, the juvenile court entered a judgment in each of the four actions; those judgments were, in all material respects, identical. The judgments determined that the children were dependent, awarded L.W. custody of the children, awarded the mother supervised visitation with the children, and denied the maternal grandmother's custody claim. The juvenile court did not make any specific findings of fact or state its rationale for determining that the children were dependent. Following the entry of the judgments, the mother timely appealed.¹ Thereafter, the juvenile court certified that the record was adequate for appellate review pursuant to Rule 28(A)(1)(a), Ala. R. Juv. P.

Factual Background

The children are both girls. A.N.R., the older child, was born in 2004, and A.C.R., the younger child, was born in 2006. The mother testified that, when she was pregnant with the older child, she had waited until three days after her water had broken before she went to a hospital and that the older child had been delivered by emergency Cesarian section. The mother also testified that DHR had become involved with the family when the mother was leaving the hospital with the older child following her birth because someone had reported to DHR that the mother was taking the older child to an unsafe environment.² According to the mother, DHR again became involved with the mother, the father, and the older child in 2005 because the mother and the father were both abusing drugs. The mother admitted that she had continued to abuse drugs while she was pregnant with the younger child and that she had left Talladega County before DHR completed its investigation regarding her drug use. The mother further testified that the younger child had been born in Limestone County and that the father had never been involved in the younger child's life.

The mother testified that, sometime before October 2011, her paternal grandparents had purchased a mobile home (“the first mobile home”) in Sylacauga and had allowed her, the children, and the boyfriend to live in it. The mother further testified that, in October 2011, DHR had placed the children under a safety plan because someone had accused the boyfriend of sexually molesting the children ³ and that the safety plan had required the boyfriend to move out of the first mobile home and had prohibited the mother from allowing the boyfriend to be around the children pending the completion of DHR's investigation of the accusations against him. The mother also testified that, sometime after the boyfriend had moved out of the first mobile home and before May 2012, she had become unemployed and that, for several months, the only source of electricity at the first mobile home was an extension cord running from a neighbor's house to the first mobile home.

The mother testified that, sometime before May 2012, DHR had orally informed her that it had closed its investigation regarding the accusations against the boyfriend and that she would receive written confirmation that DHR had closed its investigation in the mail; however, she admitted that she had never received written confirmation that DHR had closed its investigation regarding those accusations. The mother further testified that, in May 2012, her paternal grandparents had “kicked [her] out” of the first mobile home. The mother initially testified that she did not know why her paternal grandparents had compelled her to vacate the first mobile home in May 2012. However, she subsequently admitted that they had done so because the boyfriend had been coming there, although she insisted that he had been coming there “to get his things” and that “[h]e was not living there.” According to the mother, when her paternal grandparents compelled her to vacate the first mobile home, “nobody would take [her] in” except the boyfriend, so she and the children moved into the boyfriend's mobile home in May 2012. The mother testified that she and the children had lived with the boyfriend at his mobile home from May 2012 until someone accused the boyfriend of molesting the children again in early December 2012.⁴

The mother testified that, as a result of the December 2012 accusations that the boyfriend was sexually molesting the children, DHR had again become involved with the family and that the mother had asked L.W., a friend from church with whom the mother had been close until the mother had moved into the boyfriend's mobile home, to care for the children pursuant to a safety plan developed by DHR until the mother “could get on [her] feet.” The mother also testified that, in early December 2012, she had moved out of the boyfriend's mobile home; that, when she moved out of the boyfriend's mobile home, “[her] family would not help [her]” and had “abandoned” her; and that, for a couple of months after she had moved out of the boyfriend's mobile home, she had been “on the streets living from couch to couch with church members and friends.” However, according to the mother, in February 2013, the maternal grandmother, who lives in Mobile County, came to Talladega County and took the mother to the maternal grandmother's house to live. The mother testified that she was still living with the maternal grandmother when the actions were tried in March 2013, that she had gotten a job working as a housekeeper for the same company that employed the maternal grandmother, and that she was earning $10 per hour when the actions were tried.

Analysis

We will consider the mother's second argument before considering her first argument. The mother's second argument is that the judgments of the juvenile court should be reversed because, she says, the juvenile court's determination that the children were dependent is not supported by clear and convincing evidence.

“ ‘Our standard of review of dependency determinations is well settled.

“ ‘ “A finding of dependency must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. § 12–15–65(f)[, Ala.Code 1975] [ ³]; M.M.S. v. D.W., 735 So.2d 1230, 1233 (Ala.Civ.App.1999). However, matters of dependency are within the sound discretion of the trial court, and a trial court's ruling on a dependency action in which evidence is presented ore tenus will not be reversed absent a showing that the ruling was plainly and palpably wrong. R.G. v. Calhoun County Dep't of Human Res., 716 So.2d 219 (Ala.Civ.App.1998); G.C. v. G.D., 712 So.2d 1091 (Ala.Civ.App.1997); and J.M. v. State Dep't of Human Res., 686 So.2d 1253 (Ala.Civ.App.1996).”

“ ‘J.S.M. v. P.J., 902 So.2d 89, 95 (Ala.Civ.App.2004). This court has stated that clear and convincing evidence is

“ ‘ “ ‘[e]vidence that, when weighed against evidence in opposition, will produce in the mind of the trier of fact a firm conviction as to each essential element of the claim and a high probability as to the correctness of the conclusion. 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.’

“ ‘ “§ 6–11–20[ (b) ](4), Ala.Code 1975.”

“ ‘L.M. v. D.D.F., 840 So.2d 171, 179 (Ala.Civ.App.2002).’

“L.A.C. v. T.S.C., 8 So.3d 322, 326–27 (Ala.Civ.App.2008).

“ ‘We are not allowed to substitute our judgment for that of the trial court, even when this court might have reached a different result, unless the trial court's resolution of the facts is plainly and palpably wrong. L.R.M. v. D.M., 962 So.2d 864, 873–74 (Ala.Civ.App.2007) (citing Griggs v. Griggs, 638 So.2d 916, 918–19 (Ala.Civ.App.1994), quoting in turn Young v. Young, 376 So.2d 737, 739 (Ala.Civ.App.1979)). “ ‘[A]n appellate court may not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court. To do so would be to reweigh the evidence, which Alabama law does not allow.’ ” Ex parte R.E.C., 899 So.2d 272, 279 (Ala.2004) (q...