A.T. v. A.M. (Appeal from Tuscaloosa Juvenile Court: JU-17-643.03).

Rel: March 21, 2025

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter.
Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue,
Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections
may be made before the opinion is published in Southern Reporter.

ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
OCTOBER TERM, 2024-2025
_________________________

CL-2024-0643
_________________________

A.T.

v.

W.T.

_________________________

CL-2024-0644
_________________________

A.T.

v.

A.M.

Appeals from Tuscaloosa Juvenile Court
(JU-17-520.03 and JU-17-643.03)
CL-2024-0643 and CL-2024-0644

LEWIS, Judge.

A.T. ("the father") appeals from judgments entered by the

Tuscaloosa Juvenile Court ("the juvenile court") terminating his parental

rights to K.T., who was born in September 2016, and to G.R., who was

born in November 2017 (sometimes collectively referred to as "the

children"). We affirm the judgments of the juvenile court.

Procedural History

On October 27, 2023, A.M. filed in the juvenile court a petition

seeking to terminate the parental rights of the father and of S.M. ("the

mother") to G.R. That case was assigned case no. JU-17-643.03. On

October 30, 2023, W.T. filed in the juvenile court a petition seeking to

terminate the parental rights of the father and of the mother to K.T. That

case was assigned case no. JU-17-520.03. A trial on both petitions was

held by the juvenile court on June 11, 2024, July 9, 2024, and July 23,

2024. On July 24, 2024, the juvenile court issued separate but almost

identical judgments terminating the father's parental rights to the

children. The juvenile court's judgments stated, in pertinent part:

"2. [A.M. and W.T.] established by clear and convincing
evidence that the Mother and Father abandoned the
child[ren] as defined in Ala. Code 1975[,] §12-15-301(1) and
the Mother and Father failed to rebut the presumption that

2
CL-2024-0643 and CL-2024-0644

the parent[s] [are] unable or unwilling to act as a parent when
the child[ren] ha[ve] been abandoned. A.D. v. R.P., 345 So. 3d
657, 669 (Ala. Civ. App. 2021). Even if the Mother and Father
are not found to have abandoned the child[ren], the Court
finds by clear and convincing evidence that the Mother and
Father are unable to discharge his and her responsibilities to
and for the child[ren] and that the conduct or condition of the
Mother and Father render the Mother and Father unable to
properly care for the child[ren] and that such conduct or
condition is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.

"3. Further, because of the finding of abandonment, the
parental rights of the Mother and Father may be terminated
without having to consider and exhaust all viable
alternatives. A.D. v. R.P., 345 So. 3d [at] 669. Even if the
Mother and Father are not found to have abandoned the
child[ren], having considered the evidence presented,
specifically including, but not limited to the Mother's consent;
the child[ren]'s lack of any bond with the Mother and Father;
the child[ren]'s lack of any contact with the Mother and
Father since at least 2019; the fact that the child[ren] w[ere]
removed from the parent's custody …; the lack of any
beneficial aspect to the relationship between the Mother and
Father to the child[ren]; the Mother's conviction to a felony
charge of child abuse with th[e] child[ren] as the victim[s] …;
the Father's conviction to a charge of reckless endangerment
with [one of the] child[ren] as the victim; the unexplained
serious physical injury to the child[ren] that would indicate
that the injuries are the result of the intentional conduct or
willful neglect of the Mother and the Father; [A.M. and W.T.]'s
bond with the child[ren] and desire to adopt the child[ren]; the
child[ren]'s need for permanency and stability; and the
potential benefit to the child[ren] of a permanent parent-child
relationship with [A.M. and W.T.]; the Court finds by clear
and convincing evidence that there are no viable alternatives.
See S.N.W. v. M.D.F.H., 127 So. 3d 1225 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013);
J.S. v. J.C. and C.C., 219 So. 3d. 666 (Ala. Civ. App, 2016);
J.D. v. E.R., 266 (Ala. Civ. App. 2018); see also J.G. v.

3
CL-2024-0643 and CL-2024-0644

Lauderdale County D.H.R., [379 So. 3d 444] (Ala. Civ. App.
2023) (in which the main opinion distinguished the situation
in J.G. from the situation in S.N.W. noting that there was no
relationship between the father and child in S.N.W. since
infancy and there was no adoptive resource in J.G. and that
the juvenile court in J.G. was not asked to 'balance the
benefits to the children of adoption … against the alternative
of maintaining the status quo.' (citations omitted)).

