In M.W. v. Houston County Dep’t of Human Res., 773 So.2d 484 (Ala. Civ. App. 2000) the Appellate Court explained the principle that the child’s need for permanency must, at some point, take priority over a parent’s unsuccessful attempts at rehabilitation:
- “The mother continues to have a problem with alcohol. She admitted that she had received two DUI citations in the month before the final hearing.
- She had, however, passed several drug screens in the months before the final hearing. The mother lives with a man in a trailer owned by her brother. She was unemployed at the time of the final hearing.
- Although the mother has attempted to adjust her circumstances to meet the needs of the child, she has not had consistent success. When she does succeed, she cannot maintain her improved lifestyle. She cannot or will not admit that alcohol is a problem in her life; without such an admission, treatment for alcoholism will fail because the mother is not seeking treatment but is instead trying to satisfy DHR.
- “We are not unsympathetic to the mother. She has been devoted to visitation with the child, she has attempted to do all that DHR has asked of her, and she willingly relinquished custody when she lost the ability to provide for the child, all the time intending that the child would return to her custody once she established a home and got a job, which she has not done. At some point, however, the child’s need for permanency and stability must overcome the parent’s good-faith but unsuccessful attempts to become a suitable parent.” Id. at 486-487. (emphasis added).
Of note in M.W. is that the Appellate Court acknowledges the mother’s attempts to “adjust her circumstances,” her devotion to visitation, and her attempts to “do all that DHR has asked of her.” The Appellate Court then focuses on what the best interest of the child demands – the child’s need for permanency.
Is this 12 month rule about time to permanency important for children?
In M.A.J. v. S.F., 994 So.2d 280 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008).the Appellate Court further explained the importance of the 12-month rule:
- “[T]he federal Adoption and Safe Families Act (“the ASFA”) …. requires juvenile courts to hold a permanency hearing to determine a child’s disposition within 12 months of the date the child first entered foster care.
- Based on similar statutory provisions in their states, many other courts have concluded that their legislatures have established 12 months as a presumptively reasonable time for a parent to rehabilitate so as to be able to reunite with the child.
- We have recognized that, “[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.”
- Consistent with that statement, and the purpose behind the ASFA … to “ensure ‘that children are provided a permanent home as early as possible,’” we hold that when DHR timely exerts reasonable rehabilitation and reunification efforts, the parents generally shall have 12 months from the date the child enters foster care to prove that their conduct, condition, or circumstances have improved so that reunification may be promptly achieved.” Id. at 291. (internal citations omitted)
Sadly, this law is rarely discussed, rarely argued, and rarely enforced for children. It almost always takes the person with the most vested interest in the child’s welfare to step forward and press the issue. If that’s not the foster adoptive parent, who is it?
