M. G. v. State Department of Human Resources

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 01/08/2010 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l 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 Reporter o f Decisions, 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 2080971 M.G. v. State Department o f Human Resources Appeal from F r a n k l i n J u v e n i l e Court (JU-08-99.02) MOORE, J u d g e . M.G. ("the m o t h e r " ) a p p e a l s from a judgment h e r p a r e n t a l r i g h t s t o h e r two d a u g h t e r s , terminating R.H., who was b o r n on J u l y 13, 2004, a n d H.H., who was b o r n on June 30, 2005. affirm. We 2080971 Procedural History On November 12, 2008, t h e F r a n k l i 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 to ("the F r a n k l i n C o u n t y DHR") f i l e d a petition t e r m i n a t e t h e p a r e n t a l r i g h t s o f t h e m o t h e r a n d E.H. ("the f a t h e r " ) t o R.H. a n d H.H. 2009, t r i a l , ("the d a u g h t e r s " ) . 1 A f t e r a May 13, t h e 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 r i g h t s o f t h e m o t h e r a n d t h e f a t h e r on June 25, 2009. On appeal. July 7, 2009, t h e mother filed her notice of 2 A l t h o u g h t h e A l a b a m a D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s f i l e d t h e b r i e f s on a p p e a l i n t h i s m a t t e r , t h e F r a n k l i n C o u n t y DHR f i l e d t h e p e t i t i o n t o t e r m i n a t e t h e mother's and t h e f a t h e r ' s p a r e n t a l r i g h t s i n t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t a n d was t h e a g e n c y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r overseeing the p a r e n t s ' case. The c o u n t y d e p a r t m e n t s o f human r e s o u r c e s a r e s t a t e a g e n c i e s . See Ex p a r t e D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s . , 716 So. 2d 717, 718 ( A l a . C i v . App. 19 9 8 ) . 1 "The c o u n t y d e p a r t m e n t s o f human r e s o u r c e s s e r v e a s a g e n t s o f t h e S t a t e D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s ; t h e S t a t e D e p a r t m e n t i s empowered t o d e s i g n a t e t h e c o u n t y as i t s agent and t o a s s i s t t h e c o u n t i e s i n t h e i r v a r i o u s d u t i e s when n e c e s s a r y . See § 38-6-2, A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 ; Admin. R u l e s 660-1-2-.01(g) a n d 6 6 0 1-2-.02." S t a t e Dep't o f Human R e s . v. E s t a t e o f H a r r i s , 857 So. 2d 818, 819 n.1 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 2 ) . 2 The f a t h e r has n o t appealed. 2 2080971 Facts The Colbert 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 ("the C o l b e r t C o u n t y DHR") became i n v o l v e d w i t h t h e m o t h e r a n d t h e f a t h e r on M a r c h 25, 2002, when i t r e c e i v e d a r e p o r t t h a t J.G., the mother's abused. then two-year-old Tammy W i l s o n , child, had been p h y s i c a l l y a s o c i a l worker f o r the C o l b e r t DHR, t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e mother had l e f t Ro.H., the father's brother, abused J.G. incident, According and t h a t t o Wilson, County J.G. i n t h e c a r e o f Ro.H. h a d p h y s i c a l l y a t t h e time of that J.G. h a d b r u i s i n g on h i s f a c e , b e h i n d h i s e a r , on t h e t o p o f h i s h e a d , a n d on h i s b a c k ; J.G. a l s o h a d s c r a t c h e s on h i s neck pulled and a knot from investigating h i s scalp. that on h i s h e a d Wilson incident, and h i s h a i r had been testified the Colbert that, County after DHR h a d i m p l e m e n t e d a s a f e t y p l a n t h a t i n c l u d e d p l a c i n g J.G. i n a home with relatives According J.G., Wilson a n d p r o h i b i t i n g Ro.H. f r o m b e i n g t o Wilson, t h e mother had never r e g a i n e d a n d t h a t c h i l d u l t i m a t e l y was p l a c e d a r o u n d J.G. custody of i n t o f o s t e r care. t e s t i f i e d t h a t Ro.H. h a d b e e n c o n v i c t e d o f a g g r a v a t e d c h i l d abuse b a s e d on t h e i n c i d e n t . 