In M.A.J. v. S.F., 994 So.2d 280 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008) the Appellate Court made a remarkable ruling for children in the care of foster adoptive parents. Specifically regarding the 12-month rule:
- “[a]t some point, … the child’s need for permanency and stability must overcome the parent’s good-faith but unsuccessful attempts to become a suitable parent.”
It’s interesting to note that M.A.J. cites A.D.B.H. v. Houston Cnty. Dep’t of Hum. Res., 1 So. 3d 53, 63 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008)
- “When the juvenile court terminated the mother’s parental rights, [the child] had been in DHR’s custody and in various foster homes for almost four years and K.T. had been in foster care for almost two and one-half years.
- The mother had been given ample time to rehabilitate herself so that she could regain custody of J.B. and K.T.
- The children should not have to spend further time in an uncertain home situation based on the mere hope that the mother may someday overcome her psychological inability to properly parent them.” (emphasis added)
The foster children of the state – who indefinitely wait for adoption – need their foster parents to step into the judicial process and make these arguments on their behalf. If they don’t, who will?
