S.J. v. Limestone County Department of Human Resources

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 10/29/2010 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o 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, A l a b a m a 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, 2010-2011 2090515 S.J. v. Limestone County Department o f Human Resources Appeal from Limestone J u v e n i l e Court (JU-08-185.02) PITTMAN, J u d g e . S.J. ("the m o t h e r " ) appeals from a judgment of the L i m e s t o n e J u v e n i l e C o u r t t e r m i n a t i n g h e r p a r e n t a l r i g h t s as t o a minor c h i l d , P . J . ("the c h i l d " ) , b o r n t o t h e m o t h e r i n 1 9 9 9 . I n A p r i l 2 0 0 9 , t h e L i m e s t o n e C o u n t y D e p a r t m e n t o f Human 2090515 Resources seeking as ("DHR") filed the termination to the child. a petition of the parental DHR a v e r r e d , c h i l d had been a d j u d i c a t e d in foster criminal care since history that i n the j u v e n i l e r i g h t s o f t h e mother i n pertinent the public mother was part, that the d e p e n d e n t i n May 2008 a n d h a d b e e n that time; include[d] that t h e mother multiple multiple [possession-of-forged-instrument] violence, court h a d "a theft charges, charges, domestic i n t o x i c a t i o n , and c r i m i n a l t r e s p a s s " ; that " i n the Madison bond County jail on a r e v o c a t i o n " p r o c e e d i n g ; t h a t t h e mother had " f a i l e d t o comply with the steps set forth i n [an i n d i v i d u a l i z e d service] plan f o r t h e f a m i l y " ; t h a t t h e mother had " w i l l f u l l y n e g l e c t e d t h e needs o f [ t h e ] c h i l d " ; t h a t t h e m o t h e r h a d f a i l e d t o p r o v i d e support f o r , or provide f o r t h e m a t e r i a l needs o f , t h e c h i l d ; t h a t t h e mother had f a i l e d t o " m a i n t a i n communication" w i t h to adjust pursuant resources and was suitable the c h i l d her circumstances t o agreements consistent contact or a n d h a d f a i l e d t o make e f f o r t s t o meet t h e needs reached with DHR; t h a t of the c h i l d no relative e x i s t e d f o r t h e c h i l d ; a n d t h a t t h e m o t h e r was n o t , likely t o never be, a b l e home" f o r t h e c h i l d . t o "provide a The j u v e n i l e c o u r t 2 f i t and directed 2090515 b o t h t h e m o t h e r and A.M., the c h i l d ' s f a t h e r , t o appear i n the a c t i o n , and i t a p p o i n t e d a g u a r d i a n a d l i t e m f o r t h e c h i l d and counsel f o r the mother. During the pendency of the action, the mother was i n c a r c e r a t e d on c r i m i n a l c h a r g e s ; d e s p i t e t h a t i n c a r c e r a t i o n , she s o u g h t , be and was g r a n t e d , l e a v e f r o m t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t t o transported to September 25, 2009. a preliminary hearing in that case scheduled hearing, t h e mother 14, 2010. filed motion t o continue the t r i a l , a r e s i d e n t i a l drug-treatment facility attending f o r b e t w e e n s i x months and one y e a r ; t h a t m o t i o n was d e n i e d on J a n u a r y 12, 2010. t h e m o t h e r a g a i n moved f o r a c o n t i n u a n c e . court denied At the j u v e n i l e court noted t h a t t h a t motion h a d been f i l e d and t h a t i t h a d b e e n d e n i e d , whereupon for Just a written a v e r r i n g t h a t she was the s t a r t of t r i a l , on On November 3, 2009, t h e c a s e was s e t f o r a f i n a l h e a r i n g on DHR's p e t i t i o n on J a n u a r y before the the mother's renewed request. The counsel juvenile Immediately t h e r e a f t e r , c o u n s e l f o r t h e m o t h e r moved t o w i t h d r a w f r o m h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , and t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t g r a n t e d t h a t motion. A f t e r h e a r i n g t e s t i m o n y f r o m w i t n e s s e s c a l l e d b y DHR, juvenile court entered a judgment 3 on January 19, the 2010, 2090515 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 and The mother court thereafter officials in early period for appealing counsel; the sent several February handwritten 2010, father. letters after the mother, acting through that new 1 to 14-day