"4. Based upon the clear and convincing evidence presented
and considering the best interests of the child[ren], [A.M. and
W.T.]'s Petition[s] to Terminate Parental Rights [are] hereby
granted. …"

The juvenile court further awarded the permanent care, custody, and

control of G.R. to A.M. and of K.T. to W.T. On August 6, 2024, the father

timely filed his notices of appeal to this court.1

Evidence

The father and the mother were married on September 25, 2015.

The father testified that, on October 4, 2017, a pipe ruptured in their

home and therefore, he asked A.M., the father's relative by marriage, to

babysit K.T. A.M. testified that, when she removed K.T. from her car

seat, A.M. noticed how small K.T. was. A.M. testified that

"normally when you pick up a one-year-old baby, you can pick
her up and put her on your hip and they're gonna hold their

1The mother did not appeal the juvenile court's judgments
terminating her parental rights to the children. Therefore, this opinion
concerns the father's rights only.
4
CL-2024-0643 and CL-2024-0644

self up and be just fine, she was not able to do that, that's why
I realized how small she was, because I picked her up to carry
her inside and she just kind of, like, fell over [be]cause she
couldn't hold herself up."

The next morning, as a result of K.T.'s condition, A.M., along with her

mother W.T., brought K.T. to an office of the Tuscaloosa County

Department of Human Resources ("DHR"). A DHR employee instructed

A.M. and W.T. to take K.T. straight to the hospital. W.T. testified that

K.T. was wearing newborn size diapers and that she could feel K.T.'s ribs.

Further, W.T. testified that K.T. was not able to hold herself up for a long

time and appeared weak; W.T. stated that K.T. was not able to walk or

vocalize at all.

Dr. Karen Burgess, a doctor at University Medical Center, testified

that she first saw K.T. on October 6, 2017, the day after the child

presented to the emergency room. Dr. Burgess initially observed that,

compared to other children K.T.'s age, K.T. seemed to be significantly

underweight and malnourished and unable to perform typical activities.

In her records, Dr. Burgess described K.T. as "emaciated." Dr. Burgess

further stated that the notes from K.T.'s emergency-room visit the

previous day described K.T. as "cachectic," which, according to Dr.

Burgess, meant that K.T. was wasted and emaciated. Dr. Burgess

5
CL-2024-0643 and CL-2024-0644

testified that she observed that K.T. did not seem to have the strength to

engage in activities that a typical 12 or 13-month-old child could do.

According to Dr. Burgess, K.T. "could smile weakly, she could lift her

head a little bit, she had some purposeful movements, but she was unable

to sit. She was unable to stand or walk."

Dr. Burgess testified that K.T.'s weight on October 6, 2017, was 12.6

pounds, which, according to Dr. Burgess, is the average weight of an

infant that is two-and-a-half months old. Dr. Burgess also noted that

K.T.'s weight on October 6, 2017, reflected a 1.7-pound weight loss from

K.T.'s weight that was recorded by her pediatrician's office on June 30,

2017. According to Dr. Burgess, K.T. should have weighed approximately

16 pounds had she continued her growth trajectory from the visit with

her pediatrician. On October 6, 2017, Dr. Burgess diagnosed K.T. with

malnutrition, immunization deficiency, and developmental delay. When

asked what happened to K.T. according to her growth chart, Dr. Burgess

testified

"[s]omething happen[ed] to her from the time that she saw
[her pediatrician] on June the 30th of 2017 and then the time
that I first saw her on October the 6th of 2017 such that she
lost a significant amount of weight, which I think amounts to
about twelve percent of what her body weight had been."

6
CL-2024-0643 and CL-2024-0644

Dr. Burgess testified that K.T.'s pediatrician had not noted any medical

illnesses, conditions, or anything that would explain what happened after

June 30, 2017. Further, Dr. Burgess testified that she found no medical

abnormalities, any conditions, or genetic issues that would explain the

change in the child's condition between June 30, 2017, and October 6,

2017.

