W.C.M. v. M.P. (Appeal from Baldwin Juvenile Court: JU-19-510.02).

Rel: May 23, 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-2023-0615
_________________________

W.C.M.

v.

M.P.

Appeal from Baldwin Juvenile Court
(JU-19-510.02)

After Remand from the Alabama Supreme Court

PER CURIAM.

This court's reversal of the judgment of the Baldwin Juvenile Court

("the juvenile court") terminating the parental rights of W.C.M. ("the

father"), see W.C.M. v. M.P., [Ms. CL-2023-0615, July 19, 2024] ___ So.

3d ___ (Ala. Civ. App. 2024), has been reversed by our supreme court and
CL-2023-0615

the case has been remanded to this court for further consideration of the

arguments raised by the father relating to the juvenile court's finding of

abandonment and its determination that no viable alternatives to the

termination of his parental rights existed. Ex parte M.P., [Ms. SC-2024-

0684, Mar. 7, 2025] ___ So. 3d ___ (Ala. 2025).

We set out the procedural history and most of the facts relevant to

the issues on appeal in W.C.M.:

"In July 2021, M.P. ('the mother') filed in the … the
juvenile court … a petition seeking to terminate the parental
rights of … the father … to E.H.P. ('the child'), who had been
conceived outside of wedlock. After a trial held over four
sessions in August 2021, September 2021, and July 2023, the
juvenile court entered a judgment terminating the father's
parental rights. The father filed a postjudgment motion
directed to that judgment that the juvenile court denied. The
father then filed a timely notice of appeal to this court.

"….

"The record reflects that the mother filed a paternity
and child-support action in 2015, shortly after the child was
born. During that action, which was still pending at the time
of the entry of the termination-of-parental-rights judgment,1
the parties had twice operated under different temporary
agreements setting out the father's right to visit with the
child, one of which required the father to pay certain sums to
the mother for child support. During the pendency of the
paternity and child-support action, the father filed motions
seeking to compel the mother to allow him the visitation that
was set out in the temporary agreements, and, in two separate
orders in 2017, the juvenile court required the mother to take

2
CL-2023-0615

appropriate actions to permit the father to exercise his
visitation. The record indicates that the father exercised the
visitation that he was provided in the temporary agreements.
However, as of the time of the filing of the termination-of-
parental rights action, no agreement or order of the juvenile
court provided visitation rights to the father or governed child
support. The mother had filed a previous termination-of-
parental-rights action in 2019 but the juvenile court declined
to terminate the father's parental rights at that time.

"The mother testified that, after the 2019 termination-
of-parental-rights action was concluded in November 2019,
she had made efforts to provide opportunities for the father to
visit with the child. She explained that she had arranged for
the father to see the child each Thursday by picking up the
father so that she, he, and the child could have dinner at a
restaurant together.2 Although the mother said that the
father had initially participated in the mother's attempts to
provide opportunities for him to visit the child, she said that
later he began requesting that some of the visits be
rescheduled. She testified that she had attempted to
accommodate the father's requests. According to the mother,
in January 2020, the father informed her that he was unable
to visit because he had begun working in Florida. The mother
said that she had offered to take the child to visit the father
in Florida in January 2020 but that he had declined her offer
because he had the flu. The mother testified that, at some
point in or after January 2020, she would drop the child off at
the home of the father's parents ('the paternal grandparents')
on Thursday evenings so that the father could visit and have
dinner with the child.

"According to the mother, after the father began
working in Florida, he had informed her that she could come
and pick the child up an hour early from some of the Thursday
visits at the paternal grandparents' house because, she said,
he had told her that he had to return to Florida. She testified
that the father had declined a visit on March 19, 2020,

3
CL-2023-0615

because, she said, he had told her that he feared that he had
been exposed to the virus that causes 'COVID-19.' She said
that he had not visited the child in April 2020 or May 2020;
however, she indicated that the father had spoken to the child
via FaceTime, a videoconferencing application, on April 1,
2020, and April 4, 2020. She testified that the father had
texted her on May 8, 2020, but, she said, he had not asked
about the child or requested a visit at that time. The mother
further testified that the father had contacted her about the
child's dance recital in late June 2020, but, she said, he had
ultimately decided that he could not attend. She said that he
had telephoned her to arrange to FaceTime with the child on
July 1, 2020, the date of the child's birthday, but, the mother
explained, he had not completed the FaceTime call at the
arranged time because he had instead texted her about some
information relating to a recent filing in the pending paternity
and child-support action. The mother testified that the father
had not made any further attempt to contact the child until
she filed the termination-of-parental-rights action in 2021.

