G. P. v. Houston County Department of Human Resources (Appeal from Houston Juvenile Court: JU-07-348.03) Application For Rehearing Overruled.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 01/29/2010 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 2080591 G.P. v. Houston County Department o f Human Resources 2080606 D.S. v. Houston County Department o f Human Resources Appeals from Houston J u v e n i l e Court (JU-07-348.03) On A p p l i c a t i o n s f o r R e h e a r i n g 2080591; 2080606 MOORE, J u d g e . On a p p l i c a t i o n f o r rehearing i n case n o . 2080591, G.P. ("the grandmother") argues t h a t t h i s c o u r t misapprehended her appellate intended argument. The grandmother maintains that she t o a p p e a l t h e d e n i a l o f h e r p e t i t i o n f o r c u s t o d y and n o t t h e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e p a r e n t s ' p a r e n t a l r i g h t s t o A.D.P. ( " t h e c h i l d " ) a n d t h a t t h i s c o u r t m i s i n t e r p r e t e d h e r argument as an a t t a c k on t h e t e r m i n a t i o n of the parents' parental r i g h t s . On a p p l i c a t i o n f o r r e h e a r i n g i n c a s e no. 2080606, ("the f a t h e r " ) argues again terminating h i s parental As to the father's reviewed i t thoroughly that the t r i a l court D.S. erred i n rights. application f o r rehearing, a n d we a r e c o n v i n c e d that we have the father m e r e l y makes t h e same a r g u m e n t s t h a t he a d v a n c e d i n h i s b r i e f on original submission; addressed thoroughly those F o r t h a t reason, rehearing. See W i l l i s ( A l a . 2001) already been we o v e r r u l e h i s a p p l i c a t i o n f o r v. A t l a n t a C a s . Co., 801 So. 2d 837, (Johnstone, o v e r r u l e an a p p l i c a t i o n earnest have a n d c o r r e c t l y i n o u r o p i n i o n on o r i g i n a l submission. 838 arguments J . , concurring specially to f o r r e h e a r i n g when i t was " s i m p l y an r e i t e r a t i o n of the appellant's o r i g i n a l 2 brief"). 2080591; 2080606 As t o t h e grandmother's a p p l i c a t i o n f o r r e h e a r i n g , note t h e f o l l o w i n g p e r t i n e n t f a c t s . the child The j u v e n i l e c o u r t dependent and awarded custody of the c h i l d we found to the H o u s t o n C o u n t y D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s ("DHR") on May 16, 2007. On May permanency order, grandmother f i l e d June 19, 2 0 0 8 . 8, petition the j u v e n i l e court entered w h i c h does n o t a p p e a r i n t h e r e c o r d . a petition 1 DHR p a r e n t a l r i g h t s o f D.Y. 8, 2008. 2008, filed a custody petition The o f t h e c h i l d on t o terminate the ("the m o t h e r " ) a n d t h e f a t h e r on J u l y The j u v e n i l e c o u r t for trial seeking a on s e t t h e grandmother's September 1 1 , 2008, custody a n d s e t DHR's t e r m i n a t i o n - o f - p a r e n t a l - r i g h t s p e t i t i o n f o r t r i a l on S e p t e m b e r 25, 2008. the custody hearing. DHR t h e n moved t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t hearing with to consolidate the termination-of-parental-rights The j u v e n i l e c o u r t a p p a r e n t l y granted The j u v e n i l e c o u r t t h e n c o n t i n u e d the t r i a l on s e v e r a l o c c a s i o n s . a trial Following that motion. of the petitions on M a r c h 17, 2009, the j u v e n i l e c o u r t e n t e r e d a judgment t e r m i n a t i n g t h e p a r e n t a l rights o f t h e mother and t h e f a t h e r and a w a r d i n g custody of O u r o p i n i o n on o r i g i n a l s u b m i s s i o n e r r o n e o u s l y s t a t e s t h a t t h e g r a n d m o t h e r f i l e d h e r c u s t o d y p e t i t i o n on S e p t e m b e r 11, 2008. 