 |
 |
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
or private child care agencies leading toward the rehabilitation of the parents have failed.
"(7) That the parent has been convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction of any of the following:
"....
"(8) That parental rights to a sibling of the child have been involuntarily terminated.
"(b) Where a child is not in the physical custody of its parent or parents appointed by the court, the court, in addition to the foregoing, shall also consider, but is not limited to the following:
"(1) Failure by the parents to provide for the material needs of the child or to pay a reasonable portion of its support, where the parent is able to do so.
"(2) Failure by the parents to maintain regular visits with the child in accordance with a plan devised by the department, or any public or licensed private child care agency, and agreed to by the parent.
"(3) Failure by the parents to maintain consistent contact or communication with the child.
"(4) Lack of effort by the parent to adjust his or her circumstances to meet the needs of the child in accordance with agreements reached, including agreements reached with local departments of human resources or licensed child-placing agencies, in an administrative review or a judicial review."
A juvenile court's decision in proceedings to terminate parental rights is presumed correct when it is based on ore tenus evidence, and its decision will be set aside only if the record reveals the decision to be plainly and palpably wrong. M.J.G.L. v. State Dep't of Human Res., supra. When the State is the petitioner in termination proceedings, the juvenile court must apply a two-pronged test in deciding whether to terminate parental rights. First, the court must find from clear and convincing evidence that there are grounds for the termination of parental rights, including, but not limited to, the grounds set out in § 26-18-7; second, the court must determine whether all viable alternatives to the termination of parental rights have been considered. Ex parte Beasley, 564 So.2d 950, 954-55 (Ala. 1990). See also T.C. v. Cullman County Dep't of Human Res., [Ms. 2030376, Aug. 20, 2004] So. 2d (Ala. Civ. App. 2004); and E.Z. v. Calhoun County Dep't of Human Res., 828 So. 2d 332 (Ala. Civ. App. 2002). In deciding to terminate parental rights, a juvenile court may consider the past history of the family as well as the evidence pertaining to current conditions. Ex parte State Dep't of Human Res., 624 So. 2d 589, 593 (Ala. 1993) (citing Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald, 490 So. 2d 4, 6 (Ala. Civ. App. 1986)); see also S.B.L. v. Cleburne County Dep't of Human Res., 881 So. 2d 1029, 1032 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003), and J.R. v. D.A.M., 615 So. 2d 609, 612 (Ala. Civ. App. 1992). The paramount consideration in a case involving the termination of parental rights is the best interests of the child or children involved. Ex parte J.R., 896 So. 2d 416 (Ala. 2004); Q.F. v. Madison County Dep't of Human Res., 891 So. 2d 330 (Ala. Civ. App. 2004); and J.L. v. State Dep't of Human Res., 688 So. 2d 868, 869 (Ala. Civ. App. 1997).
A. Grounds for Termination
The parents do not dispute that much of their conduct in the past supports a termination decision. Rather, the father asserts a brief argument that DHR was required to present evidence that it had made "reasonable efforts ... toward the rehabilitation of the parents [and that those efforts] ha failed." See § 26-18-7(a)(6), Ala. Code 1975. The mother maintains that the juvenile court's judgment does not contain any language indicating that it determined that she was unable or unwilling to discharge her parental responsibilities or that h
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.
|
|