REL: March 17, 2023
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter.
Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue,
Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections
may be made before the opinion is published in Southern Reporter.
ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
OCTOBER TERM, 2022-2023
_________________________
CL-2022-0787
_________________________
S.D.
v.
Randolph County Department of Human Resources
_________________________
CL-2022-0793
_________________________
E.A.D.
v.
Randolph County Department of Human Resources
Appeals from Randolph Juvenile Court
(JU-20-14.03)
CL-2022-0787 and CL-2022-0793
MOORE, Judge.
In appeal number CL-2022-0787, S.D. ("the mother") appeals from
a judgment entered by the Randolph Juvenile Court ("the juvenile court")
in case number JU-20-14.03, terminating her parental rights to H.D.
("the child"), who was born on September 27, 2012. In appeal number
CL-2022-0793, E.A.D. ("the father") appeals from that same judgment
entered in case number JU-20-14.03 to the extent that it terminated his
parental rights to the child. The mother's and the father's appeals were
consolidated by this court ex mero motu. We reverse the juvenile court's
judgment with respect to both the mother and the father.
Procedural History
The parties have previously appeared before this court. See E.A.D.
v. Randolph Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., [Ms. 2210148, July 22, 2022] ___
So. 3d ___ (Ala. Civ. App. 2022). In E.A.D., this court considered appeals
by the mother and the father from the entry of two separate judgments
entered by the juvenile court that had terminated the parental rights of
the mother and the father to the child's siblings, M.D. and C.D. ___ So.
3d at ___. The procedural history of those appeals indicates, among other
2
CL-2022-0787 and CL-2022-0793
things, that, on June 8, 2021, the Randolph County Department of
Human Resources ("DHR") filed separate petitions requesting that the
juvenile court terminate the parental rights of the mother and the father
to M.D. and C.D.; that a trial was conducted on October 21, 2021; that
the juvenile court entered a separate judgment in each case on October
22, 2021, terminating the parental rights of the mother and the father to
M.D. and C.D.; and that the mother and the father had appealed from
those judgments.
Similarly, in case number JU-20-14.03, DHR filed a petition on
June 8, 2021, to terminate the parental rights of the mother and the
father to the child. The trial on the claims in the petition to terminate
the parental rights of the mother and the father to the child was
consolidated with the trial on the claims in DHR's petitions to terminate
the parental rights of the mother and the father to M.D. and C.D., after
which the juvenile court entered a judgment on October 22, 2021,
terminating the parental rights of the mother and the father to the child.
The mother and the father filed separate notices of appeal from that
judgment. The mother's appeal was docketed as appeal number 2210164
3
CL-2022-0787 and CL-2022-0793
and the father's appeal was docketed as appeal number 2210147. This
court dismissed appeal numbers 2210147 and 2210164 based on our
determination that the appeals had been taken from a nonfinal judgment
as a result of the juvenile court's failure to dispose of a motion seeking to
hold the mother in contempt filed by DHR in case number JU-20-14.03.
See E.A.D. v. Randolph Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res. (Nos. 2210147 and
2210164, May 12, 2022). See also A.C. v. C.C., 34 So. 3d 1281, 1286-87
(Ala. Civ. App. 2009) (noting that the pendency of an unadjudicated
contempt motion alleging a party's failure to obey orders entered during
the litigation renders a judgment nonfinal). On June 9, 2022, this court
issued its certificates of judgment in appeal numbers 2210147 and
2210164. On June 16, 2022, the juvenile court entered an order in case
number JU-20-14.03 denying DHR's contempt motion. On June 30, 2022,
the mother and the father timely filed separate notices of appeal to this
court. The juvenile court granted the mother's motion to incorporate the
record on appeal in E.A.D. into these present appeals.1
1This court noted in E.A.D. that the appeals at issue in those
appeals had also been consolidated with appeal numbers 2210147 and
4
CL-2022-0787 and CL-2022-0793
Standard of Review
A judgment terminating parental rights must be supported by clear
and convincing evidence, which is " ' "[e]vidence 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." ' " C.O. v. Jefferson
Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 206 So. 3d 621, 627 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016)
(quoting L.M. v. D.D.F., 840 So. 2d 171, 179 (Ala. Civ. App. 2002), quoting
in turn Ala. Code 1975, § 6-11-20(b)(4)).
" '[T]he evidence necessary for appellate
affirmance of a judgment based on a factual
finding in the context of a case in which the
ultimate standard for a factual decision by the
trial court is clear and convincing evidence is
evidence that a fact-finder reasonably could find to
clearly and convincingly … establish the fact
sought to be proved.'
"KGS Steel[, Inc. v. McInish], 47 So. 3d [749,] 761 [(Ala. Civ.
App. 2006)].
"… [F]or trial courts ruling … in civil cases to which a
clear-and-convincing-evidence standard of proof applies, 'the
judge must view the evidence presented through the prism of
2210164, but that those appeals had been dismissed by a separate order.
___ So. 3d at ___ n.1.
5
CL-2022-0787 and CL-2022-0793
the substantive evidentiary burden[,]' [Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 254 (1986)]; thus, the appellate
court must also look through a prism to determine whether
there was substantial evidence before the trial court to
support a factual finding, based upon the trial court’s
weighing of the evidence, that would 'produce in the mind [of
the trial court] a firm conviction as to each element of the
claim and a high probability as to the correctness of the
conclusion.' "
Ex parte McInish, 47 So. 3d 767, 778 (Ala. 2008). This court does not
reweigh the evidence but, rather, determines whether the findings of fact
made by the juvenile court are supported by evidence that the juvenile
court could have found to be clear and convincing. See Ex parte T.V., 971
So. 2d 1, 9 (Ala. 2007). When those findings rest on ore tenus evidence,
this court presumes their correctness. We review the legal conclusions
drawn from the evidence without a presumption of correctness. J.W. v.