3 2080971 The L a u d e r d a l e 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 ("the L a u d e r d a l e C o u n t y DHR") became i n v o l v e d w i t h the father parents, an i n July 2003, when was f i v e months o l d . M.H., t h e mother and another child of the K i m b e r l y W r i g h t , who h a d b e e n a s s e s s m e n t w o r k e r f o r t h e L a u d e r d a l e C o u n t y DHR i n 2003, testified welfare the that s h e h a d become concerned f o r t h e s a f e t y and o f M.H. b e c a u s e , a t t h e t i m e s h e became i n v o l v e d with f a m i l y , Ro.H. was r e s i d i n g i n t h e f a m i l y home, t h e home appeared t o be u n s u i t a b l e , and t h e p a r e n t s u n a b l e t o p r o p e r l y c a r e f o r M.H. appeared t o be A f t e r t h e Lauderdale County DHR became i n v o l v e d w i t h t h e f a m i l y , t h e m o t h e r a n d M.H. t h e f a m i l y home, o n l y t o r e t u r n w i t h i n w e e k s . left After receiving t h r e a t s f r o m t h e f a t h e r ' s r e l a t i v e s , t h e m o t h e r a n d M.H. moved i n t o a s h e l t e r a n d t h e n i n t o t h e home o f t h e m o t h e r ' s After three days, t h e mother l e f t moved b a c k i n t o t h e home w i t h M.H. w i t h cousins. her cousins and t h e f a t h e r a n d Ro.H. L a r r y S t e v e n s o n , who h a d b e e n a f o s t e r - c a r e a n d a d o p t i v e care resource w o r k e r f o r t h e L a u d e r d a l e C o u n t y DHR i n 2003, t e s t i f i e d t h a t he h a d h e l p e d d e v e l o p a r e u n i f i c a t i o n p l a n f o r the parents a n d M.H. According t o Stevenson, the parents' i n d i v i d u a l i z e d - s e r v i c e - p l a n ("ISP") g o a l s r e q u i r e d t h e p a r e n t s 4 2080971 to submit to psychological recommendations resulting testified the that evaluations and to follow from those e v a l u a t i o n s . Lauderdale County DHR had the mother program a t the c e n t e r . discharged from attend the adult Stevenson referred mother t o the R i v e r b e n d C e n t e r f o r M e n t a l H e a l t h , recommended t h a t day-treatment A c c o r d i n g t o S t e v e n s o n , t h e m o t h e r was that program f o r noncompliance. Stevenson t h a t t h e mother had a l s o been r e q u i r e d t o parenting classes had testified and failed that complete of the completing the a d u l t not l i k e crowds. the in 2008 executive those reasons but that programs. the mother day-treatment program regained custody of F r a n k l i n County after Program" was complete the Stevenson gave f o r not that she d i d A c c o r d i n g t o W r i g h t , the p a r e n t s had n o t , a t time of the t r i a l , The the "Motherhood to one the and i t was testified mother the DHR receiving d i r e c t o r of the M.H. became i n v o l v e d w i t h a report Phil from Campbell Penny the family Lacey, Housing the Authority, t h a t t h e m o t h e r and t h e f a t h e r h a d a p p l i e d f o r h o u s i n g and had i n d i c a t e d t h e i r i n t e n t f o r Ro.H. t e s t i f i e d t h a t she r e p o r t e d to reside with them. Lacey the f a m i l y t o the F r a n k l i n County 5 2080971 DHR b e c a u s e t h e m o t h e r h a d m e n t i o n e d t o L a c e y t h a t Ro.H. h a d been a c c u s e d o f "messing