 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
D.M. v. Walker County Department of Human Resources7/8/2005
In Ex parte J.R., 896 So. 2d 416 (Ala. 2004), the Alabama Supreme Court reversed a decision by this court that had affirmed a juvenile court's judgment terminating a mother's parental rights. The supreme court held that DHR had failed to investigate an aunt and uncle (the father's brother) to determine whether they would be suitable custodians for the child and, thus, whether placement of the child with them was a viable alternative to termination of the mother's rights. In J.R., the child had been sexually abused by her father. A DHR social worker who saw the father and the child's uncle together at a court hearing concluded, on that basis alone, that the father and the uncle had a close relationship and that the uncle would, therefore, not be a protector for the child. The uncle testified at the termination proceeding that, before the court hearing, he had not seen the father for over three years, that they did not have a close relationship, and that if he were to be given custody of the child he would not allow the father in his home.
The supreme court stated:
"'DHR -- not the prospective custodian -- has the burden of initiating investigations, and it is DHR's burden to prove the unsuitability of one who seeks to be considered as the custodian of a dependent child.'"
Ex parte J.R., 896 So. 2d at 428 (quoting D.S.S. v. Clay County Dep't of Human Res., 755 So. 2d 584, 591 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999)). The supreme court determined that the social worker's fears about any relationship between the uncle and the father "could have been allayed after an investigation of the facts of [the uncle's] relationship with his brother." 896 So. 2d at 425.
In the present case, DHR's decision not to consider placement of the children with the great aunt and great uncle as a viable alternative to termination of the parents' rights was more arbitrary than its decision to dismiss the uncle as a relative resource in J.R. Here, DHR was not required to perform an investigation of the great aunt and great uncle in order to allay any fears about their suitability as custodians for the children. DHR was already aware of their suitability; its witness testified that the great aunt and great uncle loved the children and had provided them with excellent care for seven months. In addition, DHR was evidently convinced of the great aunt's competence as a caregiver even after the children were removed from her home because it asked the great aunt to assist the children's first foster mother, whose husband was deployed overseas in the military service, in caring for the children.
The only "fear" that DHR social worker Tracy Norwood expressed about the couple related to the great aunt's medical condition. The great aunt herself, however, allayed that fear by reporting to Norwood an updated diagnosis that ruled out either a seizure disorder or any other serious medical condition that would have precluded her as a caregiver for the children.
When asked why DHR made no further attempt to rehabilitate the parents, to arrange for the children to visit the parents or great aunt and great uncle, or to reunify the family after October 2003, DHR foster-care worker Kristie Alexander testified that the directive of the juvenile court, in its permanency order of October 23, 2003, was "to proceed with our termination of parental rights and adoption for these children." She stated that no reunification efforts were necessary after the juvenile court ruled that DHR "did not have to work with the family and so had no reason to work with the [great aunt and great uncle]." Responding to the question by the attorney for the great aunt and great uncle, "And after that, it was just ruled that di
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Alabama Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|