Case Law S.S. v. Calhoun Cnty. Dep't of Human Res.

S.S. v. Calhoun Cnty. Dep't of Human Res.

Document Cited Authorities (24) Cited in (33) Related

Wendy Ghee Draper, Anniston, for appellant.

Sharon E. Ficquette, chief legal counsel, and Karen P. Phillips, asst. atty. gen., Department of Human Resources, for appellee.

Jennifer Argo, Anniston, guardian ad litem.

DONALDSON, Judge.

S.S. ("the mother") appeals from judgments of the Calhoun Juvenile Court ("the juvenile court") terminating her parental rights to her children, H.S. and T.S. We affirm the juvenile court's judgments.

Background

The mother has three children: H.S. (born in May 2005), T.S. (born in August 2007), and K.S. (born in November 2008) ("the three children"). P.H. ("the father") is the father of H.S. and T.S. D.C. is the father of K.S. In September 2013, the mother was arrested on an outstanding warrant stemming from a shoplifting charge. Because the mother tested positive for methamphetamine and because there was no other caretaker for the three children, the Calhoun County Department of Human Resources ("DHR") removed the three children from the mother's custody.

On September 20, 2013, the juvenile court entered an order finding the three children to be dependent and placing them in the custody of DHR.

On June 2, 2015, DHR filed petitions to terminate the mother's and the father's parental rights to H.S. and T.S. ("the children"). Termination proceedings were also commenced as to the mother's parental rights to K.S., but the record indicates that the juvenile court stayed those proceedings because K.S. had been placed with relatives of D.C. The juvenile court held a trial on the termination petitions regarding the children on September 17, 2015, at which it received the testimony of Tammy Deese, a child-abuse-investigation worker with DHR; Shay Bradford, a DHR social worker; Genice Civitello, a manager at Oxford Outreach, an entity that conducted a treatment program that the mother had attended; and the mother. The record reveals that the father's written consent to the termination of his parental rights was filed with the juvenile court.

Deese testified that the mother was arrested in September 2013. Deese testified that the mother was incarcerated at the Jacksonville city jail after her arrest and that, at the time of her arrest, the mother tested positive for methamphetamine. Deese testified that, at that time, K.S. and H.S. were interviewed by the Children Advocacy Center and that they disclosed that they had been sexually abused by the mother's former boyfriend, J.D., while the family was living with J.D. in Georgia. Deese testified that a child-abuse and neglect report was initially marked as indicated for inadequate supervision as to the mother; that, upon a record review requested by the mother, the indication as to the mother was overturned; but that the report remained indicated for the children being inadequately supervised without a specific finding of neglect against the mother.

Deese testified that she held an Individualized Service Plan ("ISP") meeting with the mother at the Jacksonville city jail on September 20, 2013. The report for that ISP meeting, which was introduced into evidence at trial, shows that DHR set the following goals for the mother in order for her to be reunited with the three children: to undergo a drug assessment, to obtain and maintain a home free from drugs and abuse and with working utilities, and to find employment. The report also states that DHR would complete a referral to the Calhoun County Family Drug Court program for the mother so that, among other things, a drug assessment could be completed. Deese testified that she discussed these goals with the mother.

Deese testified that she supervised two or three visits between the mother and the three children in 2013, that "they appeared to be very close, very loving toward each other," and that they "had good visits." Deese testified that the three children were bonded with one another, that they were happy to see each other at visits, and that they were sad when the visits were over.

Deese testified that the three children were initially placed in foster care. K.S. eventually was placed with relatives of her father, D.C. Deese testified that the children are "very rambunctious" and that they can be hard to control. Deese testified that T.S. has been diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and that he has a serious speech impediment that affects his ability to communicate. Deese testified that DHR provided the three children counseling.

Bradford testified that she was assigned these cases in July 2015. Bradford testified that the mother was incarcerated in the Calhoun County jail when she started working on the cases. She testified that no visitations between the mother and the children had taken place since February 2015 because of the mother's incarceration. Bradford testified that the mother was released from jail in September 2015, which was two weeks before the termination trial; that the mother contacted her a week after her release; and that the mother informed her that she was living at the facility of Oxford Outreach, which was conducting a rehabilitation program the mother was participating in. Bradford testified that the mother provided the name of the three children's maternal grandmother as a possible relative resource for placement of the children but that the maternal grandmother had been ruled out as a resource because a previous child-abuse and neglect report had been indicated against her. Bradford testified that T.S. was placed at the Brewer Porch Center in Tuscaloosa in the summer of 2014. Bradford testified that the three children visit once a month at the Brewer Porch Center. Bradford testified that T.S. is receiving treatment from a psychiatrist, a counselor, and a speech therapist. She testified that T.S. had been in eight different placements. Bradford testified that H.S. has had seven different placements, that she was currently in a therapeutic foster home in Piedmont, and that she had been removed from her last placement because of behavioral problems. Bradford testified that the mother had not provided the children with any money or gifts since she had begun working on the cases. Bradford testified that the children have not asked about their mother at the visits they have with each other. Bradford testified that H.S. has expressed some "anger issues" regarding the mother and that visits between H.S. and the mother would not be in H.S.'s best interests. Bradford testified that she had not drug-tested the mother since her release from jail.

Bradford testified that, although there are no current identifiable adoptive resources for the children, she believes that the children are adoptable. She stated, however, that H.S.'s current foster parents have considered adopting H.S. Furthermore, she testified that the custodians of K.S., who are not relatives of the children, also indicated that they would take all three children if they could, but Bradford testified that K.S.'s custodians did not want to go through the foster-parent certification process and that they had not filed a petition for custody of the children in the juvenile court. Bradford testified that H.S.'s foster parents and K.S.'s custodians are willing to allow weekend or overnight visits with the other children.