C.B., 68 So. 3d 878, 879 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011).
6
CL-2022-0787 and CL-2022-0793
Analysis
The mother and the father argue that the juvenile court erred in
terminating their parental rights to the child. A juvenile court may
terminate parental rights only when one of the statutory grounds for
termination has been established and there is no other viable alternative
to termination. See Ex parte Ogle, 516 So. 2d 243 (Ala. 1987). The
judgment at issue in the present appeals is based on the same evidence
that was presented in E.A.D. In E.A.D., this court first considered the
father's argument that the juvenile court had erred in terminating his
parental rights to M.D. and C.D. because "there was not sufficient
evidence, considering his current circumstances, to prove grounds for
termination of his parental rights." ___ So. 3d at ___. In our opinion
reversing the juvenile court's judgments terminating the father's
parental rights to M.D. and C.D., this court stated, in pertinent part:
"We conclude that the facts in these cases are similar to
those in H.P. [v. Jefferson County Department of Human
Resources, [Ms. 2200467, Oct. 8, 2021] ___ So. 3d ___, ___ (Ala.
Civ. App. 2021)], A.A. [v. Jefferson County Department of
Human Resources, 278 So. 3d 1247, 1249 (Ala. Civ. App.
2018)], and M.G. [v. Etowah County Department of Human
Resources, 26 So. 3d 436, 443 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009).] Like the
mothers in H.P. and A.A., the father in the present cases had
7
CL-2022-0787 and CL-2022-0793
initially failed to conquer his drug problem despite having
access to drug-rehabilitation programs. Although at one point
he had achieved sobriety for 30 days, he had relapsed after
leaving a sober-living facility. However, the father
subsequently completed inpatient and outpatient drug-
rehabilitation programs at Rapha House and had been drug-
free in the five months leading up to the trial. Although [DHR
caseworker Kiera] Simmons testified that DHR was
concerned about the possibility of the father's relapsing into
drug use, she admitted that he had not tested positive for
drugs in the five months preceding the trial and that she had
not previously seen the father do well for that length of time.
Based on the foregoing evidence, we conclude that, like in
H.P., A.A., and M.G., 'DHR produced no evidence indicating
that relapse was so likely or imminent that the [father] should
have been considered as having a current drug problem that
interfered with [his] ability to properly care for the children.'
M.G., 26 So. 3d at 443. Moreover, like the mother in M.G., the
father in the present cases had housing and employment at
the time of the trial. Further, although the father had
initially been inconsistent in his visitations with the children,
he consistently visited with the children after he had ceased
using drugs. It appears that the resolution of the father's
drug issues had prompted improvement across the board in
the father's life. Based on the foregoing evidence and
considering this court's decisions in H.P., A.A., and M.G., we
conclude that the juvenile court in the present cases could not
have been clearly convinced that the father was 'unable or
unwilling to discharge [his] responsibilities to and for the
child[ren], or that the conduct or condition of the [father]
renders [him] unable to properly care for the child[ren] and
that the conduct or condition is unlikely to change in the
foreseeable future.' § 12-15-319(a)[, Ala. Code 1975]."
E.A.D., ___ So. 3d at ___.
8
CL-2022-0787 and CL-2022-0793
In light of our reversal of the judgments terminating the father's
parental rights to M.D. and C.D., this court also reversed the judgments
terminating the mother's parental rights to M.D. and C.D., with
instructions to the juvenile court "to consider whether placement of [M.D.
and C.D.] with the father would serve as a viable alternative to
termination of the mother's parental rights and any further action
consistent with this opinion." E.A.D., ___ So. 3d at ___.
In the present appeals, the mother and the father both argue that
the judgment terminating their parental rights to the child should be
reversed for the same reasons outlined by this court in E.A.D. DHR
acknowledges, in a letter filed with this court, that the record on appeal
in the present case is substantially the same as the record in E.A.D. and
includes the same trial transcript and evidence that this court considered
in E.A.D.; that the mother and the father assert the same arguments in
the present appeals that they asserted in E.A.D.; and that, given those
assertions and this court's opinion in E.A.D., "there appears to be no
legitimate basis for contending that the [juvenile] court's final order
terminating parental rights to [the child] should be affirmed." We agree.
9
CL-2022-0787 and CL-2022-0793
Because the present appeals rest on the same facts as those that existed
in E.A.D. and this court's analysis in the opinion issued in E.A.D. applies
equally to the arguments asserted by the mother and the father in the
present appeals, we adopt the reasoning in E.A.D. and reverse the
juvenile court's judgment terminating the parental rights of the mother
and the father to the child.
Specifically, we reverse the judgment entered by the juvenile court
on June 16, 2022, which made final the juvenile court's October 22, 2021,
judgment, insofar as it terminates the parental rights of the father to the
child, and we remand the case for further proceedings consistent with
this opinion and this court's reasoning in E.A.D. We also reverse the
June 16, 2022, judgment, which made final the juvenile court's October
22, 2021, judgment, insofar as it terminates the parental rights of the
mother to the child, and we remand the case with instructions to the
juvenile court to consider whether placement of the child with the father
would serve as a viable alternative to termination of the mother's
parental rights, in accordance with this court's discussion in E.A.D. ___
So. 3d at ___.
10
CL-2022-0787 and CL-2022-0793
CL-2022-0787 -- REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH
INSTRUCTIONS.
CL-2022-0793 -- REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH
INSTRUCTIONS.
Thompson, P.J., and Edwards, Hanson, and Fridy, JJ., concur.
11