H.T. v. Cleburne Cnty. Dep't of Human Res.
| Decision Date | 10 October 2014 |
| Docket Number | 2130528. |
| Citation | 163 So.3d 1054 |
| Parties | H.T. v. CLEBURNE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Adrienne Michele LaBudde, Anniston, for appellant.
Luther Strange, atty. gen., and Sharon E. Ficquette, gen. counsel, and Elizabeth L. Hendrix, asst. atty. gen., Department of Human Resources, for appellee.
H.T. (“the mother”) appeals from a judgment of the Cleburne Juvenile Court (“the juvenile court”) terminating her parental rights to J.A.T. (“the child”). On appeal, the mother contends (1) that the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter of the petition pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act (“UCCJEA”), § 30–3B–101 et seq., Ala.Code 1975, (2) that the juvenile court improperly certified the judgment terminating her parental rights under Rule 54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P., and (3) that the Cleburne County Department of Human Resources (“DHR”) failed to present clear and convincing evidence to support termination of her parental rights to the child. We conclude that the juvenile court had subject-matter jurisdiction, that the judgment was properly appealable, and that sufficient evidence was presented to support the judgment terminating the mother's parental rights. Therefore, we affirm the juvenile court's judgment.
On November 27, 2013, DHR filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of the mother and J.H. (“the father”) to the child. The juvenile-court clerk assigned the petition case number JU–13–33.02. The case-action summary shows that the mother was served with process by personal service on December 9, 2013. The record does not indicate the location where the mother was served; however, her address on file with the juvenile court at that time was a street address in Fruithurst, Alabama (“the Fruithurst address”). The juvenile court set DHR's petition for trial to begin on February 20, 2014. The father was not personally served with the petition,1 and the juvenile court entered an order granting DHR's motion to serve him by publication. The trial on the petition to terminate the mother's parental rights began on February 20, 2014, as previously scheduled, and the juvenile court set a trial regarding the father to begin on April 24, 2014.2
The record contains the following facts relevant to the issues presented for review. The mother had a long history of drug abuse. She had given birth to six children, and each child had been removed from her custody. Testimony indicates that the father of the child in the present case is not the father of any of the mother's other children. At the time of the trial, the mother's oldest child lived with her former husband in Georgia. In April 2010, three of the mother's children were removed from her custody by the Georgia Division of Family and Children's Services (“GDFCS”) because of the mother's abuse of methamphetamine, her lack of appropriate housing, and her inability to financially support the children. The three children were placed with paternal relatives. As a part of that case, GDFCS offered the mother a substance-abuse assessment, drug treatment, drug screens, parenting classes, and counseling. Although the mother was initially noncompliant with GDFCS's recommendations, she eventually entered into inpatient substance-abuse treatment in August 2010. She completed that treatment program and had negative drug screens for one year until she tested positive for methamphetamine in August 2011. Thereafter, GDFCS had difficulty contacting the mother. Testimony indicates that the mother was not able to maintain a stable residence for more than six months and that she was difficult to contact because she frequently moved between Georgia and Alabama.
On January 21, 2012, the mother gave birth to B.T. A month before B.T.'s birth, the mother tested positive for methamphetamine. Shortly after B.T.'s birth, the mother voluntarily severed her relationship with B.T. by signing documents to facilitate that child's placement for adoption in Georgia. On the 2012 adoption-acknowledgment forms, the mother provided the Fruithurst address as her residence.
On April 1, 2013, the mother gave birth to the child at Tanner Medical Center (“the hospital”) in Georgia. At the time of the child's birth, both the child and the mother tested positive for amphetamines. DHR was notified and contacted the mother at the hospital. Concerning whether DHR or GDFCS would respond to the report regarding the mother and child, Jennifer Rios, a child-abuse-and-neglect investigator with DHR, testified as follows:
Before the child's birth, the mother had been living with the father in Georgia, but the record is not clear how long she had been living there. Testimony indicates that D.T. (“the grandfather”), the child's maternal grandfather, resided at the Fruithurst address. The mother reported to a DHR worker that she did not want GDFCS in Haralson County, Georgia, contacted because, the mother said, she did not have a good relationship with that agency.
