A.Q. v. Cullman County DHR

A.Q. v. Cullman County DHR is a termination of parental rights case that should have been a slam dunk. Judge Matt Fridy writing for the Court of Civil Appeals recounted that “after [DHR worked] with the parents for about 15 months, they had not shown any improvement toward resolving their issues with drug use, unstable housing, and unstable employment and could not maintain reliable transportation.”

In fact, the parents made no contact with DHR from April 2025 until the trial in December.

Judge Fridy goes into greater detail, but the thrust of the Court’s recounted facts is to raise the readers suspense, “What went wrong in the trial court? These facts are bullet proof?”

The Lack of Foster Parents at Trial

The Court of Civil Appeals resolves that suspense with one simple answer: the foster parents must testify at trial. This isn’t the first time the Court of Civil Appeals has made this point while overturning a TPR.1 Sadly, it will likely not be the last.

As long as the Executive Branch (DHR) and the Judicial Branch (juvenile courts) treat foster parents like babysitters, these TPR judgments will be overturned and children will suffer without permanency.

1 D.M. v. Dale County Department of Human Resources, 413 So. 3d 750, 755-56 (Ala. Civ. App. 2024); J.A. v. S.L., 06 So. 3d 129 (Ala. Civ. App. 2024); T.W. v. Calhoun County Department of Human Resources, 391 So. 3d 306 (Ala. Civ. App. 2023)

The Mother Had a Good Argument

In reaching that conclusion, the Court notes that “as the mother points out, in the three months leading up to the trial, she finally took the steps toward reunification.” The mother had a job three weeks before trial and sought substance abuse treatment. The Court held that the juvenile court was “entitled to consider the mother’s late attempts to cooperate with DHR “to be merely unpersuasive, last-minute efforts intended only to forestall termination rather than legitimate efforts by the mother to change her circumstances.” (citing to several cases)

The mother’s only issue that garnered the Court’s attention was simply that “DHR allegedly failed to present evidence regarding whether an adoptive resource had been identified for the child or whether the child was adoptable.” She argued “that permanency through adoption is an ‘essential element of DHR’s case that must be proved before the juvenile court could properly terminate her parental rights.”

The Court’s Thought Procedure

The Court’s thinking on this issue begins with the doctrine of needing a narrowly-tailored solution that furthers a compelling government interest.

Termination could be the narrowest way possible to advance that interest if, by terminating the parents’ parental rights, the state could provide the child with a stable and permanent home environment through adoption. However, if the evidence provides no basis for believing that the child will not simply remain in foster care regardless of the termination of the parents’ parental rights, there would be no basis on which to conclude that the government, by that termination, has advanced a compelling interest. That appears to be the case here.

Other Examples

Similarly, the Court noted its opinion in D.M. v. Dale County Department of Human Resources, 413 So. 3d 750 (Ala. Civ. App. 2024), in which it reversed an order granting TPR and “held that the foster parents had not testified that they intended to adopt the children and that the Dale County DHR had not presented evidence indicating that it had identified any other adoptive resource or that the children would likely be adopted.” (emphasis added)

In one paragraph, the Judge Fridy for the Court makes trial court’s deficiency plain.

What Kept the Kid in Foster Care and Away from Permanency

In this case, the juvenile court did not specifically find that termination of parental rights would be in the best interest of the child. It also made no specific finding that the child was adoptable. In terminating the parents’ parental rights, the juvenile court granted DHR the authority to proceed with permanent plans and placement for the child. However, our review of the record indicates that DHR failed to present any evidence, including any ISPs, establishing a permanency plan for the child. The child’s foster parents did not testify, and no one from DHR indicated that the foster parents intended to adopt the child or that any other adoptive resource had been identified for the child.

At the end of the day, the Court reversed the TPR order because DHR did not present any evidence regarding the “viability of adoption for the child.”

The Typical Procedure

The simplest and strongest way to present this evidence is to have the foster parents testify about the child thriving in their home and their desire to adopt the child, if that applies.

Yet, why do trial court’s miss this? The answer is usually that DHR and the juvenile court in the county in question have grown calloused to the foster parent’s role in the process. Even though there is a statutory imperative to welcome foster parents into the judicial process and allow their voice to be heard, many county DHRs don’t tell foster parents when the court hearing has been held. And if the foster parent does know when the court hearing is held, they are told to wait out in the hallway and the judge fails to hear from them.

When this is the pattern and practice in the county, it’s no wonder that they are left out of the TPR trial.

(P.S.)

In a rather shocking precedent, the Court of Civil Appeals makes clear that this issue is basically non-waivable. Just because an opposing party hasn’t raised it at trial doesn’t mean they can’t bring it up for the first time on appeal. And it doesn’t mean that the Appellant can’t bring it up for the first time in Reply Brief. (see opinion FN 2)

1 D.M. v. Dale County Department of Human Resources, 413 So. 3d 750, 755-56 (Ala. Civ. App. 2024); J.A. v. S.L., 06 So. 3d 129 (Ala. Civ. App. 2024); T.W. v. Calhoun County Department of Human Resources, 391 So. 3d 306 (Ala. Civ. App. 2023)

 

Foster parents are incredibly important to achieving permanency, and they have a very important legal role to play. Make permanency a reality with us here at The Adoption Law Firm.