"The mother testified that she had also begun allowing
the child to visit regularly with the paternal grandparents on
Sundays. The mother further testified that the child had seen
the father during a visit with the paternal grandparents in
August 2020 and that the father had engaged in a FaceTime
call with the child during a visit with the paternal
grandparents in January 2021. The mother described the
child as having been 'upset' after both contacts with the
father. Regarding the August 2020 visit, the mother stated
that she herself had been upset because she had not been able
to 'prepare [the child] for that' and described the child as
having been 'confused' and 'upset' because, the mother
testified, '[the child] wanted to just go over and play with [the
paternal grandmother].' The mother stated that '[the child]
was upset [in January 2021] because you can't just dip out on
somebody for months and then just FaceTime them, you
know.' As a result of the father's attempt to contact the child
when she was visiting with the paternal grandparents in

4
CL-2023-0615

January 2021, the mother testified that she had ended the
child's Sunday visits with them because of what she described
as her 'mistrust.'

"The mother also testified that the father had not been
paying child support. She said that he had paid $600 per
month over four months in 2020. She also complained that he
had neither paid for any portion of the child's noncovered
medical expenses nor funded the child's extracurricular-
activity expenses, which, she said, included expenses for
dance classes, cheer camp, and art camp.

"The father testified that he had willingly paid some
unspecified amount of child support in both 2020 and 2021
but admitted that he had not paid any money to the mother
in 2022 or 2023. He said that he had paid the child support
specified in the 2017 temporary agreement entered in the
paternity and child-support action. He further testified that
the mother had never sent him any medical bills or other bills
for him to pay.

"On the last day of the trial, the father testified that he
was not employed full time and was seeking disability. He
said that he does odd jobs for friends to make ends meet and
that he lives in a room in a house owned by a friend in Gulf
Breeze, Florida, and does not pay rent. He also testified that
he regularly travels back and forth between Florida and [the
paternal grandparents'] house in Alabama.

"The father explained that the mother had not followed
the parties' earlier agreements relating to visitation made in
the paternity and child-support action. He described the
mother as being amenable to visitation but only on her own
terms. He said that the mother 'got nasty' after certain filings
were made in the paternity and child-support action in July
2020 and that he 'just walked away and said I'll wait for
court.' He also commented that he had decided not to pay any

5
CL-2023-0615

amount for the support of the child because the mother had
not allowed him to visit."

"______________

"1The paternity and child-support action was continued
multiple times for various reasons and was apparently stayed
because the father had filed for bankruptcy protection and
again when the father's bankruptcy action was reportedly
'reopened.' However, the automatic stay that becomes
effective upon the filing of a petition for bankruptcy does not
operate as a stay

" '(A) of the commencement or continuation of
a civil action or proceeding --

" '(i) for the establishment of
paternity;

" '(ii) for the establishment or
modification of an order for domestic
support obligations; [or]

" '(iii) concerning child custody or
visitation ....'

"11 USCA § 362(b)(2)(A).

"2The father does not drive because of problems with his
vision."

___ So. 3d at ___.

The father argues that the mother failed to establish that he had

abandoned the child or that all viable alternatives to the termination of

his parental rights were exhausted. Generally, the appellate courts of

6
CL-2023-0615

this state have, in the past, been reluctant to affirm the termination of a

noncustodial parent's parental rights when the child was residing safely

in the home of the custodial parent. See, e.g., Ex parte Brooks, 513 So.

2d 614 (Ala. 1987); S.M.M. v. R.S.M., 83 So. 3d 572 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011).

Both this court and our supreme court have often repeated that the

termination of parental rights should not be accomplished to satisfy the

desires of one or both of the child's parents. See Ex parte Brooks, 513 So.