DHR obtained a pick-up order from the juvenile court and removed the child from the mother's custody on April 3, 2013.3 DHR brought the child to Alabama. The record shows that a hearing was held on April 5, 2013, regarding the child and that the mother was present at the hearing. The juvenile court entered an order finding the child to be dependent on April 26, 2013. DHR initially placed the child in foster care in Cleburne County on April 3, 2013. On August 12, 2013, the child was placed with foster parents in Haralson County, Georgia, who had adopted B.T., the child's half sibling. The child remained in the custody of the foster parents in Georgia at the time of the trial on the petition to terminate the mother's parental rights.
After the child was removed from the mother's custody, DHR offered the mother various services. An initial individualized service plan (“ISP”) formulated by DHR on April 5, 2013, with the mother present, established that the mother, in order to be reunited with the child, would be required to provide for the child's basic needs, to obtain and maintain sobriety in order to adequately parent the child, and to provide safe and stable housing for the child.4 DHR provided a standard-visitation schedule for the mother and the father and also directed the mother and the father to submit to a drug assessments. The visitation schedule allowed the mother and the father to visit the child up to three times a week for three hours each visit. Testimony showed that the mother visited with the child twice after the child was removed from her custody: once on April 5, 2013, and again in February 2014. On April 23, 2013, the mother was arrested on criminal charges in Haralson County, Georgia, relating to possession of drugs and fraudulent use of a credit card. She remained incarcerated until May 17, 2013, when she was sentenced and placed on probation for 10 years. After her release from incarceration, the mother had no contact with the child for the remainder of 2013. The mother contacted DHR to set up visits in May 2013 and July 2013, but she failed to attend those visits. Also, the mother failed to undergo the drug assessment. She also failed to submit to several drug screens requested by DHR. The mother did not attend ISP meetings held on May 4, 2013, July 1, 2013, August 2, 2013, and November 25, 2013. The record shows the mother was incarcerated at the time of the May 4 and November 25 meetings. She attended ISP meetings on only April 12, 2013 and on August 29, 2013, which meeting was held after a court hearing.5 The mother admitted at trial to using methamphetamine during the pendency of the case.
The mother was arrested again in October 6, 2013, in Haralson County, Georgia, on charges of theft by bringing stolen property into Georgia, felony probation violation, misdemeanor probation violation, and theft by receiving stolen property. Arising from the same incident, the mother was charged with first-degree theft of property in Clay County, Alabama. The charges stemmed from her alleged involvement in the theft of a vehicle that had been transported over the state line. A certified copy of the Clay County warrant issued for the mother's arrest that was introduced as an exhibit at trial provided the Fruithurst address for the mother.
On November 25, 2013, DHR changed the permanency plan from a plan to return custody to the mother or placement with a relative to termination of parental rights, with the permanency goal of adoption by the foster parents. On November 27, 2013, DHR filed the petition to terminate the mother's and the father's parental rights.
The mother remained incarcerated in Georgia on the criminal charges until December 2013. Undisputed testimony showed that, in December 2013...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. San Bernardino Cnty. Children v. D.S. (In re J.W.)
...152 Cal.Rptr.3d 550 ; In re Jaheim B., supra , 169 Cal.App.4th at p. 1348, 87 Cal.Rptr.3d 504 ; H.T. v. Cleburne County Dept. of Human Resources (Ala. Civ. App. 2014) 163 So.3d 1054, 1061 ; Stauffer v. Temperle (Iowa Ct. App. 2010) 794 N.W.2d 317, 321 ; Officer v. Blankenship (Ky. Ct. App. ......
-
In re Teagan K.-O.
...present and future connections, conduct, and relationships with respect to that state. See, e.g., H.T. v. Cleburne County Dept. of Human Resources , 163 So. 3d 1054, 1066 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014) ("The child was only [a] few days old at the commencement of the dependency proceedings, and an as......
-
San Diego Cnty. Health & Human Servs. Agency v. Cynthia C. (In re R.L.)
...(§ 3461.) State courts that have considered the phrase “lived from birth” have found it ambiguous. (H.T. v. Cleburne County Dep't of Human Res. (Ala.Ct.Civ.App. 2014) 163 So.3d 1054, 1064 ; D.S. , supra , 298 Ill.Dec. 781, 840 N.E.2d at p. 1222 [the verb “to live” has different meanings dep......
-
In re Z.H.
...not confer home state jurisdiction. In re M.S. , 205 Vt. 429, 176 A.3d 1124, 1131-32 (2017) ; accord H.T. v. Cleburne Dept. of Human Resources , 163 So.3d 1054, 1065 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014) ("We agree ... that the drafters of the UCCJEA intended ‘lived from birth’ to mean where a child, with ......