1 3 2080591; the 2080606 child judgment to the State Department effectively denied grandmother filed o f Human R e s o u r c e s . the grandmother's That petition for custody. The juvenile the court on M a r c h grandmother issues: indicated (1) " w h e t h e r resource for 26, of [juvenile] court notice 2009. that of parental abused appeal with I n her n o t i c e of she would [ t h e g r a n d m o t h e r ] was [the c h i l d ] termination a sufficient rights" to and i t s discretion be warrant in only one issue i n her two relative denial of "whether the denying [the grandmother's] p e t i t i o n f o r custody of [the c h i l d ] . " i n her a p p e l l a t e b r i e f to t h i s appeal, arguing a viable (2) the However, c o u r t the grandmother s e t out "Statement of I s s u e s " : "whether the [ j u v e n i l e ] c o u r t e r r e d t o r e v e r s a l i n f i n d i n g t h e r e e x i s t s no v i a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s t o t h e permanent t e r m i n a t i o n rights." original of p a r e n t a l I n the "Standard of Review" s e c t i o n of her b r i e f submission, the grandmother s e t out the a p p e l l a t e - review s t a n d a r d s a p p l i c a b l e t o judgments t e r m i n a t i n g rights. on parental The g r a n d m o t h e r t h e n a r g u e d t h a t t h e r e c o r d d i d n o t c o n t a i n c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e o f t h e dependency o f t h e c h i l d and o f a l a c k o f v i a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s , t h e s t a n d a r d f o r 4 2080591; 2080606 terminating parental rights. 950 See Ex p a r t e B e a s l e y , 564 So. 2d ( A l a . 1990). In her b r i e f on o r i g i n a l submission, t h e grandmother a r g u e d u n d e r t h e "Dependency" p o r t i o n o f h e r b r i e f as f o l l o w s : "Under t h i s s p e c i f i c s e t o f f a c t s , t h e [ j u v e n i l e ] court's decision t o terminate the Father's parental rights was p r e m a t u r e , considering the evidence i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e F a t h e r , s i n c e he was made aware o f [ t h e c h i l d ' s ] f o s t e r c a r e p l a c e m e n t , h a s made a c o n t i n u i n g e f f o r t t o change h i s c i r c u m s t a n c e s , a l l w i t h o u t a n y d i r e c t i o n o r e f f o r t s on [DHR's] b e h a l f , at t h e time o f t h e t e r m i n a t i o n hearings." The grandmother entitled then asserted i n a s e c t i o n o f h e r argument "A V i a b l e A l t e r n a t i v e E x i s t s " that "[e]ven i f t h i s Honorable Court determines the [juvenile] court d i d not e r r o r [sic] i n f i n d i n g [the c h i l d ] dependent a t t h e time o f d i s p o s i t i o n , [ t h e grandmother] avers t h a t t h e [ j u v e n i l e ] c o u r t e r r e d i n d e t e r m i n i n g no v i a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e e x i s t s t h u s , i s s u i n g an O r d e r o f T e r m i n a t i o n which f a i l s the second prong of t h e t e s t . " Based original argued on our reading submission, the propriety rights but that o f t h e grandmother's we c o n c l u d e d o f t h e judgment C o u n t y Dep't o f Human Res., 3d ___ , ___ (Ala. on t h e grandmother had terminating parental she had n o t argued " t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e erred i n denying her p e t i t i o n So. that brief f o rcustody." court G.P. v . H o u s t o n [Ms. 2080591, S e p t . 18, 2009] C i v . App. 2 0 0 9 ) . 5 We, therefore, 2 0 8 0 5 9 1 ; 2080606 dismissed o f D.M. So. t h e appeal f o r l a c k o f s t a n d i n g under t h e a u t h o r i t y v . W a l k e r C o u n t y D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s , 919 2d 1197 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 5 ) . So. 3d a t In her a p p l i c a t i o n f o rrehearing, . t h e grandmother "contends t h a t she p r e s e n t e d t h e i s s u e o f t h e d e n i a l of h e r c u s t o d y p e t i t i o n t h r o u g h h e r argument t h a t she was not found a viable alternative to t e r m i n a t i o n . Quite