B.T. v. Jefferson County Department of Human Resources and Legal Aid Society of Birmingham (Appeal from Jefferson Juvenile Court, Bessemer Division: JU-21-387.02).

Rel: August 30, 2024

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
SPECIAL TERM, 2024
_________________________

CL-2023-0944
_________________________

B.T.

v.

Jefferson County Department of Human Resources and Legal
Aid Society of Birmingham

Appeal from Jefferson Juvenile Court, Bessemer Division
(JU-21-387.02)

LEWIS, Judge.

B.T. ("the father") appeals from a judgment entered by the Jefferson

Juvenile Court, Bessemer Division ("the juvenile court") terminating his
CL-2023-0944

parental rights to B.L.T. ("the child"). We reverse the juvenile court's

judgment and remand this cause with instructions.

Procedural History

On January 9, 2023, the Jefferson County Department of Human

Resources ("DHR") filed in the juvenile court a petition seeking to

terminate the parental rights of B.K. ("the mother") and of the father to

the child. A trial on the petition was held on November 8, 2023. On

December 11, 2023, the juvenile court entered a final judgment

terminating the parental rights of the mother and of the father to the

child. 1 The juvenile court's final judgment provided, in pertinent part:

"The Court does find, pursuant to § 12-15-319(a), Code
of Alabama, 1975, that the … father [is] unable to discharge
[his] responsibilities to and for the child due to [his] conduct
and conditions and that such conduct and conditions are
unlikely to change soon.

"The Court does find, pursuant to § 12-15-319(a)(1),
Code of Alabama, 1975, the … father ha[s] failed to visit with
the minor and maintain consistent contact or attempts to

1On December 20, 2023, DHR filed a motion to alter or amend the

final judgment to correct scrivener's errors, pointing out that the juvenile
court had named the wrong attorney when identifying the father's
guardian ad litem and that the court had inadvertently omitted the fact
that there were two additional exhibits admitted into evidence by DHR.
On that same day, the juvenile court granted DHR's motion and entered
an amended final judgment correcting the scrivener's errors.

2
CL-2023-0944

contact the child or to contact DHR to arrange visitation with
the child.

"The court finds that … [the] father pursuant to § 12-15-
319(a)(1), Code of Alabama, 1975, ha[s] not made attempts to
arrange consistent visitation with [the child] and the living
conditions said minor would be exposed to are not in her best
interest.

"The court finds, pursuant to § 12-15-319(a)(10), Code of
Alabama, [1975,] that the … father … ha[s] failed to provide
for the material needs of the child. The court finds, pursuant
to § 12-15-319(a)(12) Code of Alabama, 1975, that the …
father has failed to adjust [his] circumstances to meet the
needs of the child.[2]

"The court finds that 'DHR' has made reasonable efforts
to locate relative resources for placement of the child. 'DHR'
investigated all known relatives provided by the mother and
father and independently identified relative resources for
placement of the child have not yielded positive results.
Relatives that were located are not suitable to take care of the
minor child. 'DHR' did not find an interested or viable relative
placement option for the child. The court finds there are not
viable relative resources ready willing or able to receive
custody of the child at the date of the termination trial."

On December 15, 2023, the father timely filed a postjudgment

motion to alter, amend, or vacate or, in the alternative, for a new trial.

On December 18, 2023, the juvenile court denied the father's

2We note that the juvenile court's citations to §§ 12-15-319(a)(1) and

12-15-319(a)(10) are to the incorrect subsections.
3
CL-2023-0944

postjudgment motion. The father filed his notice of appeal to this court

on December 29, 2023. 3

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)].

" '… [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 a prism of the substantive
evidentiary burden[,]" [Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,

3The mother did not appeal from the juvenile court's judgment.

4
CL-2023-0944

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., [Ms. CL-2023-0809, Mar. 15,

2024] ___ So. 3d ____, ____ (Ala. Civ. App. 2024).

Discussion

On appeal, the father argues that the juvenile court erred in

terminating his parental rights because the juvenile court's decision was

not supported by clear and convincing evidence. 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 a child [is] unable or unwilling to discharge
their responsibilities to and for the child, or that the conduct
or condition of the parent[] renders them unable to properly

5
CL-2023-0944

care for the child 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. In determining whether or not the
parent[] [is] unable or unwilling to discharge their
responsibilities to and for the child and to terminate the
parental rights, the juvenile court shall consider the following
factors including, but not limited to, the following:

"….

