S.C. v. Cullman County Department of Human Resources (Appeal from Cullman Juvenile Court: JU-19-593.06).

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-2024-0763 and CL-2024-0764
_________________________

J.C.

v.

Cullman County Department of Human Resources
_________________________

CL-2024-0780 and CL-2024-0781
_________________________

S.C.

v.

Cullman County Department of Human Resources

Appeals from Cullman Juvenile Court
(JU-19-593.06 and JU-19-594.06)
CL-2024-0763; CL-2024-0764; CL-2024-0780; and CL-2024-0781

LEWIS, Judge.

In appeal number CL-2024-0763, J.C. ("the father") appeals from a

judgment entered by the Cullman Juvenile Court ("the juvenile court")

in case number JU-19-593.06 terminating his parental rights to So.C.,

who was born in October 2013. In appeal number CL-2024-0781, S.C.

("the mother") appeals from that same judgment to the extent that it

terminated her parental rights to So.C. In appeal number CL-2024-0764,

the father appeals from a judgment entered by the juvenile court in case

number JU-19-594.06 terminating his parental rights to Je.C., who was

born in May 2012. In appeal number CL-2024-0780, the mother appeals

from that same judgment to the extent that it terminated her parental

rights to Je.C. We affirm the juvenile court's judgments.

Procedural History

On May 1, 2024, the Cullman County Department of Human

Resources ("DHR") filed separate petitions seeking to terminate the

parental rights of the father and of the mother (collectively "the parents")

to So.C. and Je.C. (collectively "the children"). After a trial, the juvenile

court entered judgments on September 16, 2024, terminating the

parental rights of the parents to the children. The father filed

2
CL-2024-0763; CL-2024-0764; CL-2024-0780; and CL-2024-0781

postjudgment motions on September 23, 2024. The father filed his

notices of appeal with this court on September 30, 2024. The mother filed

her notices of appeal on October 3 and 4, 2024. 1 The appeals were held

in abeyance until the father's postjudgment motions were denied on

October 7, 2024. See Rule 4(a)(2), Ala. R. App. P.

Evidence

April Ward, a child-abuse-and-neglect investigator for DHR,

testified that, in 2019, DHR received a report concerning the parents

regarding suspected drug use and improper conditions of their home.

She testified that the father tested positive for marijuana and

methamphetamine and that the mother tested positive for

methamphetamine. According to Ward, the parents' house had no

running water, and the children had to go to the home of J.C., their

paternal grandmother, to use the bathroom. She testified that the

parents were "indicated" for "physical abuse by the risk of serious harm

1The mother's notices of appeal were timely pursuant to Rule
4(a)(2), Ala. R. App. P. Moreover, because the juvenile court made
specific findings of fact on all the issues raised by the mother on appeal,
the mother was not required to file a postjudgment motion challenging
the sufficiency of the evidence to preserve her argument for review. See
R.H. v. Madison Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., [Ms. CL-2022-0799, Mar. 24,
2023] ___ So. 3d ___, ___ (Ala. Civ. App. 2023).
3
CL-2024-0763; CL-2024-0764; CL-2024-0780; and CL-2024-0781

for drug use." The children were placed in a safety plan, and Ward

opened the cases to ongoing services.

Loree Guthery, another DHR child-abuse-and-neglect investigator,

testified that, in January 2023, she received multiple reports concerning

the condition of the parents' home. She testified that she investigated

the reports and found the children to be unclean and wearing dirty and

ill-fitting clothing. According to Guthery, the father was erratic and

threatening at their meeting. Guthery testified that the parents both

tested positive for extremely high levels of methamphetamines and

amphetamines; the father was also positive for cannabinoids. She

testified that the parents denied using illegal drugs. According to

Guthery, the parents were "indicated" for "neglect, inadequate clothing,

personal hygiene, physical abuse, other risk of serious harm." Guthery

testified that DHR placed the children with V.M., the children's maternal

grandmother 2 ("the maternal grandmother").

2In her brief, the mother refers to V.M. as the "paternal
grandmother." V.M. is referred to as the paternal grandmother in the
transcript. However, elsewhere in the record, she is referred to multiple
times as the maternal grandmother. Therefore, we will refer to V.M. as
"the maternal grandmother."
4
CL-2024-0763; CL-2024-0764; CL-2024-0780; and CL-2024-0781

Meagan Autwell, an ongoing-services worker for DHR, testified

that the children began having suicidal and homicidal ideations while in

the home of the maternal grandmother. She testified that their behaviors

became increasingly worse to the extent that the children were

hospitalized on multiple occasions. According to Autwell, the children

even suggested that they would harm the maternal grandmother.