had r u n , p r o m p t i n g t h e a p p o i n t m e n t o f s u c c e s s f u l l y moved f o r r e l i e f u n d e r R u l e 7 7 ( d ) , P., the new counsel, then A l a . R. Civ. p e r m i t t i n g t h e t a k i n g o f an a p p e a l o u t o f t i m e b e c a u s e o f excusable neglect, relief had been and the mother t i m e l y a p p e a l e d a f t e r granted. The 2 juvenile-court judge that has c e r t i f i e d t h e r e c o r d as a d e q u a t e f o r a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w p u r s u a n t to Rule 28(A), A l a . R. Juv. P., and we t h u s have appellate jurisdiction. The to the m o t h e r r a i s e s two substantive conclusion, 1 The correctness drawn f r o m t h e f a t h e r has issues, neither not of the of which pertains juvenile court's evidence presented during the ore appealed. B e c a u s e no o b j e c t i o n t o t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s g r a n t o f l e a v e has b e e n a s s e r t e d i n t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t o r i n t h i s c o u r t so as t o w a r r a n t e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e v a l i d i t y o f t h a t r u l i n g , and b e c a u s e t h e m o t h e r ' s n o t i c e o f a p p e a l was f i l e d w i t h i n 30 d a y s a f t e r t h e o r i g i n a l a p p e a l d e a d l i n e , we t r e a t t h e a p p e a l as t i m e l y . See g e n e r a l l y F.G. v. S t a t e Dep't o f Human Res., 988 So. 2d 555, 558-60 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2007) (main o p i n i o n and special concurrence). 2 4 2090515 tenus proceeding, granted. due t h a t t h e t e r m i n a t i o n p e t i t i o n was due t o be The m o t h e r ' s f i r s t c o n t e n t i o n i s t h a t s h e was d e n i e d process because DHR's t e r m i n a t i o n allowed her the juvenile petition appointed representation court held i n h e r absence attorney at the start to i t s hearing and a f t e r withdraw of t r i a l . on having from She a n a l o g i z e s his her s i t u a t i o n t o t h a t o f an i n c a r c e r a t e d p r o s e c i v i l l i t i g a n t , i n which context we h a v e h e l d that an o p p o r t u n i t y to present e v i d e n c e by d e p o s i t i o n s a t i s f i e s d u e - p r o c e s s minima i f a p a r t y cannot attend a trial because o f h i s or h e r i n c a r c e r a t i o n . See, e . g . , E a s t m a n v. E a s t m a n , 429 So. 2d 1058, Civ. App. 1 9 8 3 ) . However, substantively t h e mother's first and p r o c e d u r a l l y . 1058-59 ( A l a . contention First, fails, although s t r e n u o u s l y a r g u e s t h a t s h e was n o t g i v e n both t h e mother the opportunity to t e s t i f y b y d e p o s i t i o n , DHR c o r r e c t l y n o t e s t h a t t h e m o t h e r was not " c o n f i n e d i n p r i s o n " w i t h i n t h e scope o f Rules 30(a) and 3 1 ( a ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., d e a l i n g w i t h t h e n e c e s s i t y o f l e a v e o f court the f o r deposing p r i s o n e r s ; thus, record, mother we must agree with f o r a l l t h a t appears i n DHR's (and h e r a t t o r n e y d u r i n g p r e t r i a l 5 contention that the r e p r e s e n t a t i o n ) had 2090515 a t a l l t i m e s t h e u n i l a t e r a l r i g h t t o n o t i c e h e r own d e p o s i t i o n and own t o present a t r a n s c r i p t of that testimony i n l i e u attendance contention at trial. Second, t h e mother ofher made i n t h e j u v e n i l e court, e i t h e r a t t r i a l through her attorney before h i s withdrawal or a t the postjudgment that that court's termination "It no proceeding petition stage, t o decide whether t o grant t h e amounted t o a d u e - p r o c e s s has l o n g been t h e l a w i n t h i s deprivation. state that c o n s t i t u t i o n a l q u e s t i o n s n o t r a i s e d i n t h e c o u r t b e l o w w i l l n o t be c o n s i d e r e d for the f i r s t Pensions time on a p p e a l . " Smith & S e c . , 340 So. 2d 34, 37 v. S t a t e ( A l a . C i v . App. a c c o r d J.K. v . L e e C o u n t y Dep't o f Human Res., 817 i s s u e because t h a t 1976); 668 So. 2d 813, ( A l a . C i v . App. 1995) ( d e c l i n i n g t o r e a c h assistance-of-counsel Dep't o f ineffective- i s s u e had n o t been presented t o the j u v e n i l e court). The d i s s e n t i n g o p i n i o n , c i t i n g o u r d e c i s i o n i n J.A.H. 