"(9) Failure 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.

"(10) Failure by the parent[] to maintain
regular visits with the child in accordance with a
plan devised by the Department of Human
Resources, or any public or licensed private child
care agency, and agreed to by the parent.

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

"(12) Lack of effort by the parent to adjust his
… circumstances to meet the needs of the child in
accordance with agreements reached, including
agreements reached with local departments of
human resources or licensed child-placing
agencies, in an administrative review or a judicial
review."

In its judgment, the juvenile court expressly found that DHR had

proven that the father failed to visit with the child and failed to contact

6
CL-2023-0944

DHR to arrange visitation with the child, see § 12-15-319(a)(10), Ala.

Code 1975; that the father failed to maintain consistent contact with the

child, see § 12-15-319(a)(11), Ala. Code 1975; that the father failed to

provide for the material needs of the child, see § 12-15-319(a)(9), Ala.

Code 1975; that the father failed to adjust his circumstances to meet the

needs of the child, see § 12-15-319(a)(12), Ala. Code 1975; and that the

living conditions the child would be exposed to in the father's care would

not serve her best interests. Based on those factors, the juvenile court

concluded that DHR had presented grounds upon which it could

terminate the father's parental rights to the child.

In J.M. v. Marshall County Department of Human Resources, [Ms.

CL-2023-0517, Mar. 15, 2024] ___ So. 3d ___ (Ala. Civ. App. 2024), this

court recently reversed and remanded a judgment of the Marshall

Juvenile Court terminating the parental rights of J.M. to her child

because there was insufficient evidence to sustain its finding that J.M.

had abandoned her child and that she had failed to provide for the

material needs of her child. In relation to material needs, this court

explained that DHR alleged in its petition to terminate the mother's

parental rights that the mother had not provided adequate food and

7
CL-2023-0944

clothing for the child; however, "DHR made no attempt to substantiate

that allegation with any evidence." ___ So. 3d at ___. Similarly, with

respect to abandonment, there was evidence indicating that J.M. had lost

custody of the child through the state's action but that she had

maintained consistent visitation with the child. Therefore, this court

concluded that the finding of abandonment was not supported by

sufficient evidence.

In J.M., this court further held that the erroneous determinations

of the juvenile court that J.M. abandoned the child and that J.M. failed

to provide for the material needs of the child were not harmless "because,

after an examination of the entire cause, it appear[ed] that that error

ha[d] 'probably injuriously affected substantial rights of [J.M.]' " ___ So.

3d at ___ (quoting Rule 45, Ala. R. App. P.) It is noteworthy, however,

that the court in J.M. did find that two other factors that contributed to

the juvenile court's decision to terminate the parental rights of J.M. were

supported by sufficient evidence. Therefore, this court held that

"we cannot say that the juvenile court would have reached the
same determination [to terminate J.M.'s parental rights]
absent its consideration of the first two factors cited in the
final judgment. See J.S. v. S.B., 357 So. 3d 660 (Ala. Civ. App.
2022) (holding that juvenile court's mistaken finding of fact

8
CL-2023-0944

was not harmless error when that finding influenced ultimate
determination to deny petition to modify custody of child)."

___ So. 3d at ___. On remand, this court instructed the juvenile court to

vacate the erroneous findings that J.M. abandoned her child, that J.M.

failed to provide for the material needs of her child, and to "reconsider

whether the petition to terminate [J.M.'s] parental rights should be

granted or denied in the absence of those findings." ___ So. 3d at ___.

In the present case, the father attacks the juvenile court's findings

that he failed to visit with the minor child, that he failed to maintain

consistent contact with the child, and that he failed to contact DHR to

arrange visitation with the child. Our review of the record reveals that

the father is correct that the juvenile court did not receive sufficient

evidence to sustain its findings that the father failed to visit with the

child, to maintain consistent contact with the child, and to contact DHR

to arrange visitation with the child.

Testimony by the foster mother indicated that the father had been

fairly consistent in his visitation with the child up until the month before

the trial. Mikki Bendt, a visitation supervisor with Covenant Services

who worked with the father and the child in facilitating visits and

transportation, testified that the father had been fairly consistent with

9
CL-2023-0944

his weekly two-hour visitations, and she noted that the most recent

visitation between the father and the child occurred on the Friday before

the trial. Bendt further testified that the father had weekly visits with

the child for the 2 years that she had been supervising the visits and that

the father attended the majority of his visits; Bendt agreed that the

father attended in excess of 100 visits. Similarly, Deshaunda Cooper, a

DHR caseworker, testified that the father had been fairly consistent with

his visitations with the child and missed only "a couple" of the visits. In

summary, the evidence presented at the trial indicates that the father

did, in fact, maintain consistent visitation with the child on a weekly

basis, with the exception of a small number of missed visits.