A.M. testified that, after she and W.T. returned home from the

hospital, DHR contacted W.T., and she obtained custody of K.T. W.T.

testified that, when K.T. was 13 months old, she was wearing a clothing

size of newborn, 0 to 3 months. According to W.T., though, after she

obtained custody of K.T., K.T. gained weight every month thereafter.

W.T. testified that the only thing she was doing was feeding K.T. and

that K.T. had never received a medical diagnosis that would have

explained why she had not gained weight or failed to thrive while in the

care of the mother and the father.

Dr. Burgess testified that, at a visit on November 6, 2017, K.T.

weighed 16.3 pounds, which equated to a weight gain of almost 4 pounds

since Dr. Burgess had first seen K.T. on October 6, 2017. Dr. Burgess

testified that that weight gain "demonstrate[d] that [K.T.]'s body ha[d]

7
CL-2024-0643 and CL-2024-0644

the inherent ability to take calories and nutrition and turn it into

sustainable growth," which confirmed her diagnosis of malnutrition. Dr.

Burgess further testified that the parents had neglected K.T. from June

30, 2017, to October 6, 2017. According to Dr. Burgess, she was never

able to diagnose K.T. with any condition that would account for the

malnutrition other than simply not being fed. Further, Dr. Burgess

testified that the developmental issues that K.T. exhibited were side

effects of malnutrition.

According to W.T., K.T. has issues with her eyes to the extent that

doctors were worried about her being legally blind in one if not both eyes

before she reached the age of 13. However, W.T. said that she had been

having K.T. treated at a facility in Birmingham and that she was doing

better. W.T. testified that she and her husband had taken care of all

medical treatment and expenses for K.T. She testified that neither the

mother nor the father had ever offered to pay for any deductibles,

copayments, or prescription drugs that were required as a result of K.T.'s

malnutrition.

Dr. Lauren Linken testified that she treated G.R. at Cahaba

Medical Care when G.R. was one month old. According to Dr. Linken,

8
CL-2024-0643 and CL-2024-0644

the mother brought G.R. in for the first time on November 28, 2017, with

concerns about his weight. On that date, G.R. weighed 5 pounds 14

ounces, which was 1 pound 2 ounces less than his birth weight. G.R.'s

intra fontanelle also appeared sunken, which, according to Dr. Linken,

could have been caused by dehydration. Dr. Linken saw G.R. again on

December 1, 2017. G.R. had gained two ounces since the last visit, which

Dr. Linken testified seemed appropriate; however, Dr. Linken was still

concerned that G.R. was not back to his birth weight.

On December 11, 2017, G.R. was brought in for a weight check and

a blood test. Dr. Linken testified that, on that date, a triage medical

assistant was concerned about G.R.'s appearance and his weight.

According to Dr. Linken, another doctor who had seen G.R. that day

spoke to Dr. Linken with concerns about G.R. and asked that Dr. Linken

see G.R. in the exam room. Dr. Linken testified that she was immediately

concerned when she saw G.R. She testified that G.R. "was very small, he

looked gray, and he felt cold … my initial concern was, there's something

wrong here. This is not how this child should look." Dr. Linken stated

that she did not observe G.R. cry or make noises. She indicated in G.R.'s

records that he had no skin turgor, which meant that the skin had lost

9
CL-2024-0643 and CL-2024-0644

its elasticity and titration. When asked why an infant would feel cold,

Dr. Linken testified that "infants usually keep their heat by the amount

of fat that they have. And so, if a baby has lost a lot of weight, they

usually don't have fat to keep them warm. And so, then they have trouble

regulating their temperature and can have a low body temperature." Dr.

Linken further testified that she was concerned that, if she sent G.R.

home, his condition would continue to deteriorate and he could possibly

die. Dr. Linken suspected that the child had been neglected. Based on

her concerns, Dr. Linken recommended that G.R. be transported by

ambulance to Children's Hospital for evaluation.