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 , (Ala. C i v . App. 2 0 0 2 ) , suggests that c o u n s e l was s u f f i c i e n t l y " f u n d a m e n t a l " this case, properly adhere preserved to the principle and p r e s e n t e d 6 846 So. 2d 1093 t h e mother's right to t h a t we s h o u l d n o t , i n that an i s s u e f o rappellate must be review. The 2090515 appealing parent i n J.A.H. a s s e r t e d appointed counsel after his i n i t i a l been p e r m i t t e d a r i g h t t o replacement appointed attorney t o withdraw; i n that case, the j u v e n i l e s q u a r e l y d e n i e d s u c h a r e q u e s t as b e i n g made on t h e d a y o f t r i a l . "untimely" had court when i t was Here, a l l t h a t has been p r e s e n t e d t o t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t , a n d r u l e d upon a d v e r s e l y t o t h e mother, is the a continuance unavailability request either ( w h i c h were one b a s e d o f t h e mother's ( w h i c h was n o t r e q u i r e d ) evidence upon personal purported attendance o r o f a l t e r n a t i v e means o f p r e s e n t i n g clearly a v a i l a b l e t o h e r b u t were n o t utilized). Under similar circumstances withdrawal of appointed counsel, involving we h e l d three a trial-day y e a r s ago i n D.A. 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 , 976 So. 2d 502 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 7 ) , t h a t d i r e c t a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w was foreclosed: "The f a t h e r ... a t t e m p t s t o a s s e r t s u b s t a n t i v e arguments 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 (1) i n dismissing h i s appointed attorney before conducting t h e 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 h e a r i n g a n d (2) i n t e r m i n a t i n g h i s p a r e n t a l r i g h t s when, he c l a i m s , DHR f a i l e d t o p r e s e n t 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 t h a t t e r m i n a t i o n o f h i s p a r e n t a l r i g h t s as t o t h e c h i l d r e n was n e c e s s a r y . Because t h e f a t h e r n e i t h e r attended the p a r e n t a l - r i g h t s - t e r m i n a t i o n hearing nor filed a postjudgment motion, neither of those 7 2090515 c o n t e n t i o n s were p r e s e n t e d t o t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ; t h e r e f o r e , t h e r e c o r d does n o t r e f l e c t any a d v e r s e r u l i n g made by t h a t c o u r t t h a t i s p r e s e r v e d f o r appellate review. The o f t - q u o t e d and long-standing r u l e i s t h a t an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t may n o t c o n s i d e r an i s s u e r a i s e d f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e on a p p e a l . '"[A j u v e n i l e ] c o u r t s h o u l d n o t be p l a c e d i n e r r o r [by an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t ] on m a t t e r s w h i c h t h e r e c o r d r e v e a l s it neither ruled upon nor was presented the opportunity to r u l e upon"' a t trial or in a postjudgment motion. " A l t h o u g h we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e f a t h e r has not p r e s e r v e d any i s s u e f o r a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w b e y o n d t h e i s s u e of the j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s d e n i a l of the f a t h e r ' s c o n t i n u a n c e request, the f a t h e r i s not w i t h o u t l e g a l remedy. The father's assertion regarding the j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s removal of h i s a p p o i n t e d a t t o r n e y f r o m f u r t h e r r e p r e s e n t a t i o n w o u l d more p r o p e r l y be raised as an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel a r g u m e n t i n a R u l e 6 0 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., mmo t i o n . o Our Supreme Court has noted that in 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 c a s e s , 'a p a r e n t has a r i g h t to appointed counsel.' Inherent i n that right to l e g a l representation i s the right to e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e of c o u n s e