J.P. v. MADISON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES (2023)

In these consolidated appeals, J.P. (“the father”) and M.B. (“the mother”) appeal from judgments of the Madison Juvenile Court (“the juvenile court”) terminating their parental rights to S.B., K.B., and M.I.B. (“the children”). Because the Madison County Department of Human Resources (“DHR”) did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that there was no viable alternative to terminating the father's and mother's parental rights, we reverse the juvenile court's judgments and remand the causes for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Background

The children were born during the mother's marriage to C.B.; however, C.B. renounced his presumption of paternity, and the juvenile court adjudicated the father the legal and biological father of the children. C.B. is the father of G.B., the children's half sibling, and C.B. has custody of G.B. G.B. is not involved in these appeals. The mother also gave birth to a child named R.G., who was fathered by R.B.; however, a Louisiana court terminated the mother's and R.B.’s parental rights to R.G. in 2013, and that child is not involved in these appeals.

S.B. was born in August 2015. K.B. and M.I.B., who are twins, were born in April 2017.

In May 2019, the mother was arrested and charged with operating an automobile under the influence of a controlled substance (methamphetamine); endangering the lives of the children and G.B.,¹ their half sibling, all of whom were passengers in the automobile and all of whom were then under the age of seven years; driving without a car seat for two of the children; driving twenty miles per hour over the speed limit; possessing drug paraphernalia; driving while her license was suspended; failing to display evidence of insurance; and failing to wear a seat belt. The mother had a black eye that was visible when she was arrested. DHR became involved after the mother's arrest. The mother and the father both admitted to DHR that they had used methamphetamine in the presence of the children and that they had committed acts of domestic violence in the presence of the children. DHR placed the children with E.M. pursuant to a safety plan. E.M. is a distant relative of the mother, but she is not a relative within the fourth degree of kinship of the children and, therefore, is not a “relative” of the children as that term is defined by § 12-15-301(14), Ala. Code 1975.

DHR commenced dependency actions and began providing the mother and the father with services to assist them in rehabilitating themselves. The juvenile court ultimately found that the children were dependent and vested DHR with custody of the children.

In January 2022, DHR commenced actions seeking the termination of the mother's and the father's parental rights to the children. The juvenile court tried the actions in October 2022. The record does not contain any evidence indicating that DHR contacted or investigated any of the children's relatives to determine if any of them were suitable people to care for the children while the parents continued their efforts to rehabilitate themselves. On November 8, 2022, the juvenile court entered judgments terminating the mother's and the father's parental rights to the children. Among other things, each of the judgments stated that the juvenile court found “that there exists no viable alternative to termination of the parents’ parental and custodial rights.”

On November 18, 2022, the father filed postjudgment motions. Among other things, the father asserted that leaving the children in the care of E.M. was a viable alternative to terminating his parental rights. That same day, the juvenile court denied the father's postjudgment motions. The mother and the father then timely appealed to this court.

Analysis

The party seeking to terminate a parent's parental rights has the burden of presenting clear and convincing evidence indicating that there are grounds for terminating the parental rights and that there are no viable alternatives to terminating the parental rights. See Ex parte T.V., 971 So. 2d 1, 4 (Ala. 2007). Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that, “when weighed against evidence in opposition, will produce in the mind of the trier of fact a firm conviction as to each essential element of the claim and a high probability as to the correctness of the conclusion.” § 6-11-20(b)(4), Ala. Code 1975. “Proof by clear and convincing evidence requires a level of proof greater than a preponderance of the evidence or the substantial weight of the evidence, but less than beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. In reviewing a judgment terminating parental rights, this court's role in considering the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment is not to reweigh the evidence but, instead, to determine whether the juvenile court, acting in its fact-finding role, reasonably could have determined from its own weighing of the evidence that the petitioner has proven by clear and convincing evidence that there are grounds for terminating the parental rights and that there is no viable alternative to terminating the parental rights. See T.V., 971 So. 2d at 9.

The mother and the father make several arguments on appeal; however, the dispositive issue is whether DHR presented evidence from which the juvenile court reasonably could have been clearly convinced that there was no viable alternative to terminating the mother's and the father's parental rights. Our review of the record reveals that DHR did not present any such evidence. DHR was required to present clear and convincing evidence indicating that it investigated the suitability of the children's relatives to care for the children while the parents continued their efforts to rehabilitate themselves. See A.R.H.B. v. Madison Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., [Ms. CL-2022-0541, Dec. 16, 2022] ––– So. 3d ––––, ––––, 2022 WL 17728944 (Ala. Civ. App. 2022). DHR presented no such evidence. Therefore, the juvenile court erred in terminating the mother's and the father's parental rights. See T.V., supra.

DHR argues that the mother and father did not preserve the issue whether it presented clear and convincing evidence indicating that it had investigated the suitability of the children's relatives to serve as relative resources because, DHR says, the mother and the father failed to adequately present that argument to the juvenile court in a postjudgment motion. We find no merit in that argument. The juvenile court expressly found that there were no viable alternatives to terminating the parents’ parental rights. In pertinent part, Rule 52(b), Ala. R. Civ. P., provides:

“When findings of fact are made in actions tried by the court without a jury, the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings may thereafter be raised whether or not the party raising the question has made in the court an objection to such findings or has made a motion to amend them or a motion for judgment or a motion for a new trial.”

Because the juvenile court expressly found that there were no viable alternatives to terminating the parents’ parental rights, the parents are entitled to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support that finding regardless of whether they made such a challenge in a postjudgment motion. See Rule 52(b).

Accordingly, we reverse the judgments of the juvenile court and remand the causes for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

CL-2022-1182 — REVERSED AND REMANDED.

CL-2022-1183 — REVERSED AND REMANDED.

CL-2022-1184 — REVERSED AND REMANDED.

CL-2022-1185 — REVERSED AND REMANDED.

CL-2022-1239 — REVERSED AND REMANDED.

CL-2022-1240 — REVERSED AND REMANDED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Although the mother did not have custody of G.B., that child was visiting the mother when she was arrested.

FRIDY, Judge.

Thompson, P.J., and Moore, Edwards, and Hanson, JJ., concur.