F.W. v. T.M., 2120430.
Decision Date | 16 August 2013 |
Docket Number | 2120430. |
Parties | F.W. v. T.M. and K.M. |
Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Norma M. Wells, Albertville, for appellant.
James D. Walker, Albertville, for appellees.
F.W. appeals from a judgment of the Marshall Juvenile Court (“the juvenile court”) awarding T.M. and K.M. (“the foster parents”) custody of M.S. (“the child”).
A.S. (“the mother”) gave birth to the child at Huntsville Hospital on October 22, 2011. Because of the mother's erratic behavior and her refusal to feed the child following birth, the hospital staff removed the child from the mother's hospital room and contacted the Department of Human Resources. Around the time of the child's birth, the child's father, J.H. (“the father”), had been detained in the Marshall County jail for allegedly telephoning a bomb threat into his place of employment. On October 24, 2011, the Marshall County Department of Human Resources (“DHR”) filed a petition alleging that the child was dependent and requesting that the child be removed from the custody of the mother. The juvenile court granted DHR's request for removal and placed the child in the legal custody of DHR. On October 25, 2011, DHR placed the child into the physical custody of the foster parents. Following a shelter-care hearing on October 26, 2011, the juvenile court determined that the child would remain in the legal custody of DHR. The juvenile court conducted an adjudicatory hearing on November 29, 2011, and, on November 30, 2011, the juvenile court entered an order adjudicating the child to be dependent. The juvenile court awarded legal custody of the child to DHR, and the child remained in the physical custody of the foster parents.
Following the removal of the child from the mother, DHR sought to locate a suitable relative placement for the child. As the juvenile court noted in its final judgment rendered in this case in January 2013, “[a] number of different relative placements, too lengthy to list here, were determined unsuitable by DHR, for a variety of reasons, including unwillingness to accept the child and/or prior indicated reports of child abuse.” The record shows that in January 2012 F.W. contacted DHR with a request that she and her husband, C.W., be considered for relative placement of the child. F.W. is the sister of the child's maternal grandmother, thus making F.W. and C.W. the child's maternal great-aunt and great-uncle. Shortly thereafter, DHR approved F.W. and C.W. as a suitable relative placement for the child. The record indicates that DHR planned to transfer the child from the foster parents' home on February 8, 2012. On February 1, 2012, the foster parents filed a petition to intervene in the dependency case. In the petition, the foster parents requested that the juvenile court enter emergency relief to prevent DHR from removing the child from the foster parents' physical custody and “that the Court enter such orders concerning temporary and permanent custody of the minor child as may be in the best interest of the minor child, including, if the Court deems appropriate, temporary and permanent custody [with the foster parents].” The record reveals that the foster parents based their petition on the allegation that F.W. and C.W. were unable to care for the child due to concerns with F.W.'s and C.W.'s health and based on F.W.'s and C.W.'s close association with and location to family members and others who engaged in illegal or illicit activity. The record indicates that, at a hearing on February 7, 2012, DHR opposed the foster parents' petition to intervene based on their lack of standing and that DHR opposed the foster parents' motion for an emergency order preventing the removal of the child from their physical custody. On February 7, 2012, F.W. and C.W. filed a motion to intervene, in which they also requested permanent custody of the child. The record reveals that the juvenile court granted their petition without opposition from any party. On February 21, 2012, the foster parents amended their petition to request termination of the mother's parental rights. The record indicates that the foster parents also filed a separate petition for termination of the mother's parental rights.1 On March 15, 2012, the juvenile court entered an order granting the foster parents' request to intervene.
On or about April 1, 2012, DHR removed the child from the foster parents' home and placed the child in the physical custody of F.W. and C.W. The juvenile court held a hearing on April 4, 2012, on the foster parents' petition for emergency relief. The juvenile court determined from the evidence presented at the hearing that the conditions surrounding F.W. and C.W. were troublesome, but did not rise to a level requiring the removal of the child from F.W. and C.W.'s home.
Ore tenus testimony was taken at the trial of the case on December 4, 2012, and January 2, 2013. In its final judgment, entered on January 4, 2013, the juvenile court noted that the issue that had been tried was narrow:
The juvenile court made the following findings of fact, among others:
“....
“On April 5, 2012, this Court entered an Order which provided in part [that DHR was to place the child with F.W. and C.W., but that J.D.W., M.D.W., P.B., L.H., C.H., and L.D. were to have no contact with the child and were not to be on or around the property of F.W. and C.W.'s home while the child was present].
“The Court is convinced that [J.D.W.] is habitually involved in nefarious and/or criminal activity, including drug related activity, theft and domestic violence.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
J.P. v. Calhoun Cnty. Dep't of Human Res.
...Ex parte Bryowsky , 676 So.2d 1322, 1326 (Ala.1996) ).’" D.C.S. v. L.B. , 84 So.3d 954, 961–62 (Ala.Civ.App.2011)." F.W. v. T.M. , 140 So.3d 950, 959 (Ala.Civ.App.2013).At the time of the dependency hearing, the child had been in the custody of DHR since her release from the hospital follow......
-
D.K. v. S.M.S.
...paternal aunt and uncle as having intervened as parties in the termination-of-parental-rights actions. See, e.g., F.W. v. T.M., 140 So. 3d 950, 958 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013) ("This court has routinely recognized that relative caregivers and foster parents may seek and be granted intervention in......
-
M.C. v. Lee Cnty. Dep't of Human Res.
...to be placed with, or, in this case to remain with nonrelatives, the best interests of the child prevail over bloodlines. F.W. v T.M., 140 So.3d 950 (Ala. App. 2013). Furthermore, predetermining the outcome without fully considering all the relevant facts, and fully assessing the circumstan......
- J.M. v. R.B.