According to Dr. Linken, there was no explanation for G.R.'s lack of

weight gain other than neglect. Dr. Linken further testified that G.R.'s

Children's Hospital records confirmed her suspicion of neglect, and her

opinion was that G.R. had been neglected. According to Dr. Linken,

Children's Hospital confirmed that G.R. was dehydrated and

hypothermic (had low body temperature) and that he was observed to

have an early stage 1 sacral decubitus ulcer. Dr. Linken testified that

the ulcer on G.R.'s sacrum was concerning because that type of ulcer is

usually formed by pressure. Dr. Linken testified that she "was concerned

10
CL-2024-0643 and CL-2024-0644

that no one was picking the child up and that he was laying on his back,

which could cause a pressure ulcer to form if he's not moving." She

testified that she had never seen such an ulcer on an infant. Dr. Linken

further testified that G.R.'s medical chart indicated that the nurses had

to continually wake the parents up and remind them to feed G.R. even

though he was crying and upset. The mother disputed those records.

Dr. Linken testified that, if the mother had complied with feeding

recommendations, then she would not have expected G.R. to lose weight.

According to Dr. Linken, while G.R. was in the hospital from December

11, 2017, to December 18, 2017, he gained one pound. Dr. Linken

testified that, if G.R. had been fed appropriately, the hospital visit would

not have been needed.

Alisha Williams, a social worker with DHR, testified that she was

assigned to work with the children in December 2017. According to

Williams, the mother and the father were both "indicated" for "neglect

and inadequate supervision; neglect, inadequate food; neglect,

inadequate clothing, personal hygiene; and … neglect, other risk of

serious harm." Williams testified that G.R. was initially placed in foster

care, but A.M. obtained custody of him in November 2018.

11
CL-2024-0643 and CL-2024-0644

Williams testified that DHR offered services to the mother and to

the father. Specifically, DHR offered the mother and the father

psychological evaluations; the mother and the father completed those

evaluations in February 2018. The mother introduced into evidence a

certificate of completion reflecting that she and the father attended

parenting classes with Tuscaloosa One Place in February 2018.

According to Williams, she included in the mother's and the father's

individualized service plans ("ISP") that they should both complete

counseling; however, the mother and the father did not cooperate in

counseling while she had the case. She testified that the mother and the

father wanted to use their own counselor rather than one provided to

them by DHR. However, she never received information that they had

obtained a counselor.

Williams testified that the mother and the father were consistent

with their supervised visitation. She testified that, in 2020, the mother

and the father's in-person visitations were discontinued because of the

COVID-19 pandemic. The parents were offered visitation with the

children via videoconferencing; however, both the mother and the father

12
CL-2024-0643 and CL-2024-0644

declined those visits. The father denied having refused visitation via

videoconferencing.

According to Williams, the mother contacted her in August 2020

requesting visitation. Williams testified that she completed a referral to

Family Dynamics for the mother and the father to resume supervised

visitation; however, she was informed that the mother and the father

never contacted the provider. According to Williams, the mother and the

father last visited with the children in June 2019.

Williams testified that, between 2018 and 2022, she was not aware

of either the mother or the father requesting the juvenile court for

visitation or complaining about the lack of visitation. Further, according

to Williams, she never had a conversation with the mother or the father

in which they accepted any responsibility for the reasons the children

came into the care of DHR. Williams testified that she did not think it

would be a good idea for the children to be forced to visit with the mother

and the father who had abused them.

According to Williams, from December 2017 until she stopped

working the case in July 2022, she regularly visited the children in their

placements at least once a month. Williams testified that the children

13
CL-2024-0643 and CL-2024-0644

"are spoiled, they have everything -- had everything and
beyond what they needed and wanted. They were lovable
children, they were always respectful, all of their needs were
met, overly met, even if there are needs that may not have
been met, they made sure to meet those needs. So they were
well taken care of."

Further, Williams testified that there was a strong bond between the

children and their respective custodians, W.T. and A.M., and the children

see their respective custodians as their parents.

Dajah Benson, a caseworker with DHR, testified that she has been

assigned the children's case since July 2022. Benson testified that she

sees the children in their placements once per month and has observed

that the children "are very bonded" with their custodians and that she

"can tell that they feel completely safe … [and] appear to be very happy

children in the households."

According to Benson, the mother and the father had not visited the

children since she had had the case. Further, Benson testified that

neither the mother nor the father had attempted to contact her about the

children since their last ISP meeting in November 2023. She testified

that she thought that it would be detrimental to the children's growth

and mental health to be removed from their respective placements

because they had been in those placements for so long.