c a n d i d l y , had she, a r e l a t i v e r e s o u r c e who p e t i t i o n e d f o r c u s t o d y , b e e n GRANTED c u s t o d y , t h e r e w o u l d have b e e n no t e r m i n a t i o n o f p a r e n t a l r i g h t s . The c o n t e n t o f h e r a p p e a l c l e a r l y appeals the r u l i n g that denied her custody p e t i t i o n . [The g r a n d m o t h e r ] t a k e s e x c e p t i o n t h a t h e r a p p e a l has b e e n d i s m i s s e d . " In essence, t h e grandmother argues that, by t r e a t i n g h e r a r g u m e n t on v i a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s a s an a t t a c k on t h e p r o p r i e t y of t h e judgment t e r m i n a t i n g t h e p a r e n t a l r i g h t s o f t h e mother and the father, this court overlooked or misapprehended her argument t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t e r r e d i n d e n y i n g h e r c u s t o d y petition. See R u l e 4 0 ( b ) , brief application on particularity the points A l a . R. App. P. ( s t a t i n g t h a t t h e for rehearing "must state with of law or t h e f a c t s t h e a p p l i c a n t believes the court overlooked or misapprehended"). A f t e r c a r e f u l l y r e v i e w i n g t h e o r i g i n a l b r i e f f i l e d by t h e grandmother, we are not convinced m i s a p p r e h e n d e d her argument. that we overlooked or We d i s a g r e e w i t h t h e g r a n d m o t h e r 6 2 0 8 0 5 9 1 ; 2080606 that an argument terminated that the j u v e n i l e the parents' parental court should rights n o t have because of the e x i s t e n c e o f a v i a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e i s t a n t a m o u n t t o an argument that the juvenile court erred custody f i l e d by a p a r t y other i n denying than a A p a r e n t has a fundamental care, custody, and c o n t r o l government cannot compelling governmental extinguish (M.D. A l a . 1 9 7 6 ) . rights, t h e government evidence, among alternatives explored other constitutional unless interest Hence, and u n l e s s before must p r o v e care that would serve the best 2008). a drastic and parental convincing drastic have Beasley, been supra. i s whether p l a c i n g t h e relative q u a l i f i e d to receive without terminating i n t e r e s t s of the c h i l d . I f the juvenile "less rights See Ex p a r t e H o u s t o n C o u n t y Dep't o f Human Res., App. to protect a l l less of parental a f i t and s u i t a b l e f o r the c h i l d to the which the terminating by c l e a r things, to termination required One a l t e r n a t i v e t h a t must be c o n s i d e r e d and right Roe v. Conn, 417 F.Supp. 769, and a r e n o t v i a b l e . c h i l d with parent. of h i s or her c h i l d , m e a s u r e s w o u l d be u n a v a i l i n g . " 779 a petition for rights See A.D.B.H. v . 1 So. 3d 5 3 , 62 ( A l a . C i v . court, 7 parental i n terminating parental 2 0 8 0 5 9 1 ; 2080606 r i g h t s , r e j e c t s that a l t e r n a t i v e without s u f f i c i e n t evidence, then the a f f e c t e d parent order to protect rights. clear that would have violation grounds f o r appeal i n of h i s or her due-process Hence, a n y argument t h a t t h e r e c o r d does n o t c o n t a i n and c o n v i n c i n g evidence indicating that no viable a l t e r n a t i v e s t o t e r m i n a t i o n o f p a r e n t a l r i g h t s e x i s t c a n n o t be raised b y an a p p e l l a n t stake. whose d u e - p r o c e s s See D.M. v. W a l k e r County rights are not at Dep't o f Human Res., supra. A r e l a t i v e s e e k i n g c u s t o d y o f a d e p e n d e n t c h i l d h a s no vested right, rather, constitutional or otherwise, a r e l a t i v e may o b t a i n custody to the c h i l d ; o f a dependent o n l y b y p r o v i n g t h a t he o r s h e i s s u i t a b l e , f i t , child and q u a l i f i e d to r e c e i v e and care f o r t h e c h i l d and t h a t t h e b e s t interests o