l . "The o n l y p o s s i b l e r e s u l t o f t h e f a t h e r ' s d i r e c t a p p e a l s from the j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s judgments based upon allegations of error not preserved for a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w i s summary a f f i r m a n c e . However, o u r Supreme C o u r t has e x p l i c i t l y e n d o r s e d t h e use o f a R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n as a v a l i d method o f c h a l l e n g i n g a termination judgment based upon claimed i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e of c o u n s e l . We c o n c l u d e t h a t although the father has not brought a valid substantive challenge to the t e r m i n a t i o n of h i s p a r e n t a l r i g h t s t o t h i s c o u r t a t t h i s t i m e , he i s not precluded from presenting a deprivation-of-counsel argument t o the juvenile c o u r t so as t o e s t a b l i s h a r e c o r d on w h i c h t o b a s e a p o s s i b l e future appeal." 8 2090515 976 So. 2d a t 504-05 way w i s h t o condone t h e b e h a v i o r o f t h e m o t h e r ' s t r i a l in simply withdrawal "throwing appellate up i n the face agreement w i t h withdrawal (citations omitted). h i s hands" request, review we and s e e k i n g o f an a d v e r s e the juvenile court's ruling we i n no counsel immediate or to express d e c i s i o n t o grant are constrained to affirm Although by that principles of t h e judgment as t o t h e mother's d u e - p r o c e s s argument. The m o t h e r ' s s e c o n d c o n t e n t i o n i s t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t erred i n denying a continuance "'Whether t h e w r i t t e n and renewed o r a l m o t i o n s seeking o f t h e t r i a l b a s e d upon h e r a b s e n c e f r o m t o grant o r t o deny a motion trial. to continue in a 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 case i swithin the discretion of t h e c o u r t and i t s d e c i s i o n w i l l n o t be r e v e r s e d a b s e n t showing t h a t t h e c o u r t has abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n . ' " So. a D.A., 976 2d a t 503 ( q u o t i n g S.C.D. v . E t o w a h C o u n t y Dep't o f Human Res., 841 So. 2d 277, 278 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 2 ) ) . We f u r t h e r n o t e d i n D.A. t h a t , " [ a ] s a g e n e r a l r u l e , c o n t i n u a n c e s f a v o r e d under Alabama l a w . " 3 are not 976 So. 2d a t 504. I n D.A., we a l s o c i t e d A l a . Code 1975, § 12-15-68, a s additional authority warranting affirmance. That s t a t u t e , w h i c h p r o v i d e d t h a t c o n t i n u a n c e s i n j u v e n i l e p r o c e e d i n g s were 3 9 2090515 H e r e , t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t o p i n e d , upon i t s r e v i e w o f mother's w r i t t e n motion an e x h i b i t t o c o n t i n u e and a l e t t e r to t h a t motion ( w h i c h documents do the a t t a c h e d as not appear i n the r e c o r d ) , t h a t the n e c e s s i t y of the mother's remaining on the premises of the p r o v i d e r of her i n p a t i e n t - d r u g - t r e a t m e n t program r e q u i r e d so trial, was even in the as to custody prevent of p r o v i d e r , had not been d e m o n s t r a t e d . t h a t t h e r e had her from attending of the program's agents The j u v e n i l e c o u r t n o t e d been " n o t h i n g i n the l e t t e r to indicate she c o u l d n ' t come," and i t o b s e r v e d t h a t t h e l e t t e r had s a i d t h a t [she h a d been] a c l i e n t " officials trial. own would "drop her from that "just without also stating that t h e p r o g r a m " i f she attended From t h a t e v i d e n c e , and b a s e d on t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s p r e v i o u s experience i n v o l v i n g agents of treatment c e n t e r s t h a t had " a c c o m p a n [ i e d ] p e o p l e f o r i m p o r t a n t c o u r t h e a r i n g s , " t h a t c o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e m o t h e r ' s a b s e n c e was and t h a t a c o n t i n u a n c e was not warranted. We note voluntary that, by p r o p e r l y t o be g r a n t e d " o n l y upon a s h o w i n g o f g o o d c a u s e , " was r e p e a l e d by 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 , A c t No. 2008-277, A l a . A c t s 2008, w h i c h became e f f e c t i v e J a n u a r y 1, 2009. The r e p e a l o f § 12-15-68 does n o t , h o w e v e r , a f f e c t t h o s e p o r t i o n s o f D.A. discussing other l e g a l p r i n c i p l e s p e r t a i n i n g t o c o n t i n u a n c e s and a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w o f d e c i s i o n s on c o n t i n u a n c e r e q u e s t s . 