2d at 617; S.D.P. v. U.R.S., 18 So. 3d 936, 939 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009). Our

supreme court has explained that, "[w]hen a child's welfare is threatened

by continuation of parental rights, the law provides a means for

terminating those rights." Ex parte Brooks, 513 So. 2d at 617. Thus,

termination of parental rights should be confined to those cases in which

"the most egregious of circumstances" warrants such action. Ex parte

Beasley, 564 So. 2d 950, 952 (Ala. 1990).

The record reflects that, at the time the mother filed her second

termination-of-parental-rights petition, the mother and the father had

been involved in the contentious paternity and child-support action

before the juvenile court for over five years, without having achieved a

final resolution of the father's rights to visitation or his obligation to pay

7
CL-2023-0615

child support.1 The record contains numerous pleadings from the

paternity and child-support action, including requests from the father

that the juvenile court enter pendente lite orders establishing his rights

to visitation and requesting that the mother be held in contempt for

failing to comply with temporary agreements that the parties had

reached relating to visitation. Those pleadings demonstrate that the

mother had frustrated the father's ability to visit with and develop a

relationship with the child throughout the litigation of the extended

paternity and child-support action.

On November 21, 2016, the parties entered into a "Mediated

Temporary Agreement," which provided that "the [f]ather's parenting

time shall be for one hour per week at the Daphne Family Center." That

agreement, which the juvenile court incorporated into a pendente lite

order entered in the paternity and child-support action on November 22,

2016, required the mother and the father to take the necessary steps to

set up such visitation with the Daphne Family Center. In a December

2016 motion in the paternity and child-support action seeking to enforce

1The juvenile court adjudicated the father's paternity in an
interlocutory order entered in January 2017.
8
CL-2023-0615

the mediated temporary agreement, the father alleged that the mother

had failed to do what was required to have the visitation held at the

Daphne Visitation Center. On January 24, 2017, the father amended his

motion seeking to enforce the mediated temporary agreement because,

he alleged, the mother had still not taken the necessary steps to set up

visitation. In February 2017, the father filed a motion in the paternity

and child-support action asking the juvenile court to set a hearing on his

request for pendente lite visitation.

Later in February 2017, the father filed a motion in the paternity

and child-support action objecting to the mother's relocating with the

child to Maine. In March 2017, the juvenile court ordered the mother to

return the child to Alabama. In that same order, the juvenile court

awarded the father visitation with the child each Saturday from 9:00 a.m.

to 6:00 p.m. and access to the child via telephone or a videoconferencing

application on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays at 6:00 p.m.

In July 2017, the juvenile court entered in the paternity and child-

support action an order incorporating an agreement of the parties

regarding pendente lite visitation and child support. That agreement

was specifically limited to a six-month period, after which, it provided,

9
CL-2023-0615

the parties were to renegotiate visitation and child support or the

juvenile court was to adjudicate those issues. The agreement specifically

provided:

"During the six (6) month period, the [f]ather shall
receive visitation every Thursday night of the month for
dinner from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. with the … child and the
[m]other at a location to be agreed upon between the parties.
The [f]ather shall receive an additional weekday visit, on the
weeks the [f]ather does not receive visitation on Saturday,
either Monday or Tuesday, as agreed upon by the parties,
from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. … In addition, the [f]ather shall
receive [visitation] every other Saturday, beginning on May
20, 2017, from 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. with the … child and
[m]other at a location to be agreed upon by the parties."

On August 2, 2017, the father filed in the paternity and child-

support action another contempt motion alleging that the mother was not

complying with the July 2017 agreement and would not allow the father

to exercise the agreed-upon visitation. At some point in 2017, the

juvenile court stayed the paternity and child-support action because the

father had filed for bankruptcy protection. The next document in the

record relating to the paternity and child-support action is a copy of the

father's August 2018 answer to what he refers to as an amended

complaint. In his answer, he states that the mother "disappeared," that

he had not been able to visit with the child, and that the mother would

10
CL-2023-0615

not answer his calls, texts, or e-mails. The record also contains a May

2019 motion filed by the father in the paternity and child-support action

in which he seeks a finding of contempt against the mother.