Autwell testified that the children informed her that the parents had

coached them to act out if they were removed from their custody. She

testified that security had to be called on the parents at one of the

hospitals. Autwell testified that it was recommended that the children

be placed in other placements, and she thought another placement would

be in the children's best interests. She admitted that there were no safety

concerns with the children in the home of the maternal grandmother.

Autwell testified that the children's therapists recommended that

the children's contact with the parents be discontinued because that

contact was not beneficial to the children's mental health and because of

the allegations that the parents had coached the children to act out.

Callie Smith, a foster-care supervisor for DHR, testified that the father

admitted that he had coached the children to act out and that the father

5
CL-2024-0763; CL-2024-0764; CL-2024-0780; and CL-2024-0781

found it funny. She testified that the children's behavior had improved

since their contact with the parents had ceased.

Keegan Neal, another DHR foster-care caseworker, testified that

the children had been placed in the custody of DHR in May 2023. She

testified that Je.C. was placed with her uncle and aunt and that So.C.

was placed in a therapeutic foster home. According to Neal, the children

had biweekly visits with one another.

Autwell testified that DHR requested that the parents complete a

substance-abuse assessment and that they follow any recommendations

resulting therefrom. She testified that she referred the parents to receive

in-home services but that the parents did not show up for an

appointment. According to Autwell, she also attempted to call the

parents for random drug screenings, but they did not complete the

screenings. Autwell testified that she received a threatening voicemail

from the parents. She testified that she made multiple attempts to

contact the parents, and they told her that they did not want to talk to

her. She also testified the parents failed to respond to her calls. Autwell

testified that there was a severe lack of communication from the parents.

6
CL-2024-0763; CL-2024-0764; CL-2024-0780; and CL-2024-0781

Neal testified that DHR offered the parents substance-abuse

assessments, psychological evaluations, parenting classes, and random

drug screens. She testified that both parents completed the substance-

abuse assessments and psychological evaluations, that the mother

completed online parenting classes, and that both parents had completed

some but not all of their random drug screens. She testified that she had

written letters and made numerous telephone calls to the parents but

that the parents rarely called her back. According to Neal, she returned

all the parents' telephone calls. Neal testified that the parents had not

demonstrated that they could become drug free.

Neal testified that DHR explored all the family resources that the

parents provided and that DHR exhausted all less-restrictive

alternatives to termination of the parents' parental rights. Specifically,

she testified that the children's paternal grandmother has a history with

DHR and another relative that the parents mentioned lives on the same

property as the parents. Neal testified that the permanency plan for the

children is adoption with no identified resource and that the children are

adoptable.

7
CL-2024-0763; CL-2024-0764; CL-2024-0780; and CL-2024-0781

Dr. Barry Wood testified that he conducted a psychological

evaluation on the parents. He testified that both parents reported only

marijuana usage despite having tested positive for methamphetamine.

He noted that both parents had expended little effort to work on their

parenting deficiencies by December 2023. Dr. Wood was not optimistic

about the parents' prognosis for rehabilitation.

The father testified that he and the mother live together, that he

works for DoorDash, and that he has not paid any child support. He

testified that he had not been able to get in touch with DHR workers.

According to the father, he does not have a drug problem, and he does not

know why he testified positive for drugs. The father testified that he

completed a drug assessment and was told that he did not need drug

treatment. He denied that he was asked at that assessment if he had a

drug problem. The father admitted that he has pending felony charges.

He testified that he had not seen the children in over one year. According

to the father, he was told that he and the mother could see the children

if they passed a drug test. The father testified that he did pass a drug

test. However, he admitted that he was told he tested positive for

8
CL-2024-0763; CL-2024-0764; CL-2024-0780; and CL-2024-0781

methamphetamine in April 2024 and that he had not passed any drug

screenings to which he had submitted on hearing dates.

The father testified that he did not think that DHR made

reasonable efforts to reunify his family. He testified that DHR never

offered him services for substance abuse. However, he also testified that

he does not think he needs rehabilitation for substance abuse.

The parents both tested positive for amphetamines and

methamphetamine on a drug test administrated the day of the trial. The

father also testified positive for marijuana and Gabapentin.

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

9
CL-2024-0763; CL-2024-0764; CL-2024-0780; and CL-2024-0781

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 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).

10
CL-2024-0763; CL-2024-0764; CL-2024-0780; and CL-2024-0781

Discussion

The Father's Appeals

On appeal, the father's sole argument is that DHR failed to use

reasonable efforts to rehabilitate him.