10 2090515 the time already of t r i a l allowed transported i n January t h e mother, from j a i l 2010, t h e j u v e n i l e on h e r c o u n s e l ' s to attend an e a r l i e r court motion, hearing, had t o be yet the r e c o r d c o n t a i n s no i n d i c a t i o n t h a t t h e m o t h e r s o u g h t a s i m i l a r transport order from the j u v e n i l e court i n t h e days before trial. I n D.A., a we u p h e l d a juvenile court's determination absence from parent's a termination trial i n s u f f i c i e n t basis f o r granting a continuance indicated tending a previous t o show t h a t voluntariness. that continuance and the parent's Similarly, t h e mother has f a i l e d that was when t h e r e c o r d contained evidence a b s e n c e was a p r o d u c t i n this case, t o show t h a t we agree w i t h the juvenile t r i a l notwithstanding absence from t r i a l was e x c u s a b l e . of DHR court acted outside the l i m i t s of i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n proceeding a scheduled an with t h e mother's c l a i m t h a t her We t h u s c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e court d i d not e r r t o r e v e r s a l i n denying the w r i t t e n and o r a l motions t o continue. Based conclude upon that the foregoing the juvenile facts court's affirmed. 11 and authorities, judgment i s due we t o be 2090515 AFFIRMED. Thomas, J . , c o n c u r s . Bryan, J . , concurs i n the r e s u l t , without writing. Moore, J . , c o n c u r s i n t h e p a r t a n d c o n c u r s i n t h e r e s u l t , with writing. Thompson, P . J . , d i s s e n t s , with 12 writing. 2090515 MOORE, J u d g e , c o n c u r r i n g I the of concur i n t h e main o p i n i o n mother f a i l e d the mother's that to preserve right the juvenile denying Resources, 97 6 fora S o . 2 d 502 R. C i v . P., m o t i o n b a s e d on i n e f f e c t i v e Ala. do that t h e mother R. C i v . P., m o t i o n not j o i n A parent has See 1093, C i v . App. a Rule 60(b), Ala. assistance of counsel. a Rule 60(b)(4), i n a termination-of-parental-rights proceeding t h e main opinion. right to appointed counsel. J.A.H. v . C a l h o u n case had requested County Dep't 1095 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 2 ) . by an S e e W.C. v. 887 S o . 2 d 2 5 1 , 2 5 6 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . s h e was n o t r e q u i r e d b y l a w t o r e p e a t represented 2007), as v o i d , I The m o t h e r i n t h e p r e s e n t counsel; file can f i l e to set aside D e p ' t o f Human R e s . , 2003). (Ala. Department t h e judgment a due-process State in continuance. which i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e mother c o u l d I believe the issue i t sd i s c r e t i o n m a i n o p i n i o n q u o t e s D.A. v . C a l h o u n C o u n t y Human Because review that and i n s o f a r as i t c o n c l u d e s d i d not exceed request i n the result. i n s o f a r as i t c o n c l u d e s f o rappellate to counsel court the mother's The of i n p a r t and c o n c u r r i n g attorney, her 13 that appointed request. o f Human R e s . , 846 S o . 2 d B e c a u s e t h e m o t h e r was n o t due-process rights were 2090515 violated. See rendering that due process. App. 2009). filed the supra. judgment See A acted Bowen v . judgment rendition Bowen, 28 2008), a o f Human R e s . , I available conclude to her. court's So. Because a motion f o r r e l i e f of judgment, 11 that So. i s void i n a manner p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 4 ) may Dep't trial W.C., see 3d 3d be f i l e d judgment. 