f t h e c h i l d w o u l d be s e r v e d b y a w a r d i n g c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d to the r e l a t i v e . Res., 991 Naturally, her So. See J . B . v. C l e b u r n e C o u n t y 2d 273, 282-83 ( A l a . C i v . App. 475 2008). a r e l a t i v e may a p p e a l a j u d g m e n t r e j e c t i n g h i s o r petition f o r custody of a child i n s u f f i c i e n c y of the evidence supporting e.g., Dep't o f Human B.H. v. M a r i o n C o u n t y ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 8 ) . on t h e ground t h a t judgment. Dep't o f Human Res., That a p p e a l would 8 of See, 998 So. 2 d concern solely 2080591; 2080606 whether t h e r e c o r d c o n t a i n s finding that the r e l a t i v e s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o support a i s unfit, a r e l a t i v e i s u n q u a l i f i e d t o r e c e i v e and care a f i n d i n g that the best that the f o rthe c h i l d , or i n t e r e s t s o f t h e c h i l d w o u l d n o t be served by placement w i t h would not i m p l i c a t e exhaustion finding the r e l a t i v e ; the parent's however, that appeal constitutional right of a l l a l t e r n a t i v e s l e s s d r a s t i c than to termination of p a r e n t a l r i g h t s . I d . In some cases, the evidence relating a l t e r n a t i v e s a n d r e l a t i v e c u s t o d y may o v e r l a p . to viable F o r example, evidence i n d i c a t i n g that a r e l a t i v e i s unsuitable, u n f i t , or u n q u a l i f i e d t o r e c e i v e and care f o r a c h i l d would support b o t h a f i n d i n g t h a t placement w i t h the p e t i t i o n i n g r e l a t i v e i s not a v i a b l e o p t i o n t o t e r m i n a t i o n o f p a r e n t a l r i g h t s and t h a t t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f t h e c h i l d w o u l d n o t be s e r v e d b y p l a c i n g t h e c h i l d with the p e t i t i o n i n g r e l a t i v e . are not coextensive. Contrary to However, t h e two i s s u e s the argument grandmother i n h e r a p p l i c a t i o n f o r r e h e a r i n g , the best i n t e r e s t s of the c h i l d of the a finding that w o u l d be s e r v e d by p l a c i n g c u s t o d y i n t h e p e t i t i o n i n g r e l a t i v e does n o t n e c e s s a r i l y mean that a v i a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e e x i s t s preventing the termination of 9 2080591; 2080606 parental rights. Therefore, an argument that the j u v e n i l e c o u r t e r r e d i n f i n d i n g t h a t a l l v i a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s h a v e been exhausted does n o t e q u a t e t o an argument court erred i n r e j e c t i n g a custody In her n o t i c e of appeal, that the j u v e n i l e petition. the grandmother r e c o g n i z e d the d i s t i n c t i o n between t h e i s s u e r e l a t i n g t o t h e t e r m i n a t i o n o f the parents' relating to petition. parental the rights rejection Nevertheless, to the c h i l d of the and t h e grandmother's issue custody t h e grandmother e l e c t e d t o b r i e f the former i s s u e . Accordingly, err i n d i s m i s s i n g h e r a p p e a l on o r i g i n a l only we c o n c l u d e t h a t we d i d n o t overrule her a p p l i c a t i o n f o r rehearing. submission, In doing a n d we s o , we n o t e t h a t , e v e n h a d t h e g r a n d m o t h e r made t h e a p p r o p r i a t e a r g u m e n t s , we still court because finding been w o u l d have sufficient that the best served affirmed by t h e judgment evidence of the j u v e n i l e supported the implied i n t e r e s t s o f t h e c h i l d w o u l d n o t have placing custody of the child with the grandmother. 2080591 APPLICATION FOR REHEARING OVERRULED. 2080606 APPLICATION FOR REHEARING OVERRULED. Thompson, P . J . , and P i t t m a n , concur. 10 Bryan, a n d Thomas, J J . ,

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.