w i t h " Stephanie and neglect Gordon t h e mother's o l d e r son. Pinkard, who investigates c o m p l a i n t s f o r t h e F r a n k l i n C o u n t y DHR, t e s t i f i e d t h a t , on J u l y 1 5 , 2 0 0 8 , she v i s i t e d t h e p a r e n t s ' Pinkard testified were j a i l e d was bed home. time, r e n t a l home. the father a n d Ro.H. t o pay c e r t a i n f i n e s , b u t t h e mother P i n k a r d o b s e r v e d t h a t t h e d a u g h t e r s d i d n o t have a broken glass H.H. t h a t , at that forfailure i n their needles child-abuse bedroom, t h a t littered t h e home needed t h e f l o o r , and t h a t l a y e x p o s e d on t h e f l o o r . h a d h a d on a d i a p e r that that 30 t o 40 d i a b e t i c She a l s o looked repairs, testified that as i f she h a d b e e n w e a r i n g i t a l l day. Pinkard questioned testified that during h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n she t h e m o t h e r a b o u t Ro.H.'s 2002 a b u s e o f M.G. and t h a t t h e m o t h e r a g r e e d n o t t o a l l o w Ro.H. b a c k i n t h e f a m i l y home. P i n k a r d t h e n p r i v a t e l y q u e s t i o n e d R.H., who was a l m o s t four years o l d a t the time. a l l e g a t i o n s of sexual According t o P i n k a r d , R.H. made abuse a t t h a t t i m e . t h a t when she c o n f r o n t e d t h e mother w i t h Pinkard those a l l e g a t i o n s , t h e m o t h e r s c r e a m e d a t R.H. a n d c a l l e d R.H. a l i a r . 6 testified Pinkard 2080971 testified t h a t , the next endangering allegedly the welfare having been Jodie Franklin of a aware s e x u a l l y a b u s e d b y Ro.H. care a t that d a y , t h e m o t h e r was child that based arrested f o r on t h e m o t h e r ' s the daughters were The d a u g h t e r s were t a k e n i n t o f o s t e r time. Keeton, a f o s t e r - c a r e - d i v i s i o n worker C o u n t y DHR, t e s t i f i e d t h a t , a t t h e time the daughters that f o r the t h e mother had t o l d h e r were t a k e n i n t o f o s t e r R.H. was b e h i n d on h e r i m m u n i z a t i o n s Keeton also testified t h a t , a t t h a t t i m e , the daughters both had severe t o o t h required extensive Greg P i n k a r d , t h e mother sexually abusing decay d e n t a l work t o c o r r e c t . a lieutenant i n v e s t i g a t o r f o r the F r a n k l i n County S h e r i f f ' s Department, t e s t i f i e d and care, a n d H.H. h a d n o t b e e n t o a d o c t o r s i n c e she was two months o l d . that being had a d m i t t e d that the daughters. they that both the father had w i t n e s s e d Specifically, Ro.H. L t . Pinkard t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e m o t h e r h a d a d m i t t e d t h a t she h a d s e e n Ro.H. holding the daughters erection. that, Ro.H. h a d h a d an L t . P i n k a r d t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e mother had a d m i t t e d when "griped" on h i s l a p a n d t h a t she had witnessed Ro.H.'s behavior, she h a d a t Ro.H. a n d h a d made h i m q u i t b u t t h a t she h a d n o t 7 2080971 made h i m l e a v e from t h e h o u s e a n d h a d n o t removed t h e d a u g h t e r s the s i t u a t i o n . admitted to approximately mother having seven had been child. According witnessed times. convicted L t . Pinkard to L t . Pinkard, the abusive L t . Pinkard behavior testified that the of endangering testified t h e mother the welfare of a t h a t Ro.H. h a d c o n f e s s e d and had b e e n c o n v i c t e d o f a s e x c r i m e a g a i n s t t h e d a u g h t e r s . Lt. Pinkard t e s t i f i e d with t h a t t h e f a t h e r had a l s o been c h a r g e d s e x u a l abuse i n t h e f i r s t d e g r e e a n