In June 2019, the mother filed in the juvenile court her first petition

seeking to terminate the father's parental rights, which was assigned

case number JU-19-510.01. In July 2019, the father filed in the paternity

and child-support action a motion to set aside the temporary agreement,

which, by its terms, was to last for only six months and had therefore

expired. On October 28, 2019, the juvenile court denied the mother's first

petition for the termination of the father's parental rights by an order

entered in case number JU-19-510.01. In January 2020, the mother filed

a motion in the paternity and child-support action seeking to have the

action stayed because, she said, the father's bankruptcy case had been

reopened; the juvenile court granted that motion. In May 2020, the

father notified the juvenile court that the bankruptcy stay had been lifted

and requested that the paternity and child-support action be set for a

trial. The juvenile court set the paternity and child-support action for a

trial to be held in November 2020, but the trial was continued because of

injuries sustained by the mother's counsel in an accident.

11
CL-2023-0615

The record contains as an exhibit copies of text messages exchanged

between the mother and the father between November 21, 2019, and July

20, 2020. The messages between the parties in July 2020, by and large,

relate to attempts to settle the visitation and child-support issues

pending in the juvenile court. Those messages reflect that the father

desired that the parties' proposed agreement be modified to award him

additional summer visitation and that the mother was resistant to

including additional visitation. Although the text messages initially

reflected cooperation between the parties, the messages become less

amicable and cease without a resolution of the parties' disagreement.

The exhibit reflects that the father did not text the mother for

approximately one year and that he resumed his requests to see the child

in July 2021.

On July 2, 2021, the mother filed in the juvenile court her second

petition seeking to terminate the father's parental rights, which was

assigned case number JU-19-510.02 and which is the action underlying

this appeal. On July 15, 2021, the mother filed in the paternity and child-

support action a motion to continue the trial in that action or to place

that action on the "administrative docket" because she had just filed a

12
CL-2023-0615

second petition to terminate the father's parental rights. The father filed

a response in opposition to the mother's motion to continue, to no

apparent avail. As previously noted, the juvenile court held the trial on

the mother's second termination-of-parental-rights petition in case

number JU-19-510.02 over three nonconsecutive days in August 2021,

September 2021, and July 2023; the juvenile court entered its judgment

terminating the father's parental rights in August 2023.

In its August 2023 judgment terminating the father's parental

rights entered in case number JU-19-510.02, the juvenile court does not

specify the factual basis for its conclusion that the termination of the

father's parental rights is warranted. However, the mother's petition

was premised upon the father's alleged abandonment of the child based

on his failure to visit with the child or to pay child support. In his

postjudgment motion, the father argued that

"the evidence produced at trial showed a complete lack of [his]
intent to abandon his child, but rather demonstrated [that he]
became stuck in a broken court system which failed to give
him any opportunity to argue the multitude of motions filed
in the custody action whereby he was seeking judicial
intervention to assist with custody and parenting time with
his child."

13
CL-2023-0615

We begin our analysis by reciting the proper standards applicable

to cases involving a custodial parent's attempt to terminate the parental

rights of the noncustodial parent.

"In those cases in which one parent seeks to terminate the
parental rights of the other parent, a juvenile court 'must
[first] determine whether grounds exist for terminating
parental rights' by considering the evidence relating to the
factors set out in [Ala. Code 1975,] § 12-15-319(a)[,] and then
must 'consider whether all viable alternatives to terminating
parental rights have been exhausted.' Ex parte J.E., 1 So. 3d
1002, 1006-08 (Ala. 2008).

"A juvenile court's judgment terminating parental
rights must be supported by clear and convincing evidence.
P.S. v. Jefferson Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 143 So. 3d 792, 795
(Ala. Civ. App. 2013). 'Clear and convincing evidence' 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." ' L.M. v.
D.D.F., 840 So. 2d 171, 179 (Ala. Civ. App. 2002) (quoting Ala.
Code 1975, § 6-11-20(b)(4)). Although a juvenile court's
factual findings in a judgment terminating parental rights
based on evidence presented ore tenus are presumed correct,
K.P. v. Etowah Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 43 So. 3d 602, 605
(Ala. Civ. App. 2010), '[t]his 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.'
K.S.B. v. M.C.B., 219 So. 3d 650, 653 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016).
That is, this court

" ' "must ... look through ['the prism of the
substantive evidentiary burden,' Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 254, 106 S.Ct.