14 14 v. 231-32 has with (Ala. Civ. judgment a t any t i m e 227, Thus, I concur 9, from a v o i d E.S.R. court inconsistent mother the i f the Madison after County ( A l a . C i v . App. the i n the r e s u l t same relief to affirm the 2090515 THOMPSON, I P r e s i d i n g Judge, d i s s e n t i n g . respectfully continue the termination mother's f a i l u r e she was court dissent. t o appear a t t h e t e r m i n a t i o n hearing because termination that drug-treatment motion; judgment based, moved t o on t h e a hearing attorney i n part, attending denied The m o t h e r ' s program. i t explained The that juvenile ruling in i t s as f o l l o w s : "[The mother's] attorney had p r e v i o u s l y f i l e d a m o t i o n t o c o n t i n u e t h e h e a r i n g as [ t h e mother] i s p r e s e n t l y i n a c o u r t - o r d e r e d r e h a b i l i t a t i o n program, w h i c h i s New L i f e f o r Women i n G a d s d e n , A l a b a m a . The C o u r t d e n i e d t h e M o t i o n a s t h i s c a s e h a s b e e n pending since A p r i l 2 0 0 8 . The a t t o r n e y for [the m o t h e r ] t h e n made a n o r a l m o t i o n t o c o n t i n u e , again due t o [ t h e m o t h e r ' s ] b e i n g i n New L i f e f o r Women, and n o t b e i n g a b l e t o be t r a n s p o r t e d f o r t o d a y ' s hearing. The C o u r t d e n i e d t h e m o t i o n . " After the juvenile continue, t h e mother's court denied t h e mother's court-appointed attorney withdraw from r e p r e s e n t i n g h e r a t t h ebeginning on DHR's juvenile appoint petition court another termination judgment to terminate granted attorney hearing. terminating that The juvenile and d i d t h e mother court t h e mother's p a r e n t a l 15 rights. t o withdraw to represent moved to of the hearing her parental motion motions t o then rights. The not during the entered a 2090515 An indigent terminate parent defending h i sor her parental rights legal counsel. (Ala. 1 9 8 1 ) ; K . P . B . v . D.C.A., App. 1996); dependency Ex p a r t e see a l s o and if counsel § of to to appointed 410 S o . 2 d 8 9 6 , 899 A l a . Code parental rights Civ. 1975 ("In cases, the o r l e g a l c u s t o d i a n s h a l l be t o be r e p r e s e n t e d by c o u n s e l a n d , determines s h a l l be a p p o i n t e d seeking 685 S o . 2 d 7 5 0 , 752 ( A l a . legal guardian, court i sentitled 12-15-305(b), of h i s or her right the juvenile action Shuttlesworth, termination respondent parent, informed an t h a t he o r s h e i s i n d i g e n t , where t h e r e s p o n d e n t p a r e n t , guardian, or legal to h i s o r h e r own c o u n s e l . " ) . retain custodian i s unable This c o u r t has h e l d t h a t parental of a parent not representation allowed Res., rights after does forfinancial legal facing the termination have his or her o r i g i n a l to withdraw. to again appointed (Ala. C i v . App. 2002) . 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 , juvenile and the termination court request counsel i s J . A . H . v . C a l h o u n C o u n t y D e p ' t o f Human 846 S o . 2 d 10 93 seeking reasons of a had e a r l i e r s u p r a , an a c t i o n father's parental appointed the f a t h e r but had allowed 16 counsel the attorney I n J.A.H. v . rights, the f o r t h e mother to withdraw from 2090515 representing separated the father when the and a p o t e n t i a l c o n f l i c t point before moved t o have juvenile the termination court requested new counsel denied mother hearing, the Calhoun the attorney appointed attorney, a letter motion because f o r the mother, counsel inquiring why juvenile court the father's brought to the j u v e n i l e court's he would had be appointed not determined at the father's heard that being representation. court's but the had not At the termination original attention to from attorney withdrew represent him and that counsel. the father's request a t t o r n e y was n o t t i m e l y , a n d t h e t e r m i n a t i o n h e a r i n g legal DHR from the f a t h e r i n d i c a t i n g t h a t the f a t h e r claimed t o new without County the father have been i n f o r m e d a t t h e time t h e o r i g i n a l that father A t some f o r the father, t h e a p p o i n t m e n t o f new c o u n s e l . hearing, the of i n t e r e s t arose. appointed that and failure to appoint the termination termination This and w i t h o u t court held new c o u n s e l hearing judgment. present was that and f o r an proceeded his having the j u v e n i l e to represent error, In reaching that The the father i t reversed