d r a p e i n t h e f i r s t against the daughters. Keeton testified that degree the F r a n k l i n C o u n t y DHR h a d f o u n d t h e f a t h e r " i n d i c a t e d " f o r s e x u a l abuse of the daughters. Donna L y n n H o r t o n , a n u r s e p r a c t i t i o n e r , she testified that h a d e x a m i n e d t h e d a u g h t e r s and t h a t h e r e x a m i n a t i o n s h a d resulted in her having concerns about d e v e l o p m e n t a l l e v e l and speech a b i l i t y . the daughters' Further, according to Horton, her examinations revealed m u l t i p l e abrasions feet. Horton t e s t i f i e d that her examinations also on H.H.'s revealed e v i d e n c e t h a t i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e d a u g h t e r s had been s e x u a l l y penetrated. provided She a d m i t t e d , however, that she h a d a l s o been i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t t h e d a u g h t e r s h a d b e e n known t o p u t 8 2080971 objects the i n t h e i r v a g i n a l a r e a s a n d t h a t t h a t c o u l d have b e e n cause o f t h e p h y s i c a l a b n o r m a l i t i e s Bonnie Lynn Atkinson, Ph.D., she o b s e r v e d . testified that l i c e n s e d p s y c h o l o g i s t a n d t h a t she h a d e v a l u a t e d According to Atkinson, intellectual make that support i n order testified that decisions t h e mother regarding would appropriate i s i n the child require t o make good p a r e n t i n g relatives placement f o r the daughters. 9 judgment t o care. a Atkinson l o t of family She a l s o day-to-day support Keeton t e s t i f i e d b u t had n o t been borderline decisions. t h e mother would r e q u i r e f r o m t h e F r a n k l i n C o u n t y DHR. contacted the parents. r a n g e a n d does n o t have s u f f i c i e n t acceptable testified t h e mother she i s a able t h a t she h a d to locate an 2080971 Discussion On a p p e a l , findings were Specifically, t h e mother argues t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e not based on c l e a r a n d c o n v i n c i n g court's evidence. s h e a r g u e s t h a t t h e F r a n k l i n C o u n t y DHR failed t o p r o v e t h a t h e r c o n d u c t o r c o n d i t i o n was u n l i k e l y t o change in the foreseeable future, that termination of her parental r i g h t s was p r e m a t u r e c o n s i d e r i n g h e r c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e I S P goals, that terminated her parental because, she s a y s , t o make r e a s o n a b l e and rights should not have t h e F r a n k l i n C o u n t y DHR been failed e f f o r t s t o r e u n i t e her w i t h the daughters, t h a t a v i a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e t o t e r m i n a t i o n was a v a i l a b l e . " [ A ] j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s judgment t e r m i n a t i n g p a r e n t a l r i g h t s must be s u p p o r t e d b y c l e a r a n d c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e . Bowman v. S t a t e Dep't o f Human Res., 534 So. 2d 304, 305 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 8 ) . ' C l e a r a n d convincing evidence' i s '"[e]vidence t h a t , when weighed a g a i n s t evidence i n o p p o s i t i o n , w i l l produce i n t h e mind o f t h e t r i e r o f f a c t a f i r m c o n v i c t i o n as t o e a c h e s s e n t i a l e l e m e n t o f t h e c l a i m a n d a h i g h probability as to the correctness of the c o n c l u s i o n . " ' L.M. v. D.D.F., 840 So. 2d 1 7 1 , 179 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2002) ( q u o t i n g A l a . Code 1975, § 6-11-20(b)(4)). The juvenile court's factual f i n d i n g s , b a s e d on e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d o r e t e n u s , i n a judgment t e r m i n a t i n g p a r e n t a l r i g h t s a r e presumed c o r r e c t . R.B. v . S t a t e Dep't o f Human Res., 669 So. 2d 187 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 5 ) . 