14
CL-2023-0615

2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986),] 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.' " '

"K.S.B., 219 So. 3d at 653 (quoting Ex parte McInish, 47 So.
3d 767, 778 (Ala. 2008), quoting in turn Ala. Code 1975, § 25-
5-81(c))."

B.B. v. J.P., 388 So. 3d 710, 713-14 (Ala. Civ. App. 2023).

"Abandonment" is defined in Ala. Code 1975, § 12-15-301(1), as

"[a] voluntary and intentional relinquishment of the custody
of a child by a parent, or a withholding from the child, without
good cause or excuse, by the parent, of his or her 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."

We have further explained that

" '[a]bandonment implies an intentional act on the part
of the parent.' L.M. v. D.D.F., 840 So. 2d 171, 179 (Ala. Civ.
App. 2002) (construing Ala. Code 1975, former § 26-18-3(1),
the predecessor statute to § 12-15-301(1)). This court has
explained that abandonment must typically result from the
voluntary act of a parent. V.G.J. v. Tuscaloosa Cnty. Dep't of
Hum. Res., 368 So. 3d 886, 895 (Ala. Civ. App. 2022)
(concluding that a mother's deportation could not serve as the
basis of a finding that she had abandoned her children); see
also J.B. v. DeKalb Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 12 So. 3d 100,
111 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008) (plurality opinion) (stating that, 'if
the [parent] was, in fact, unintentionally, involuntarily, or

15
CL-2023-0615

justifiably prevented from interacting with the children as a
parent, then his [or her] conduct cannot be considered
abandonment'). That is, 'a juvenile court may premise a
finding of abandonment only upon evidence indicating that a
parent voluntarily, intentionally, and unjustifiably
committed the actions or omissions set out in § 12-15-301, Ala.
Code 1975.' C.C. v. L.J., 176 So. 3d 208, 211 (Ala. Civ. App.
2015)."

B.B., 388 So. 3d at 715.

The documentary evidence in the record reflects that the mother

has generally resisted the father's right to visit with the child, even when

she had entered into voluntary agreements establishing his right to

specific visitation periods. The father described the mother as amenable

to visitation only on her own terms. The mother testified that she had

tried to work with the father to allow him visitation, but, as noted above,

she was resistant to the idea of expanded visitation when the father

requested it during the attempt to negotiate an agreement to conclude

the paternity and child-support action. After the first termination-of-

parental-rights petition was denied in November 2019, the mother

voluntarily permitted the father what appeared to be supervised

visitation, either through visits conducted in her presence or visits in the

home of the paternal grandparents on only one weeknight, even though

the father was living in Florida at that time. As noted above, after the

16
CL-2023-0615

mother filed the second termination-of-parental-rights petition in July

2021, the father contacted the mother through text messages seeking to

visit with the child; in her replies to those messages, the mother referred

him to her counsel or requested that he not contact her again, even

describing his contact requesting visitation as harassment. Moreover, as

previously mentioned, although the mother had allowed the child to visit

with the paternal grandparents on Sundays in late 2020 and January

2021, the mother had stopped allowing the child to visit them in late

January 2021 because she did not desire that the child have contact with

the father during those visits. The mother testified that both she and the

child were "upset" by the child's having contact with the father, that the

child was "confused" by the contact, and that the mother was concerned

because she had been unable to "prepare" the child to see the father

during her visits with the paternal grandparents.

The parties litigated the paternity and child-support action for over

five years before the mother filed her second petition to terminate the

father's parental rights on the ground of abandonment. Because the

litigation of the paternity and child-support action has yet to conclude,

the record contains no final judgment specifying the father's visitation

17
CL-2023-0615

rights or child-support obligation. In addition, the record does not

contain any pendente lite order setting out the father's visitation rights

or establishing his child-support obligation. The last pendente lite order

expired, by its terms, in January 2018; the parties did not negotiate

another agreement; and the juvenile court failed to adjudicate any

pendente lite issues, despite requests by the father that it do so.

Insofar as the mother contended that the father's failure to pay

child support or a portion of the child's expenses could support the

conclusion that the father had abandoned the child or otherwise support

the judgment terminating the father's parental rights, we again note that

the father's child-support obligation had not yet been established. M.W.

v. Marshall Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 399 So. 3d 287, 292 (Ala. Civ. App.

