C.M. v. Mobile DHR, July 10, 2026

“[I]f a child is not adopted following [TPR], the child will likely remain orphaned… That outcome does not serve the best interests of the child.”

In years gone by, it was common practice for juvenile courts to terminate parental rights  without identified adoptive resources. Thus, “freeing” a child for adoption, and placing their profiles on websites such as HeartGalleryAlabama.com was the best way to connect the children with adoptive parents.

Over the course of several cases over several years, the Court of Civil Appeals has made it clear that they do not like this option. Today’s case, C.M. v. Mobile County DHR, continues that trend.

To be or Not to be… Adopted

The child was 11 years old and had some special needs. There were no legal parents in the picture. Obvious case for TPR, but what held the Court of Civil Appeals back was this: in terminating parental rights, the juvenile court held that “although the child does not have an adoptive resource currently[,] the Court finds that he is adoptable.” According to the Court of Civil Appeals (CCA), this is no longer going to be sufficient.

The only issue the CCA analyzed was adoptability.

Adoption Must Succeed Termination

It’s the court’s duty to find that termination is in the child’s best interest.

The CCA made a pretty bold statement: “The juvenile court implicitly determined that the termination of the mother’s parental rights would serve the child’s interest in achieving stability and permanency through adoption.”

This means that every termination order must concur that termination will achieve adoption. If this isn’t explicit, the evidence must prove this to a clear and convincing standard.

After this opinion, it’s hard to see that a permanency plan of “adoption with no identified resource” will have much of a chance of standing on appeal. Any language about future possibility of adoption will be highly suspect by the CCA. What’s more, if a child has special needs, which most do in foster care at age 11, then future adoptability is even less believable to the CCA.

We Don’t Gamble on Orphans

The CCA closes its discussion by quoting the DHR attorney: “Maybe [the child] would be adopted in a year, maybe he would never be adopted.” That’s highly unusual for the CCA. But it illustrates its point well: “Alabama law does not allow a juvenile court to gamble on the adoptive prospects of a child.”

Got questions for us about your situation? Call The Adoption Law Firm at 334-546-2009.