10 2080971 " S e c t i o n 2 6 - 1 8 - 7 ( a ) , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , [ ] a p a r t o f t h e 1984 C h i l d P r o t e c t i o n A c t ('the C P A ' ) , § 26-18-1 e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1975, s p e c i f i e s g r o u n d s for terminating parental r i g h t s : 3 "'If the court finds from c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e , competent, m a t e r i a l , and r e l e v a n t i n n a t u r e , t h a t t h e p a r e n t s o f a child are unable or unwilling to d i s c h a r g e t h e i r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s t o and f o r the c h i l d , o r t h a t t h e conduct o r c o n d i t i o n o f t h e p a r e n t s i s s u c h as t o r e n d e r them u n a b l e t o p r o p e r l y care f o r t h e c h i l d and t h a t such conduct o r c o n d i t i o n i s u n l i k e l y t o change i n t h e f o r e s e e a b l e f u t u r e , i t may terminate the parental rights of the parents.'" A.D.B.H. v . H o u s t o n 61 (Ala. Civ. As County Dep't o f Human R e s . , 1 S o . 3 d 5 3 , App. 2008). t o t h e m o t h e r ' s argument t h a t t h e F r a n k l i n C o u n t y DHR f a i l e d t o p r o v e t h a t h e r c o n d u c t o r c o n d i t i o n was u n l i k e l y t o change i n t h e f o r e s e e a b l e future, the evidence i n d i c a t e d that, as e a r l y a s 2002, t h e m o t h e r was aware t h a t Ro.H. h a d a b u s e d J.G. Despite very next family's being year aware o f t h e d a n g e r p o s e d b y Ro.H., t h e t h e mother home w i t h allowed h e r a n d M.H. Ro.H. t o l i v e The L a u d e r d a l e i n the County DHR By A c t No. 2008-277, A l a . A c t s 2008, t h e A l a b a m a L e g i s l a t u r e , among o t h e r t h i n g s , amended a n d r e n u m b e r e d A l a . Code 1975, § 26-18-7, a n d e n a c t e d t h e A l a b a m a J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e A c t ("the A J J A " ) , c o d i f i e d a t A l a . Code 1975, § 12-15-101 e t seq. 3 11 2080971 became i n v o l v e d w i t h t h e f a m i l y a n d o f f e r e d s e r v i c e s a i m e d a t r e u n i t i n g t h e m o t h e r w i t h M.H. The m o t h e r , h o w e v e r , refused t o t a k e a d v a n t a g e o f t h o s e s e r v i c e s , a n d M.H. was p l a c e d with r e l a t i v e s and had n o t been r e t u r n e d t o t h e mother by t h e time of the t r i a l . Subsequently, workers discovered i n 2008, t h a t t h e mother had a l l o w e d w i t h t h e mother and t h e d a u g h t e r s . she F r a n k l i n County DHR Ro.H. t o l i v e The m o t h e r a d m i t t e d that h a d known t h a t Ro.H. was s e x u a l l y a b u s i n g t h e d a u g h t e r s , having witnessed t h e abuse seven t i m e s , a n d t h a t she h a d been c o n v i c t e d o f e n d a n g e r i n g t h e w e l f a r e o f a c h i l d as a r e s u l t o f her conduct. Based history on the of f a i l i n g evidence, including to protect t h e mother's her daughters, long the j u v e n i l e c o u r t c o u l d have p r o p e r l y c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e m o t h e r ' s c o n d u c t o r c o n d i t i o n was u n l i k e l y t o change i n t h e f o r e s e e a b l e See Ex p a r t e State Dep't o f Human R e s . , 624 So. 2d 589, 593 ( A l a . 