T.D.H. v. Mobile Cnty. Dep't of Human Res.

• Docket Number: CL-2023-0033,CL-2023-0034,CL-2023-0035,CL-2023-0036,CL-2023-0057,CL-2023-0058
• Decision Date: 01 December 2023
• Parties: T.D.H. v. Mobile County Department of Human Resources J.M.S. v. Mobile County Department of Human Resources
• Court: Alabama Court of Civil Appeals

1

T.D.H.
v.
Mobile County Department of Human Resources

J.M.S.
v.
Mobile County Department of Human Resources

Nos. CL-2023-0033, CL-2023-0034, CL-2023-0035, CL-2023-0036, CL-2023-0057, CL-2023-0058

Alabama Court of Civil Appeals

December 1, 2023

Appeals from Mobile Juvenile Court (JU-18-1197.02, JU-18-1196.02, JU-18-1195.02, and JU-18-1192.02), (JU-18-1195.02 and JU-18-1197.02)

EDWARDS, Judge.

2

In October 2019, the Mobile County Department of Human Resources ("DHR") filed petitions in the Mobile Juvenile Court ("the juvenile court") seeking to terminate the parental rights of T.D.H. ("the mother") and J.M.S. to four children: C.S., D.S., J.S., and M.S.; those petitions were assigned case numbers JU-18-1192.02, JU-18-1195.02, JU-18-1196.02, and JU-18-1197.02, respectively. DHR later amended its petitions in case numbers JU-18-1192.02 and JU-18-1196.02, relating to C.S. and J.S., to dismiss J.M.S. as a party because genetic testing had established that he was not the father of either C.S. or J.S. DHR added A.R. as a defendant in case number JU-18-1192.02 and C.L.J. as a defendant in case number JU-18-1196.02. J.M.S. ("the father") remained a party in case numbers JU-18-1195.02 and JU-18-1197.02.

After several continuances, the actions, which had been consolidated for trial, were tried on October 13, 2022. After the conclusion of the trial, the juvenile court accepted a December 2022 posttrial filing from the mother, as had been agreed upon at trial. On January 15, 2023, the juvenile court entered judgments terminating the

3

parental rights of the mother to C.S., D.S., J.S., and M.S. and terminating the parental rights of the father to D.S. and M.S. The judgments entered in case numbers JU-18-1192.02 and JU-18-1196.02 did not terminate the rights of A.R. or of C.L.J., respectively. Both the mother and the father appeal.^[1]

I. The Mother's Appeals in Appeal Numbers CL-2023-0034 and CL-2023-0036

Before we may consider the arguments of the mother in appeal numbers CL-2023-0034 and CL-2023-0036, we must first consider whether this court has jurisdiction over those appeals.

"Although none of the parties has raised the issue whether this court may consider [these] appeals, 'matters of jurisdiction are of such importance that a court may consider

4

them ex mero motu.' Reid v. Reid, 844 So.2d 1212, 1214 (Ala. Civ. App. 2002).

"'"'It is a well established rule that, with limited exceptions, an appeal will lie only from a final judgment which determines the issues before the court and ascertains and declares the rights of the parties involved.'" Owens v. Owens, 739 So.2d 511, 513 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999), quoting Taylor v. Taylor, 398 So.2d 267, 269 (Ala. 1981). This court has stated:

"'"A final judgment is one that completely adjudicates all matters in controversy between all the parties.

"'"... An order that does not dispose of all claims or determine the rights and liabilities of all the parties to an action is not a final judgment."'"

D.L. v. Calhoun Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 276 So.3d 227, 230 (Ala. Civ. App. 2018) (quoting Adams v. NaphCare, Inc., 869 So.2d 1179, 1181 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003), quoting in turn Eubanks v. McCollum, 828 So.2d 935, 937 (Ala. Civ. App. 2002)).

As explained previously, DHR requested that the father be dismissed as a party in case numbers JU-18-1192.02 and JU-18-1196.02 because genetic testing had excluded him from being the biological father

5

of C.S. and J.S. DHR then requested that A.R. be named as a defendant in case number JU-18-1192.02, relating to C.S., and that C.L.J. be named as a defendant in case number JU-18-1196.02, relating to J.S. Both A.R. and C.L.J. were served by publication. The judgments entered by the juvenile court in case numbers JU-18-1192.02 and JU-18-1196.02 fail to address the requests by DHR that the parental rights of A.R. and C.L.J. be terminated.