holding, this the court explained: "[W]e f i n d i t u n d u l y b u r d e n s o m e a n d o v e r l y t e c h n i c a l to require a parent to repeatedly request the 17 2090515 a p p o i n t m e n t o f c o u n s e l when he o r s h e h a s p r e v i o u s l y r e q u e s t e d c o u n s e l and has a l r e a d y p r o v e n h i s o r h e r entitlement t o such c o u n s e l . We do n o t c o n c l u d e that the t r i a l court i n the present case e r r e d by failing to inform the father of h i s right to c o u n s e l ; i n s t e a d , we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e t r i a l court e r r e d by r e q u i r i n g t h e f a t h e r t o repeat h i s request for counsel." J.A.H., 846 S o . 2 d a t 1 0 9 5 . In t h i s counsel was a l l o w e d to appoint in In case, however, hearing during allegation discussed failed t h e mother a t the h e a r i n g of her parental the mother that her attorney in the termination the Rule i n t h e main was p r o c e e d i n g requested opinion, counsel. rights was a t i s s u e . d i d n o t know before would withdraw; hearing. the she d i d According to the C i v . P., motion A l a . R. the mother "was u n a w a r e representation." The m o t h e r February that had The m o t h e r h a d n o t e l e c t e d , o r f o r c e d by t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t , The j u v e n i l e c o u r t mother u n t i l 77(d), without appointed anticipated being se. appointed have any a d v a n c e k n o w l e d g e t h a t h e r i n t e r e s t s w o u l d n o t be defended she to represent which the termination this the mother's t o w i t h d r a w , and t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t new c o u n s e l termination not c a s e , as i n J.A.H., s u p r a , d i d not appoint 10, 2010, w e l l 18 new after to proceed pro counsel t h e 14-day f o r the period 2090515 for appealing, January 19, The 2010, termination D.A. Calhoun 976 So. mother that for who filed from the mother time had an motion; issue the quoting by an Department App. a Rule 60(b), appointed h a v e new Human indicating Ala. R. judgment raising Unlike of 2007), termination improperly appeal. attorney from, the this father Civ. and by argument in D.A., i n a t i m e l y manner, counsel appointed the for her i s s u e might have been t i m e l y r a i s e d b e f o r e the court. Regardless, review on is case d i d not a f t e r the juvenile (Ala. Civ. have the mother i n t h i s 502 relief first the 2d this County could for holding v. motion judgment. from motion until postjudgment addresses the supra, a opinion Resources, P., filing main excerpt that or of the I do The depriving termination agree t h a t the mother i s c o n f i n e d termination I believe appeal. not the issue j u v e n i l e court the mother hearing. unaware for some counsel and that The time the of judgment i s properly created her record that by she the way of before Rule this error in this appointed counsel 60(b) court on case by at i n d i c a t e s t h a t the mother was no longer j u v e n i l e court had not 19 a represented appointed to the was by counsel 2090515 for the mother u n t i l error fundamental right Santosky indigent parent Ex p a r t e in appointed given v. v. Kramer, right of h i s or her c h i l d i s a Granville, 455 U.S. 745, to appointed i s at issue. Shuttlesworth, her attorney supra; the parental 520 U.S. 753 57, An representation when A l a . Code K . P . B . v . D.C.A., argument statutory termination and supra. before caselaw judgment of this the counsel. dissent. 20 and I erred her hearing. However, involved, the would the cause hearing drawn. issue court, precedent, and remand by a p p o i n t e d allowing at the termination nature to conduct a termination represented after h a v e b e e n more a r t f u l l y fundamental 65 (1982). § 12-15-305, rights to withdraw argument might mother's court that m o t h e r a r g u e s on a p p e a l t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t terminating That Troxel has a r i g h t fundamental The to the custody right. (20 00 ) ; 1975; raising had passed. A parent's that a f t e r the time f o r p r o p e r l y the applicable reverse the f o r the j u v e n i l e a t which the mother i s Accordingly, Irespectfully

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.