1993) ( h o l d i n g t h a t a t r i a l history of a parent parental rights). forth above, returning the future. c o u r t may c o n s i d e r t h e p a s t i n determining whether to terminate F u r t h e r m o r e , b a s e d on t h e e v i d e n c e as s e t juvenile court could have found that t h e d a u g h t e r s t o t h e m o t h e r w o u l d n o t be a v i a b l e 12 2080971 alternative i n the future. other viable The m o t h e r does n o t s e t f o r t h a n y alternatives i n her b r i e f to t h e r e f o r e , we d e c l i n e t o a d d r e s s t h a t i s s u e v. Nichols, "the the this court; further. Tucker 431 So. 2d 1 2 6 3 , 1264 ( A l a . 1983) ( h o l d i n g appellant that h a s an a f f i r m a t i v e d u t y o f s h o w i n g e r r o r upon record"). With regard t o the mother's argument we n o t e t h a t that she had complied with the ISP goals, complied with t h e F r a n k l i n C o u n t y DHR's r e q u e s t t o u n d e r g o a psychological evaluation. As t h i s court t h e mother m e r e l y s a i d i n R.T.B. v . C a l h o u 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 , 19 So. 3d 198, 205 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 9 ) : "[T]he j u v e n i l e court i s not l i m i t e d t o determining s o l e l y whether t h e p a r e n t has c o m p l i e d w i t h t h e r e u n i f i c a t i o n p l a n o r c o n d i t i o n s e s t a b l i s h e d b y DHR. See, e . g . , B.L.T. v. V.T., 12 So. 3d 123 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008) ( n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g evidence o f mother's c o m p l i a n c e w i t h DHR's r e q u e s t s , t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t could properly t r a n s f e r custody of c h i l d t o r e l a t i v e b a s e d on o t h e r e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e m o t h e r had n e i t h e r t h e m a t u r i t y n o r t h e e m o t i o n a l s t a b i l i t y to e f f e c t i v e l y parent the c h i l d ) . A j u v e n i l e court may c o n s i d e r s u c h c o m p l i a n c e , b u t o n l y a s p a r t o f i t s i n q u i r y as t o whether t h e p a r e n t a l conduct, condition, or circumstances that required separation o f t h e c h i l d have b e e n s a t i s f a c t o r i l y e l i m i n a t e d . " The mother successfully points t o no e v i d e n c e eliminated i n d i c a t i n g that a l l the 13 she h a d characteristics and 2080971 circumstances t h a t had p r e v i o u s l y p r e v e n t e d her from p r o v i d i n g a s a f e home f o r t h e d a u g h t e r s . Finally, with regard that t o t h e mother's Keeton testified the F r a n k l i n County effort t o r e u n i t e t h e mother w i t h last DHR argument, h a d made no t h e daughters because t h e m o t h e r h a d known t h a t Ro.H. was a b u s i n g t h e d a u g h t e r s a n d h a d chosen not t o p r o t e c t them. " S e c t i o n 1 2 - 1 5 - 6 5 ( g ) ( 2 ) , A l a . Code 1975, r e q u i r e d t h a t , g e n e r a l l y , 'reasonable e f f o r t s ' be made t o r e u n i f y p a r e n t s and c h i l d r e n and t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e court enter orders e n s u r i n g t h a t such e f f o r t s a r e being attempted. However, 'reasonable efforts' toward reunification a r e not always required. S u b s e c t i o n (m) o f § 12-15-65 p r o v i d e d , i n p e r t i n e n t part: 6 " ' R e a s o n a b l e e f f o r t s s h a l l n o t be r e q u i r e d t o be made where t h e p a r e n t a l r i g h t s t o a s i b l i n g have b e e n i n v o l u n t a r i l y t e r m i n a t e d o r where a c o u r t o f c o m p e t e n t j u r i s d i c t i o n has d e t e r m i n e d t h a t a p a r e n t h a s done any of t h e f o l l o w i n g : "'(1) S u b j e c t e d t h e c h i l d t o an aggravated circumstance, including, but not l i m i t e d t o , abandonment, torture, chronic abuse, substance abuse, o r s e x u a l abuse. "'(2) Committed murder o r voluntary manslaughter of another c h i l d o f such parent. 