"That DHR is generally required to make reasonable efforts
to rehabilitate parents of dependent children cannot be
questioned. See T.B. v. Cullman Cty. Dep't of Human Res., 6
So. 3d 1195, 1198 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008). That is, DHR must
make an effort to tailor services to best address the
shortcomings of and the issues facing the parents. See H.H. v.
Baldwin Cty. Dep't of Human Res., 989 So. 2d 1094, 1105 (Ala.
Civ. App. 2007) (opinion on return to remand) (per Moore, J.,
with two judges concurring in the result). However, we have
clearly stated that the law requires reasonable efforts, not
maximal ones. M.A.J. v. S.F., 994 So. 2d 280, 291 (Ala. Civ.
App. 2008)."
Montgomery Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res. v. A.S.N., 206 So. 3d 661, 672 (Ala.

Civ. App. 2016). Additionally, "[a]lthough DHR must make reasonable

efforts to reunite a parent and child, the parent must make himself or

herself available to DHR and must make an effort to address his or her

issues and improve his or her circumstances." A.M.F. v. Tuscaloosa Cnty.

Dep't of Hum. Res., 75 So. 3d 1206, 1212 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011).

In this case, there was evidence indicating that the father had failed

to communicate and cooperate with DHR. In fact, the parents informed

Autwell that they did not want to talk to her and left a threatening voice
11
CL-2024-0763; CL-2024-0764; CL-2024-0780; and CL-2024-0781

mail for her. The evidence also indicated that the father was dishonest

about his drug usage. Even after testing positive for amphetamines and

methamphetamine on a drug test administered the day of the trial, the

father continued to deny having a drug problem or a need for drug

rehabilitation. DHR provided the father with drug screenings and a

substance-abuse assessment. In light of the father's denial that he had

a drug problem and his failure to cooperate with DHR, the juvenile court

could have properly concluded that further services would be futile.

Therefore, we cannot reverse the juvenile court's judgment on this issue.

The Mother's Appeals

The mother's sole argument on appeal is that there was a viable

alternative to termination of her parental rights, specifically, placement

of the children with the maternal grandmother.

"We have often stated that, in addition to establishing
the dependency of a child and that grounds for the
termination of parental rights exist, 'DHR must also present
evidence indicating that there are no viable alternatives to the
termination of a parent's parental rights.' A.R.H.B. v.
Madison Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 378 So. 3d 543, 549 (Ala.
Civ. App. 2022). We have also reiterated that ' "DHR must
present 'evidence of recent attempts to locate viable
alternatives in order to establish that termination of parental
rights is the least [drastic] alternative.' " ' C.T. v. Calhoun
Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 8 So. 3d 984, 987 (Ala. Civ. App.
2008) (quoting V.M. v. State Dep't of Hum. Res., 710 So. 2d

12
CL-2024-0763; CL-2024-0764; CL-2024-0780; and CL-2024-0781

915, 921 (Ala. Civ. App. 1998), quoting in turn Bowman v.
State Dep't of Hum. Res., 534 So. 2d 304, 306 (Ala. Civ. App.
1988)) (emphasis omitted). Because DHR was petitioning for
the termination of the [parent's] parental rights …, DHR bore
' " 'the burden of proving the lack of a viable alternative by
clear and convincing evidence.' " ' A.R.H.B., 378 So. 3d at 551
(quoting D.J. v. Etowah Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 351 So. 3d
1067, 1074 (Ala. Civ. App. 2021), quoting in turn K.R.S. v.
DeKalb Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 236 So. 3d 910, 912 (Ala.
Civ. App. 2017))."

G.P. v. Dale Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., [Ms. CL-2023-0676, June 14, 2024]

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

In this case, the evidence indicated that the children were placed

with the maternal grandmother as part of a safety plan until their

behavior deteriorated to the point that they were hospitalized. The

children even threatened to harm the maternal grandmother. At the

commencement of the trial, DHR's attorney stated that the maternal

grandmother had filed a petition for custody but that he had spoken to

her and, "based on her circumstances with her grandson, [she] no longer

wishes to proceed with her petition." The maternal grandmother was

present and did not dispute that statement. Based on the foregoing, the

juvenile court could have concluded that placing the children with the

maternal grandmother was not a viable alternative to termination of the

mother's parental rights.

13
CL-2024-0763; CL-2024-0764; CL-2024-0780; and CL-2024-0781

Conclusion

Because we have rejected the sole arguments raised by the parents

in their respective appeals, we hereby affirm the judgments of the

juvenile court.

CL-2024-0763 -- AFFIRMED.

CL-2024-0764 -- AFFIRMED.

CL-2024-0780 -- AFFIRMED.

CL-2024-0781 -- AFFIRMED.

Edwards, Hanson, and Fridy, JJ., concur.

Moore, P.J., concurs in the result, without opinion.

14