In its letter brief on the issue of this court's jurisdiction over appeal numbers CL-2023-0034 and CL-2023-0036, DHR posits that, because A.R. and C.L.J. are only alleged fathers and not legal fathers of C.S. and J.S., the juvenile court was without statutory authority to terminate their parental rights. See J.R.C. v. Mobile Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 342 So.3d 580 (Ala. Civ. App 2021) (determining that a juvenile court lacks statutory authority to terminate the parental rights of a man who has not been determined to be the legal father of a child). Although we agree with DHR that the juvenile court lacked the statutory authority to terminate the parental rights of A.R. and C.L.J. because the juvenile court had not yet adjudicated their paternity of C.S. and J.S.,

6

respectively, DHR fails to recognize that the claim it asserted against each man remains unadjudicated in the juvenile court. Had the juvenile court determined that A.R. and C.L.J. were not legal fathers, had the juvenile court denied DHR's petitions insofar as they sought to terminate the parental rights of A.R. and C.L.J., or had the juvenile court dismissed A.R. and C.L.J. from the actions because their parental rights could not be terminated without an adjudication of paternity, these appeals could have proceeded; certainly, had the juvenile court adjudicated the paternity of A.R. and C.L.J. and terminated their parental rights, the judgments would be final and capable of supporting these appeals. However, the judgments entered in case numbers JU-18-1192.02 and JU-18-1196.02 do not mention A.R. or C.L.J. or the termination-of-parental-rights claims that DHR asserted against each of them, and those judgments, which do not adjudicate the rights and liabilities of all the parties before the juvenile court, are therefore not final judgments. Thus, we dismiss the mother's appeals in appeal numbers CL-2023-0034 and CL-2023-0036.

7

II. The Mother's Appeals in Appeal Numbers CL-2023-0033 and CL-2023-0035

A. Facts and Procedural History

Turning now to the mother's appeals in appeal numbers CL-2023-0033 and CL-2023-0035, the record indicates that D.S. and M.S. ("the children") were first removed from the custody of the mother and the father, who were never married, in August 2018. Latonya Ankerson, who was the investigator assigned by DHR to investigate the report made against the mother and the father, testified that the report that DHR had received indicated that the mother and the father had used illegal drugs in the presence of the children; that the mother may have physically abused D.S., resulting in his suffering a seizure; that the children may have been exposed to sexual abuse by a person who had visited the mother and the father; and that the mother had threatened to kill herself and the children. Ankerson testified that she had interviewed the mother's oldest child, C.S., at school, and that she had then visited the mother and D.S. in the hospital, where D.S. was being treated for the seizure. According to Ankerson, when she arrived at D.S.'s hospital

8

room, the mother was asleep on a small couch in the room. Although Ankerson indicated that the mother had not been easily awakened and that she had sought the assistance of a nurse in awakening her, she also testified that the mother had awoken about one and a half minutes after Ankerson's arrival.

Ankerson described the mother as being irate. Ankerson said that the mother had used profanity and had yanked out some of her own hair when Ankerson informed her that she would need to submit to a drug test. Ankerson said that she had explained to the mother that DHR would first require a urine test, at which point, Ankerson testified, the mother had pulled down her pants and told Ankerson that she could "get the piss up off the floor." Ankerson said that she had requested that security be called to the room because of the mother's attitude and behavior.

Ankerson testified that the presence of a security guard had only escalated the mother's irate behavior. Ankerson explained that the mother had telephoned her own mother, L.H. ("the maternal grandmother"), and demanded, in a profanity-laced conversation, that

9

she come to the hospital. After the maternal grandmother arrived, Ankerson was able to calm the mother enough to discuss the situation with her.

Ankerson recalled that the mother had explained that she did not know where C.S., J.S., and M.S. were and that the mother had said that she had been unable to reach anyone to inquire regarding their whereabouts. Ankerson said that the mother had visible bruising but that the mother had refused to explain the cause of those bruises and had told Ankerson that Ankerson did not need to know. Additionally, Ankerson testified that the mother had denied drug use.

According to Ankerson, after she left the hospital, she went to the family's residence, where she located C.S., J.S., and M.S. She testified that C.S. was staying with the mother's sister, J.H. ("the maternal aunt"), who lived down the street. Apparently, J.S. and M.S. were being supervised by a man who said that he had met the family a few times and that he was being paid to watch those children and by a woman who said that she had offered to assist the mother by watching those children.

10

Ankerson described the family's home as a mobile home with bare plywood floors, holes in some of the walls and doors, and very little food.

Ankerson explained that DHR had entered into a safety-plan arrangement for C.S. and D.S., under which they would reside with the maternal aunt; Ankerson said that the safety plan had prohibited C.S. and D.S. from having unsupervised contact with the mother. Ankerson said that J.S. and M.S. had been permitted to reside with the mother at an inpatient drug-rehabilitation facility. However, Ankerson reported, the mother soon left that facility and had had unsupervised contact with C.S. and D.S., prompting DHR to file dependency petitions seeking an award...