J.M. v. State Dept. of Human Resources

Decision Date09 August 1996
Citation686 So.2d 1253
PartiesJ. M. v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES and W. B. 2950401.
CourtAlabama Court of Civil Appeals

Ginette A. Dow, Bessemer, for Appellant.

Robin L. Burrell, Birmingham, for W.B.

YATES, Judge.

The mother appeals from the juvenile court's determination that her two minor children are dependent and should remain in the temporary custody of their maternal grandparents. At issue is whether the court erred in applying the juvenile dependency statute and Rule 25, Ala. R. Juv. P.; in ordering psychological testing of the mother; and in awarding custody to the grandparents, pending further case review.

In June 1995, the grandfather filed a dependent petition for both children, alleging that the mother's home was an unfit and improper place and that the children's morals, health, and general welfare were endangered. The grandfather next moved for an immediate hearing and custody, alleging that the mother had a mental disorder; that she was self-treating her diabetic condition without proper medical supervision; that she suffered from paranoid delusions, which led to threats to kill her children; and that he was fearful that the mother might harm the children. On June 29, 1995, the court set a trial date and, pending trial, awarded custody to the grandparents, with visitation to the mother. It ordered DHR to conduct home studies for both the mother and grandparents and to arrange psychological testing for the mother, and ordered a court-appointed special advocate ("CASA") to monitor the case and to represent the children's best interests. On August 29, 1995, the court again, over the mother's objection, ordered DHR to "set up and pay for psychiatric evaluations" for the mother and to arrange family counseling for the mother and children.

On December 29, 1995, following a hearing, the court found the children to be dependent and that it was in the children's best interests to remain in the grandparents' custody, with the case plan for reunification with the mother. It found, based on psychiatric evaluations that had been submitted, that the mother suffered from emotional problems rather than mental illness. The court awarded the mother liberal visitation and ordered the mother and grandparents to continue their respective counseling and ordered DHR to set up additional psychological testing for the mother in order to obtain a more definitive diagnosis. It set the case for review in March 1996.

The record reveals that the court had adequate evidence and testimony to support its determination that the children were dependent under § 12-15-1(10), Ala.Code 1975, and Rule 25, Ala. R. Juv. P., and to award temporary custody to the grandparents. Two psychological evaluations indicated that, although there was no mental illness or psychosis, the mother was suffering from a range of emotional problems, including depression, anxiety, and emotional instability. Testimony by Dr. Daniel McKeever, who had provided counseling to the mother and her children for several months preceding the hearing, stated that the mother seemed capable of being a good parent, but that she seemed over-controlling because of her fear and anxiety for the girls' safety, and that she was suffering from high stress and depression. He also stated that there was a dysfunctional relationship between the grandparents and the mother and that, as a result, the visitation and reunification efforts had not been...

To continue reading

Request your trial
39 cases
  • T.C. v. Y.R.
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • August 1, 2014
    ......") filed a custody-modification petition in Louisiana state court regarding the children. That action was ultimately ... R.G. v. Calhoun County Dep't of Human Res. , 716 So. 2d 219 (Ala. Civ. App. 1998); G.C. v. G.D. ... ("[T]he test [for whether the Department of Human Resources ('DHR') Page 21 has proven dependency in a ......
  • T.C. v. Y.R.
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • August 1, 2014
    ......state court regarding the children. That action was ultimately ... R.G. v. Calhoun County Dep't of Human Res., 716 So.2d 219 (Ala.Civ.App.1998) ; G.C. v. G.D., ...“[T]he test [for whether the Department of Human Resources (‘DHR’) has proven dependency in a ......
  • K.R. v. Lauderdale Cnty. Dep't of Human Res.
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • April 19, 2013
    ... K.R. v. Lauderdale County Department of Human Resources J.W. v. Lauderdale County Department of Human Resources 2111220 2120020 ... the requirements that must be met in order for a court of this state to modify an initial custody determination of another state. We must ......
  • S.L.M. v. S.C.
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • April 12, 2013
    ...... plan developed by the Etowah County Department of Human Resources (“DHR”). On March 15, 2011, S.L.M. filed a ...v. State Dep't of Human Res., 686 So.2d 1253 (Ala.Civ.App.1996).” ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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