2024) ("Without an order of child support, the juvenile court could not

determine that the mother had 'failed' to perform her duties to provide

financial support and to meet the material needs of the children within

the meaning of abandonment set forth in § 12-15-301(1)[, Ala. Code

1975]."); B.L. v. Elmore Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 324 So. 3d 829, 837

(Ala. Civ. App. 2020) ("The evidence is not clear that the father had failed

to comply with an order of child support or that he was able to provide

18
CL-2023-0615

support for the material needs of the child during the relevant period and

failed to do so."). Furthermore, the mother did not establish the father's

income. See § 12-15-319(a)(9) (stating that one potential basis for a

conclusion that a parent is unable or unwilling to discharge his or her

parental responsibilities is the "[f]ailure by the parent[] to provide for the

material needs of the child or to pay a reasonable portion of support of

the child where the parent is able to do so" (emphasis added)); A.M. v.

R.S., 373 So. 3d 215, 221-22 (Ala. Civ. App. 2022) (explaining that,

because the custodians had not proven that the mother in that case had

the ability to pay her previously established child-support obligation,

they had not established that the mother had failed to provide financial

support for the child despite being able to do so). The father testified

that, since late 2021, he had not had full-time employment because the

company that he had worked for had gone bankrupt. He said that he

intended to pursue securing disability benefits because he could not drive

and had not been able to find employment because of his inability to

drive. He also explained that, due to issues that he had with his vision,

he could not perform remote work on a computer. Therefore, the record

19
CL-2023-0615

lacks sufficient evidence to support a conclusion that the father had failed

to provide financially for the child, despite having the ability to do so.

Certainly, the father's actions were not always consistent with his

stated desire to develop and maintain a relationship with the child. The

father testified that, in July 2020, in frustration over the mother's actions

and attitude, he had chosen to wait on his day in court to establish his

visitation rights with the child. That day never arrived. The father's

attempts to visit with the child after the mother filed the second

termination-of-parental-rights petition were rebuffed.

As both this court and our supreme court have before explained,

" ' "the termination of parental rights is a drastic measure, and we know

of no means by which those rights, once terminated, can be reinstated." ' "

Ex parte A.S., 73 So. 3d 1223, 1230 (Ala. 2011) (quoting D.O. v. Calhoun

Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 859 So. 2d 439, 445 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003),

quoting in turn V.M. v. State Dep't of Hum. Res., 710 So. 2d 915, 921

(Ala. Civ. App. 1998)). Both this court and our supreme court have

further observed that the termination of parental rights is " ' "the last and

most extreme disposition permitted by statute." ' " Ex parte A.S., 73 So.

3d at 1230 (quoting D.O. v. Calhoun Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 859 So. 2d

20
CL-2023-0615

439, 445 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003), quoting in turn V.M. v. State Dep't of

Hum. Res., 710 So. 2d 915, 921 (Ala. Civ. App. 1998)). "[A] father's right

to be a parent to his children is fundamental and a court should

terminate those rights 'only in the most egregious of circumstances.' "

L.M. v. D.D.F., 840 So. 2d 171, 179 (Ala. Civ. App. 2002) (quoting Ex parte

Beasley, 564 So. 2d at 952).

The parties participated in contentious litigation to establish the

father's right to visitation with the child. The father visited the child in

compliance with previous pendente lite orders entered in the paternity

and child-support action, when the mother did not frustrate those efforts.

However, inexplicably, he is still awaiting the conclusion of the paternity

and child-support action and an adjudication of his rights to visitation

with the child, which he has consistently requested. We agree with the

father that the father's actions in failing to visit or to maintain contact

with the child while awaiting an adjudication of his visitation rights in

the paternity and child-support action, although perhaps not the most

advisable, are not sufficient under these circumstances to clearly and

convincingly support a conclusion that he " 'voluntarily, intentionally,

and unjustifiably committed the actions or omissions set out in § 12-15-

21
CL-2023-0615

301 ….' " B.B., 388 So. 3d at 715 (quoting C.C. v. L.J., 176 So. 2d 208, 211

(Ala. Civ. App. 2015)). Accordingly, we cannot agree that the juvenile

court's judgment terminating the father's parental rights is supported by

clear and convincing evidence of the father's abandonment of the child,

and we reverse that judgment and remand the case for the entry of a

judgment consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

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

22