14
CL-2024-0643 and CL-2024-0644

Benson testified that the father was banned from the DHR building

because of allegations that the father had made threats. Certified copies

of the convictions of the mother and the father, which were introduced

into evidence, reflect that the mother and the father were both indicted

on two counts of felony child abuse. The father was allowed to plead

guilty to reckless endangerment, a misdemeanor, with respect to one of

the children. The mother pleaded guilty to two felony counts of child

abuse (one count for each child), has served part of a split sentence, and

is currently on probation.

Dr. Kathleen Ronan, a licensed psychologist, testified that she

evaluated the father in 2018 and 2023 and that she evaluated the mother

in 2018. Regarding the mother, Dr. Ronan offered a provisional diagnosis

of mild or major neurocognitive disorder, provisional unspecified anxiety

disorder, and provisional unspecified depressive disorder. Dr. Ronan

testified that, at the time she last met with the father in November 2023,

he maintained that neither he nor the mother had done anything wrong.

Moreover, he was still in a relationship with the mother. According to

Dr. Ronan, the father

"has some very strong defense mechanisms that cause him to
have a certain belief set and he can be rigid in his belief set.

15
CL-2024-0643 and CL-2024-0644

He would first therapeutically have to overcome the defense
mechanisms enough to be able to hear what he needs to do to
shift and change. … This would require deep psychotherapy
from a trauma specialist who has experience with dissociation
… and some experience with neurocognitive disorders. If he
fully committed himself to such a type of psychotherapy, I
would be looking at about two years to make significant
enough improvements."

Further, Dr. Ronan testified that

"[w]hen I saw [the father] in 2023, I -- again, based on the
information I have, I could not appreciate that there had been
significant positive changes for him, he was basically the
same person as the person I saw in 2018. … If he had made
significant improvements, then my findings would have been
different."

According to Dr. Ronan, the issues she identified in 2018 had clearly not

been resolved by the time she met with the father again in 2023. When

asked whether the father had the ability to exercise protective capacity

over the children, Dr. Ronan testified that "[h]e does except perhaps

when it comes to [the mother]."

W.T. testified that the last time the mother and father made an

effort to visit with K.T. was in 2019. According to W.T., neither the

mother nor the father have seen K.T. in five years. W.T. testified that,

during the COVID-19 pandemic, she was willing to facilitate

videoconference visitations with the mother and the father as

16
CL-2024-0643 and CL-2024-0644

recommended by DHR; however, neither the mother nor the father

initiated a single videoconference call. W.T. further testified that she

offered to meet the mother and the father at any park convenient to them

so they could visit with K.T., but neither the mother nor the father

accepted her offer.

W.T. testified that, during a visitation, the mother became

extremely angry because K.T. had called W.T. "momma." She testified

that the mother grabbed K.T.'s arm with her fingernails, yanked her, and

said "I'm your momma." According to W.T., the mother left marks on

K.T., and K.T. clung to W.T. even more thereafter. W.T. testified that,

during visits

"[K.T.] would cry so much until she turned red, you could see
her veins poking all out in her and it would physically make
her sick, she would be screaming and hitting and punching
and I['ve] never seen her act like, but it was the only people
she knew dropping her off with three complete strangers and
she was terrified."

W.T. testified that K.T. has been in her care since she was 13

months old; she is now 8 years old. Further, W.T. testified that it was

her intent to adopt K.T. According to W.T., the father bought two pairs

of pants, a shirt, a jacket, a hat, two pairs of shoes and some gloves as

Christmas presents for K.T. in 2023. W.T. testified that those presents

17
CL-2024-0643 and CL-2024-0644

were the only contributions the father made to K.T. over the last eight

years.

A.M. testified that, since obtaining custody of G.R. in 2018, there

had been little interaction between G.R. and the mother and father. She

testified that the mother and father had not visited G.R. since 2019. A.M.

testified that the father had bought G.R. clothes and Christmas gifts in

2023 and had offered to help support G.R. However, A.M. testified that

the father never bought her any other items. According to A.M., the

mother never paid any support for G.R. and never called to ask if G.R.

needed anything. A.M. testified that, based on previous conversations

she had with the mother about the father becoming aggressive and

breaking things, she is concerned about supervising visitation.

A.M. testified that G.R. was very smart, received all "Ps," which

stands for "proficient," in school and was reading at almost a second

grade level. According to A.M., G.R. was healthy and was meeting

developmental milestones. She testified that she and W.T. lived close to

each other and that G.R. and K.T. were able to interact with each other

almost daily.

18
CL-2024-0643 and CL-2024-0644

A.M. testified that, if her petition to terminate parental rights were

granted, she planned to adopt G.R. According to A.M., she had been

employed by Wal-Mart for three years and earned $19 per hour. A.M.

testified that she had adequate housing for G.R., had the income and

ability to support G.R. as she had done for the last five years, and was

able to continue providing for G.R. without support.

According to the mother, she fed K.T. a specialized formula every

three to four hours. She testified that she fed G.R. every two to three

hours or as much as he would take, and she purchased a supplemental

nursing system that allowed G.R. to take both a bottle of formula and

breast milk at the same time. The mother testified that she tried her

best with the children and followed the doctor's recommendations. She

testified that she had no explanation for the allegations of malnutrition.

At the conclusion of her testimony, the mother consented on the record

that the children were dependent as to her and consented to the

termination of her parental rights to the children.

The father testified that he was employed at Waffle House and

earned between $17.50 and $22 per hour. He testified that he normally

worked 4 or 5 days per week from 9:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. According to the

19
CL-2024-0643 and CL-2024-0644

father, he was able to attend very few of the children's doctor's

appointments because he was working. The father testified that he did

not have any concerns with K.T.'s health while she was living with him

and the mother. He testified that he thought her size was adequate

because she was born prematurely.

According to the father, he stressed to the mother to take G.R. to

the doctor twice a week to try to find out why he was not gaining weight

properly. The father testified that he noticed a problem with G.R. but

did not go to the doctor with him because he was working to provide for

the family. He testified that he relied on the mother to inform him of

what the doctor said. The father acknowledged that, shortly before he

and the mother had G.R., they had lost custody of K.T. for the same

reason they lost custody of G.R.

The father testified that visitation with the children had been

suspended at one point because DHR accused him and the mother of

putting lice in K.T.'s hair. According to the father, it took approximately

six months to clear that issue up with DHR. The father testified that,

after the COVID-19 pandemic ban was lifted, he went to court to obtain

visitation but that he was always told that he had something else to do

20
CL-2024-0643 and CL-2024-0644

to resume visitation with the children. The father testified that he

completed parenting classes in 2018 and in 2023; he submitted

certificates of completion from those classes as evidence. Further, the

father testified that he began seeking a counselor in 2018 and that he

attended counseling from the beginning of 2023 until a few months before

the trial.

The father acknowledged that he was charged with felony child

abuse. The father testified that he pleaded guilty to reckless

endangerment. He testified that he believed that the reckless

endangerment charge indicated that he was too busy working to notice

anything wrong with the children but that he did nothing to harm the

children directly. According to the father, he filed for a divorce from the

mother because the mother admitted to harming the children. However,

even though he and the mother were divorced, the father testified that

he was still living in the home with the mother and that he intended to

continue living in the home with the mother until she moved out.

The father testified that he did not believe that K.T. lost weight

between August 2017 and September 2017. When asked about a

photograph of K.T. taken at the DHR office on October 5, 2017, the father

21
CL-2024-0643 and CL-2024-0644

testified that the picture was photoshopped. The father testified that he

did not notice any large ulcers on G.R. and that he did not believe that

G.R. was in a medical emergency at the time he was transported to

Children's Hospital. The father maintained at trial that he believed that

nothing was wrong with the children.

Standard of Review

"A judgment terminating parental rights must be
supported by clear and convincing evidence, which is
' " '[e]vidence that, when weighed against evidence in
opposition, will produce in the mind of the trier of fact a firm
conviction as to each essential element of the claim and a high
probability as to the correctness of the conclusion . ' " ' C.O. v.
Jefferson Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 206 So. 3d 621, 627 (Ala.
Civ. App. 2016) (quoting L.M. v. D.D.F., 840 So. 2d 171, 179
(Ala. Civ. App. 2002), quoting in turn Ala. Code 1975, § 6-11-
20(b)(4)).

" ' "[T]he evidence necessary for
appellate affirmance of a judgment
based on a factual finding in the
context of a case in which the ultimate
standard for a factual decision by the
trial court is clear and convincing
evidence is evidence that a fact-finder
reasonably could find to clearly and
convincingly … establish the fact
sought to be proved."

" 'KGS Steel, Inc. [v. McInish], 47 So. 3d [749,] 761
[(Ala. Civ. App. 2006)].

22
CL-2024-0643 and CL-2024-0644

" '… [F]or trial courts ruling … in civil cases
to which a clear-and-convincing-evidence standard
of proof applies, "the judge must view the evidence
presented through the prism of the substantive
evidentiary burden[,]" [Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 254, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed.
2d 202 (1986)]; thus, the appellate court must also
look through a prism to determine whether there
was substantial evidence before the trial court to
support a factual finding, based upon the trial
court's weighing of the evidence, that would
"produce in the mind [of the trial court] a firm
conviction as to each element of the claim and a
high probability as to the correctness of the
conclusion .'

"Ex parte McInish, 47 So. 3d 767, 778 (Ala. 2008). This court
does not reweigh the evidence but, rather, determines
whether the findings of fact made by the juvenile court are
supported by evidence that the juvenile court could have
found to be clear and convincing. See Ex parte T.V., 971 So.
2d 1, 9 (Ala. 2007). When those findings rest on ore tenus
evidence, this court presumes their correctness. Id."

M.W. v. Marshall Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 399 So. 3d 287, 290-91 (Ala.

Civ. App. 2024).

Discussion

I.

On appeal, the father first argues that the record does not contain

sufficient clear and convincing evidence that he abandoned the children

23
CL-2024-0643 and CL-2024-0644

or that other specified grounds for termination existed. Section 12-15-

319, Ala. Code 1975, provides, in pertinent part:

"(a) If the juvenile court finds from clear and convincing
evidence, competent, material, and relevant in nature, that
the parent[] of [the] child[ren] [is] unable or unwilling to
discharge [his] responsibilities to and for the child[ren], or
that the conduct or condition of the parent[] renders [him]
unable to properly care for the child[ren] and that the conduct
or condition is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future, it
may terminate the parental rights of the parent[]. In a
hearing on a petition for termination of parental rights, the
court shall consider the best interests of the child[ren]. In
determining whether or not the parent[] [is] unable or
unwilling to discharge [his] responsibilities to and for the
child[ren] and to terminate the parental rights, the juvenile
court shall consider the following factors including, but not
limited to, the following:

"(1) That the parent[] ha[s] abandoned the
child[ren], provided that in these cases, proof shall
not be required of reasonable efforts to prevent
removal or reunite the child[ren] with the parent[].

"….

"(6) Unexplained serious physical injury to
the child[ren] under those circumstances as would
indicate that the injuries resulted from the
intentional conduct or willful neglect of the parent.

"….

"(11) Failure by the parent[] to maintain
consistent contact or communication with the
child[ren].

24
CL-2024-0643 and CL-2024-0644

"….

"(13) The existence of any significant
emotional ties that have developed between the
child[ren] and [their] current foster parent or
parents, with additional consideration given to the
following factors:

"a. The length of time that the
child[ren] ha[ve] lived in a stable and
satisfactory environment.

"b. Whether severing the ties
between the child[ren] and [their]
current foster parent or parents is
contrary to the best interest of the
child[ren].

"c. Whether the juvenile court has
found at least one other ground for
termination of parental rights."

Section 12-15-301(1), Ala. Code 1975 defines "abandonment" as
"[a] voluntary and intentional relinquishment of the custody
of [the] child[ren] by a parent, or a withholding from the
child[ren], without good cause or excuse, by the parent, of his
… presence, care, love, protection, maintenance, or the
opportunity for the display of filial affection, or the failure to
claim the rights of a parent, or failure to perform the duties of
a parent."
The father argues that the record on appeal does not support the

juvenile court's finding that the father abandoned the children. However,

there was evidence indicating that the father had not visited with or

25
CL-2024-0643 and CL-2024-0644

spoken with the children since 2019. There was evidence indicating that

the father declined to visit with the children via videoconferencing during

the COVID-19 pandemic. Although the father disputed that evidence,

this court has held that, when reviewing a termination-of-parental-rights

judgment,

"an appellate court will review factual findings of the juvenile
court based on ore tenus evidence with a 'presumption of
correctness' because the trial court had the benefit of
'observing witnesses … as they testified, and, therefore, [the
juvenile court] was able to assess their demeanor and
credibility.' "

P.G. v. J.H., [Ms. CL-2023-0828, Aug. 9, 2024] ___ So. 3d ___, ___ (Ala.

Civ. App. 2024) (quoting J.C. v. State Dep't of Hum. Res., 986 So. 2d 1172,

1195 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007)). Here, the juvenile court was in the best

position to determine the credibility of the witnesses and could have

determined that the father had failed to visit with the children since 2019

and had declined to participate in videoconference visitation with the

children. We conclude that the juvenile court had sufficient evidence to

support a finding that the father abandoned the children and a finding

that the father failed to maintain consistent contact or communication

with the children. See § 12-15-319(a)(1) and (11), Ala. Code 1975.

Further, there was sufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's

26
CL-2024-0643 and CL-2024-0644

determination that the father failed to overcome the rebuttable

presumption that he was unable or unwilling to act as a parent due to his

abandonment of the children. See § 12-15-319(d), Ala. Code 1975.

A.M. has exercised custody of G.R. since November 20, 2018. K.T.

has been in W.T.'s care since she was 13 months old; she is now 8 years

old. Williams testified that there was a strong bond between the children

and their respective custodians and that the children saw the custodians

as their parents. Benson testified that she had observed that the children

"are very bonded," and that she "can tell that they feel completely safe …

[and] appear to be very happy children in the households." Further,

Benson testified that it would be detrimental to remove the children from

their respective custodians. Therefore, the juvenile court had evidence

that significant emotional ties existed between the children and their

custodians, that severing those ties would be contrary to the best

interests of the children, and that at least one other ground for

termination of parental rights existed. See § 12-15-319(a)(13), Ala. Code

1975. Thus, the juvenile court had before it clear and convincing evidence

to support termination of the father's parental rights.

27
CL-2024-0643 and CL-2024-0644

The father argues, without citation to authority, that the juvenile

court erred in determining that the children had been subjected to

"unexplained serious physical injury." However, regardless of whether

the children's malnourishment or the ulcer on G.R. constituted an

"injury," we conclude that the juvenile court properly relied on the

evidence indicating that, due to the neglect of the mother and the father,

both the children suffered from malnourishment and G.R. suffered an

ulcer on his sacrum. The factors set forth in § 12-15-319(a) are not

exhaustive.

Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the juvenile court had

before it clear and convincing evidence to support a termination of the

father's parental rights.

II.

The father next argues that the record does not contain sufficient

clear and convincing evidence that there were no viable alternatives to

terminating his parental rights. However, because we have found that

the juvenile court had sufficient evidence to support a finding that the

father abandoned the children, consideration of viable alternatives is not

required. See D.M. v. Jefferson Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 232 So. 3d 237,

28
CL-2024-0643 and CL-2024-0644

242 (Ala. Civ. App. 2017) (" '[B]y abandoning [his children], [the father]

"lo[ses] any due-process rights that would have required the juvenile

court to explore other alternatives before terminating [his] parental

rights . " ' " (quoting L.L. v. J.W., 195 So. 3d 269, 274 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015),

quoting in turn C.C. v. L.J., 176 So. 3d 208, 217 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015))).

III.

Finally, the father argues that the record does not contain sufficient

clear and convincing evidence that the children's best interests would be

served by terminating the father's parental rights. We note, however,

that there was evidence presented to the juvenile court that both Dr.

Linken and Dr. Burgess found that the children had been neglected or

abused by the mother and the father. That neglect and abuse resulted in

the father being indicted on two counts of felony child abuse, which was

reduced to one count of reckless endangerment. Further, there was

evidence presented to the juvenile court that the father has not visited

with or spoken to the children since 2019. Evidence was presented that

the children were bonded with their respective custodians who wish to

adopt the children. Therefore, the juvenile court had clear and

convincing evidence that the best interests of the children would be

29
CL-2024-0643 and CL-2024-0644

served by terminating the parental rights of the father to the children in

order for the children to achieve permanency through adoption.

Based on the foregoing, the judgements of the juvenile court

terminating the parental rights of the father to the children are affirmed.

CL-2024-0643 -- AFFIRMED.

CL-2024-0644 -- AFFIRMED.

Moore, P.J., and Edwards, Hanson, and Fridy, JJ., concur.

30