14 2080971 "'(3) Aided or abetted, attempted, conspired, or s o l i c i t e d t o commit m u r d e r o r v o l u n t a r y manslaughter o f another c h i l d o f such p a r e n t . "'(4) Committed a f e l o n y a s s a u l t which r e s u l t e d i n the s e r i o u s b o d i l y i n j u r y t o the c h i l d o r another c h i l d o f s u c h p a r e n t . ... ' " By A c t No. 2008-277, A l a . A c t s 2008, t h e A l a b a m a L e g i s l a t u r e , among o t h e r t h i n g s , amended a n d r e n u m b e r e d § 12-15-65 a n d e n a c t e d t h e Alabama J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e A c t ('the A J J A ' ) , c o d i f i e d a t § 12-15-101 e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 . S e c t i o n 12-15-65 was e f f e c t i v e u n t i l J a n u a r y 1, 2 0 0 9 ; t h e e f f e c t i v e d a t e o f t h e A J J A i s J a n u a r y 1, 2009." 6 S.T.W. v. F r a n k l i n C o u n t y Dep't o f Human Res., Sept. [Ms. 2080461, 4, 2 0 0 9 ] ___ So. 3d ___ , ___ ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009) (one footnote omitted). ^As s e t o u t above, when, among child t o ... s e x u a l bring under Collegiate other reasonable things, control the parent abuse." or efforts has " [ s ] u b j e c t e d t h e "Subject" dominion." are not required i s defined as: "to Merriam-Webster's D i c t i o n a r y 1243 ( 1 1 t h e d . 2 0 0 3 ) . In the present case, the evidence continue to i s undisputed live t h a t t h e m o t h e r a l l o w e d Ro.H. t o i n t h e home 15 with the daughters after 2080971 w i t n e s s i n g Ro.H. s e x u a l l y a b u s i n g them on m u l t i p l e o c c a s i o n s . By h e r a c t i o n s , t h e m o t h e r " b r [ o u g h t control or dominion" conclude that, o f Ro.H.'s based on the t h e d a u g h t e r s ] under t h e abuse. plain Accordingly, language of we § 1 2 - 1 5 - 6 5 ( m ) ( 1 ) , t h e F r a n k l i n C o u n t y DHR was n o t r e q u i r e d t o make reasonable efforts to reunite t h e mother with the daughters. We a c k n o w l e d g e t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t d i d n o t r e l y on § 1 2 - 1 5 - 6 5 ( m ) ( 1 ) i n e x c u s i n g t h e F r a n k l i n C o u n t y DHR f r o m m a k i n g reasonable e f f o r t s t o r e u n i t e t h e mother w i t h t h e daughters. However, " ' [ w ] e c a n a f f i r m a j u d g m e n t on a b a s i s n o t a s s e r t e d to the t r i a l court, a n d we can a f f i r m a judgment i f we disagree with the reasoning of the t r i a l court i n entering the j u d g m e n t , as l o n g as t h e j u d g m e n t i t s e l f i s p r o p e r . '" v. General Motors Corp., (quoting Progressive 2d 333, 337 812 So. 2d 296, 305 ( A l a . 2001) S p e c i a l t y I n s . Co. v . Hammonds, 551 So. (Ala. 1989)). "'This C o u r t may a f f i r m c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t on "any v a l i d l e g a l g r o u n d p r e s e n t e d record So. Unum L i f e 2d 1059, Stokes Verchot a trial by t h e I n s . Co. o f A m e r i c a v . W r i g h t , 897 1082 ( A l a . 2004) ( q u o t i n g G e n e r a l M o t o r s C o r p . v . Chevrolet, I n c . , 885 So. 2d 119, 124 16 (Ala. 2003), 2080971 quoting i n turn Liberty Nat'l L i f e Alabama (Ala. Health Servs. Found., I n s . Co. v. U n i v e r s i t y o f P.C., 881 So. 2d 1013, 1020 2003)). Conclusion Based juvenile on t h e f o r e g o i n g , we affirm t h e judgment of the court. AFFIRMED. Thompson, P . J . , and Pittman, concur. 17 Bryan, and 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.