Civitello testified that the mother enrolled in the Oxford Outreach rehabilitation program two weeks before the trial. She testified that the mother had been living at Oxford Outreach's facility and that the mother had been seeking employment. She testified that the mother just started a 12–step program. Civitello testified that the Oxford Outreach conducts a 12–month program, although the mother believed it to be a 6–month program. She testified that the mother was ordered by a criminal drug court to attend the program.

The mother testified that she was arrested on September 20, 2013, on a warrant for a shoplifting charge and that, at that time, she tested positive for methamphetamine. She testified that, as a result of that positive drug test, DHR referred her to an entity named New Directions for substance abuse counseling and that that entity instructed her that she needed to attend an inpatient rehabilitation program; however, the mother testified that she continued to use drugs. The mother testified that she did not complete the Calhoun County Family Drug Court program as was required by the September 2013 ISP meeting. The mother testified that she underwent a drug assessment, which took place in April 2014, and that she admitted during the assessment that she had been taking methamphetamine for three years. The assessment recommended that the mother undergo inpatient drug treatment.

The mother testified that she was arrested in August 2014 on charges of possession of a controlled substance and drug paraphernalia. As a condition of her bail on those charges, the criminal court required the mother to attend an inpatient drug-rehabilitation program conducted by an entity named Starting Point. The mother testified that she participated in that program for five months but that she voluntarily left the program because she was unable to pay the $665 rent charged by Starting Point. She testified that she had attempted to work three jobs in order to pay the rent. Because she left the Starting Point program, the mother was arrested in February 2015 for violating the terms of her bail. The mother testified that she had remained incarcerated in the Calhoun County jail from February 28, 2015, to September 3, 2015.

The mother testified that K.S. and H.S. had reported that J.D., her former boyfriend with whom she and the three children had lived in Georgia, had sexually abused them. She stated that she had left the home she shared with J.D. Nonetheless, the mother admitted that she had allowed J.D. to participate in a visit with T.S. in April 2014.

The mother testified that she...

5 cases
Document | Alabama Supreme Court – 2022
Ex parte Bodie
"...(same); H.T. v. Cleburne Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 163 So.3d 1054, 1070 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014); S.S. v. Calhoun Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 212 So.3d 940, 949 (Ala. Civ. App. H.P., __ So.3d at __ (Thompson, P.J., dissenting). In light of the foregoing, we conclude that, although the Court of C..."
Document | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals – 2021
S.E. v. Tuscaloosa Cnty. Dep't of Human Res.
"...App. 2017); Montgomery Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res. v. T.S., 218 So. 3d 1252, 1261 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016); S.S. v. Calhoun Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 212 So. 3d 940, 952 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016); A.H. v. Houston Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 122 So. 3d 846, 851 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013); S.U. v. Madison Cnt..."
Document | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals – 2017
D.H. v. B.M.
"...of the witnesses. An appellate court defers to the findings of the trial court on such matters." S.S. v. Calhoun Cty. Dep't of Human Res., 212 So.3d 940, 951 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016)."The juvenile court was in the best position to observe the witnesses while they testified and to evaluate thei..."
Document | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals – 2018
J.D. v. E.R.
"...judgment resting upon factual determinations required to be based on clear and convincing evidence)." S.S. v. Calhoun Cty. Dep't of Human Res., 212 So.3d 940, 949 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016). See also K.S.B. v. M.C.B., 219 So.3d 650, 653 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016) ("A juvenile court's judgment termina..."
Document | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals – 2017
D.H. v. B.M.
"...of the witnesses. An appellate court defers to the findings of the trial court on such matters." S.S. v. Calhoun Cty. Dep't of Human Res., 212 So. 3d 940, 951 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016)."The juvenile court was in the best position to observe the witnesses while they testified and to evaluate the..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
Document | Alabama Supreme Court – 2022
Ex parte Bodie
"...(same); H.T. v. Cleburne Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 163 So.3d 1054, 1070 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014); S.S. v. Calhoun Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 212 So.3d 940, 949 (Ala. Civ. App. H.P., __ So.3d at __ (Thompson, P.J., dissenting). In light of the foregoing, we conclude that, although the Court of C..."
Document | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals – 2021
S.E. v. Tuscaloosa Cnty. Dep't of Human Res.
"...App. 2017); Montgomery Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res. v. T.S., 218 So. 3d 1252, 1261 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016); S.S. v. Calhoun Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 212 So. 3d 940, 952 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016); A.H. v. Houston Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 122 So. 3d 846, 851 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013); S.U. v. Madison Cnt..."
Document | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals – 2017
D.H. v. B.M.
"...of the witnesses. An appellate court defers to the findings of the trial court on such matters." S.S. v. Calhoun Cty. Dep't of Human Res., 212 So.3d 940, 951 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016)."The juvenile court was in the best position to observe the witnesses while they testified and to evaluate thei..."
Document | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals – 2018
J.D. v. E.R.
"...judgment resting upon factual determinations required to be based on clear and convincing evidence)." S.S. v. Calhoun Cty. Dep't of Human Res., 212 So.3d 940, 949 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016). See also K.S.B. v. M.C.B., 219 So.3d 650, 653 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016) ("A juvenile court's judgment termina..."
Document | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals – 2017
D.H. v. B.M.
"...of the witnesses. An appellate court defers to the findings of the trial court on such matters." S.S. v. Calhoun Cty. Dep't of Human Res., 212 So. 3d 940, 951 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016)."The juvenile court was in the best position to observe the witnesses while they testified and to evaluate the..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex