Mobile Cnty. Dep't of Human Res. v. T.W.
| Decision Date | 17 June 2016 |
| Docket Number | 2150069 |
| Parties | Mobile County Department of Human Resources v. T.W. and L.M. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
Appeal from Mobile Juvenile Court
(JU-09-1368.04, JU-09-1369.03, and JU-09-1370.03)
The Mobile County Department of Human Resources ("DHR") appeals three orders of the Mobile Juvenile Court ("the juvenile court") denying its petitions seeking to terminate the parental rights of T.W. ("the mother") and L.M. ("the father") to their three children.
The record indicates the following facts. DHR first became involved with this family in January 2009 when the youngest child tested positive for drugs at his birth. On October 16, 2009, the children were placed in foster care because the mother was using drugs and the father was incarcerated. The children were returned to the father's custody upon his release from incarceration in April 2011.
DHR again became involved with the family in July 2012 after DHR received a report that the two older children were missing. At that time, the father was again incarcerated for violating his probation, and he had left the children in the care of To.W., the children's maternal aunt. To.W. had allowed the mother to care for the children, and the two older children were missing for two hours while in the mother's care. The children were found unharmed at a friend's home, and the children were ultimately placed in foster care.
Natasha Cromwell, a senior social-work supervisor for DHR, testified that the children were not placed with the mother after the July 2012 incident because, earlier, the mother had not been awarded custody of the children. Cromwell stated that the mother was abusing drugs and did not havestable housing at that time. Cromwell testified that the children were placed with To.W. pursuant to a safety plan but that, after only two weeks, To.W. informed DHR social workers that she was no longer able to care for the children.
On July 30, 2012, DHR received custody of the children, and they were placed in a foster home that same day. The youngest child suffers from attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder ("ADHD") but was receiving counseling and taking medication for the ADHD at the time of the termination hearing. The two younger children have remained in the foster home, but the oldest child was sent to a group home in February 2015 because of behavioral issues and because of his involvement in fights at school. The oldest child will not be allowed to leave the group home until he can demonstrate that he is able to coexist with other children in a classroom setting as well as in his living quarters.
The mother has visitation once every two weeks with the two younger children and has monthly visitation with the oldest child at the group home. Cromwell testified that the mother has never been granted unsupervised visitation because,Cromwell said, the mother has been unable to maintain sobriety.
DHR established the following four goals for the mother before reunification would be possible: that she complete drug treatment and maintain sobriety, that she locate and maintain stable housing, that she complete a parenting course and demonstrate parenting skills, and that she have a source of income sufficient to support the children. DHR provided several services to the mother, including psychological evaluations, supervision of her visitation with the two younger children, referrals to parenting classes, implementation of in-home services, referrals to drug counseling, drug screens and tests, and a referral to a substance-abuse program for drug treatment. The in-home-services program offered the mother transportation to drug treatment, assistance with visitation, and parenting classes.
The record indicates that the mother has had difficulty maintaining housing. Cromwell testified that the mother has lived in more than ten different places between July 2012 and May 2014 and that no home studies have been completed on any of those residences because of the frequency of the mother'smoves. The record also indicates that the mother has had issues with substance abuse throughout the pendency of these cases. The mother reported that she smoked marijuana "about twice a month" for 1 year at the age of 18 and then used marijuana again in 2007 and throughout her pregnancy with the youngest child. She also admitted that she used cocaine once in December 2008 while she was pregnant. The mother tested positive for cocaine in July 2014 and also testified positive for methamphetamine in April 2015. The mother also refused to submit to drug screening several times after the children were placed in foster care.
The mother did not complete a substance-abuse program. Jeremy Mosley, a DHR social worker assigned to these cases, testified that the mother had enrolled in a substance-abuse program and that, although sessions were held three times a week, the mother had attended only seven sessions since July 2014. The mother had also enrolled in two parenting courses but had failed to complete either of them.
Cromwell testified that the mother had at least four jobs between November 2012 and May 2014. The mother reported that she had previously worked as a waitress, a cook, a cashier,and a dancer and that she had also worked in construction and had towed vehicles. On January 8, 2015, the mother began working at a fast-food restaurant, and she was shot at work during a restaurant robbery on January 17, 2015. As a result of the shooting, the mother lost her right lung and pieces of her ribs were shattered. She stated that she has not yet been released by her doctor to return to work but that she plans to work at the same fast-food restaurant.
At the time of the termination hearing in June 2015, the mother's income included $200 in food stamps each month and $141.48 in workers' compensation benefits each week. However, the mother testified that she gave the food-stamp income to her cousin, D.B., who has custody of the mother's youngest child; the mother's youngest child is not at issue in these actions. Mosley testified that the mother has only brought food for the children to the visits and that he was unaware of her ever bringing anything else, such as gifts or clothes, to visitations.
The mother has had at least four boyfriends, while still being married to the father, since the children were placed in foster care in 2012. Background checks performed by DHR onthose men showed that each had a criminal history involving drug-related charges and domestic-violence charges, and one boyfriend, A.T., had a criminal history involving a sexual-assault charge. The mother testified that A.T. was the biological father of the youngest child at issue in these cases.
The father reported to Dr. Jennifer Jackson, a licensed psychologist, that he had previously worked as a brick mason and at a fast-food restaurant and that he had worked as a machine operator for approximately three years, except for those periods during which he was incarcerated. There was no testimony regarding the father's employment status at the time of the termination hearing.
The father has a history of substance abuse. He tested positive for cocaine and methamphetamine in June 2014. Mosley stated that the father had been incarcerated five times since May 2014 and that four out of the five arrests were for drug-related offenses.
Testimony at trial indicated that the father had failed to attend recent visits with the children. Cromwell testified that the father often changed residences and that DHR did nothave the father's current address or telephone number, and Mosley testified that the father had once told him that he was homeless. Mosley testified that his last contact with the father was in April 2015, when Mosley invited the father to a meeting, and before that, Mosley stated, he had last seen the father in December 2014. The mother testified that, at the time of the termination hearing, she did not know where the father lived and that the father no longer had an interest in the children. The father did not appear at the termination hearing.
Each of the juvenile court's September 15, 2015, orders states:
To continue reading
Request your trial