The father also attacks the juvenile court's finding that he failed to

provide for the material needs of the child pursuant to § 12-15-319(a)(9).

We agree that the juvenile court did not receive sufficient evidence

indicating that the father had failed to provide for the material needs of

the child. Section 12-15-319(a)(9) states that a ground for termination is

"[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.)

10
CL-2023-0944

Cooper testified that the father had been ordered to pay child-

support in August 2022 in the amount of $246 per month. According to

Cooper, at the time of the trial, the father was not current with his child-

support obligation; she stated that the father's last child-support

payment was made in August 2023, which was approximately 3 months

prior to the trial. Cooper testified that an income-withholding order was

entered with respect to the father's child support. When questioned

regarding whether the reason the father was not current on his child-

support obligation was that he was unemployed at the time, Cooper

testified, "I guess that's why he's not current." Further, Cooper testified

that the father provided the child with shoes, clothes, toys, snacks,

birthday gifts, and "things like that."

In summary, the evidence presented at the trial indicates that the

father did provide for the material needs of the child financially and

otherwise, except for his being three months' delinquent on his child-

support obligation, which, based on the testimony of Cooper, was due to

his recent unemployment that halted his payments through the income-

withholding order. Because the father had recently become unemployed,

DHR did not meet its burden of proving that the father had "fail[ed] … to

11
CL-2023-0944

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." § 12-15-319(a)(9)

(emphasis added).

Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the juvenile court

erroneously determined that the father had failed to maintain consistent

visitation and contact with the child and that he had failed to provide for

the material needs of the child. We further conclude that "those

erroneous determinations were not harmless because, after an

examination of the entire cause, it appears that error has 'probably

injuriously affected substantial rights of the [father].' " J.M., ___ So. 3d

at ___ (quoting Rule 45, Ala. R. App. P.)

The juvenile court did cite § 12-15-319(a)(12) as another

contributing factor to its decision to terminate the father's parental

rights, stating that "the … father has failed to adjust [his] circumstances

to meet the needs of the child." We conclude that that finding is

supported by sufficient evidence. For example, although the father

completed parenting classes as ordered, Cooper testified that she still had

concerns about the father's ability to parent the child because of how he

displayed his parenting skills in visitation. Moreover, the juvenile court

12
CL-2023-0944

found that the living conditions in the father's home were inappropriate

for the child. 4 That finding is supported by the evidence that there was

"fake weed" found on the bathtub in the father's home during a home visit

conducted by Cooper the day before the trial. 5

Although we conclude that the juvenile court's reliance on § 12-15-

319(a)(12) and the juvenile court's finding concerning the father's living

conditions were supported by sufficient evidence, we cannot say that the

juvenile court would have reached the same determination to terminate

the parental rights of the father to the child absent its consideration of §

12-15-319(a)(9), (10), and (11). See J.S. v. S.B., 357 So. 3d 660 (Ala. Civ.

App. 2022) (holding that juvenile court's mistaken finding of fact was not

harmless error when that finding influenced the juvenile court's ultimate

determination to deny petition to modify custody of child).

4Although a parent's living conditions are not a factor expressly
listed in § 12-15-319, Ala. Code 1975, the factors listed are not
exhaustive.

5The father claimed that the "fake weed" found on the bathtub
belonged to the mother.
13
CL-2023-0944

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, we reverse the final judgment entered by

the juvenile court and remand the cause.6 On remand, the juvenile court

shall vacate the findings that the father failed to maintain consistent

visitation and contact with the child and that the father failed to provide

for the material needs of the child. The juvenile court shall then

reconsider whether the petition to terminate the father's parental rights

should be granted or denied in the absence of those findings. Upon

reconsideration, the juvenile court shall then enter a new judgment

reflecting its decision.

REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

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

6The father also argues on appeal that the juvenile court erred in

determining that DHR sufficiently explored viable alternatives to the
termination of the father's parental rights. In light of our disposition of
the father's first argument, we pretermit discussion of the issue of viable
alternatives. See E.A.D. v. Randolph Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 369 So.
3d 1069, 1077 (Ala. Civ. App. 2022).
14