The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals has affirmed a juvenile court’s decision to terminate the parental rights of a father (F.D.) and a mother (T.M.) concerning their child, T.D. The appeals court found that clear and convincing evidence supported the termination, emphasizing the parents’ long-term substance abuse issues, failure to provide support, and inability to adjust their circumstances.
The case, which involved appeals against the Calhoun County Department of Human Resources (DHR), concluded with the appellate court upholding the judgment issued by the Calhoun Juvenile Court in April 2025. The termination was based on multiple statutory grounds, including excessive substance abuse rendering the parents unable to care for the child, failure to provide material needs, and a prognosis that their conduct was unlikely to change.
Background of Dependency and Removal
DHR first became involved with the child in May 2023 following a concerning report: the father was found hiding with the then two-year-old child while evading law enforcement. Officers found the father with a syringe, leading to his arrest. Simultaneously, the mother was already in a four-month rehabilitation program. Due to these circumstances, the child was placed into foster care five days later and remained in that same foster home through the trial.
The trial testimony, led by DHR caseworker Courtney Surrett, detailed a persistent pattern of instability and non-compliance from both parents.
Mother’s Struggle with Substance Abuse
The mother’s journey toward reunification was marked by repeated relapses. While DHR provided parenting classes and a psychiatric evaluation, the mother failed to complete the rehabilitation program she was in when the child was removed. She did eventually re-enter the same program and completed it in November 2024. However, within months, a drug screen indicated another relapse.
Further complicating her case, testimony from the Calhoun County family drug court coordinator and the drug testing lab director showed inconsistent participation. While the mother tested positive for benzodiazepines and opiates in early January 2025, subsequent tests were negative. Crucially, after January 16, 2025, she missed twenty scheduled drug screens, submitting to only one more before the April trial.
The mother argued she had shown improvement, citing program completion, visits, and employment. However, the court noted that just weeks before the termination trial, both parents were found passed out in a truck where drugs were discovered; the mother was arrested for public intoxication.
The court also found a lack of financial responsibility. A DHR child-support supervisor testified that the mother had made only one court-ordered support payment, leaving her over $4,500 in arrears.
Father’s Incarceration and Non-Compliance
The father’s involvement was characterized by cycling in and out of incarceration. DHR noted they could not offer him services while he was jailed. When he was released, he entered rehabilitation but, according to Surrett, did not complete the program.
His drug testing record was also poor. Between September 2024 and the trial, he missed forty required drug screens. When he did test on February 12, 2025, the results were positive for alcohol, amphetamines, methamphetamine, Fentanyl, and marijuana.
Furthermore, the father had minimal contact with the child or DHR. He had not visited the child since October 2024 and had not contacted DHR since January 2025. He also failed to provide any material support and owed over $10,700 in court-ordered child support. Like the mother, he failed to attend the trial regarding the termination of his rights.
The Child’s Stability in Foster Care
The primary concern for the juvenile court was the child’s well-being. The foster father testified that T.D. had lived with them since May 2023, arriving “very much mentally and physically delayed.” Since placement, the child had shown tremendous growth after receiving specialist treatment. Visitation often triggered severe night terrors, which improved once suspended. The foster parents expressed a strong desire to adopt the child, noting that removing him would “severely set [the child] back.” DHR concurred that the bond with the foster family was strong and removal would be detrimental.
The juvenile court also investigated relative placements but ruled out relatives named by both parents due to criminal histories or lack of capacity to care for the child.
Appellate Court’s Reasoning: Efforts and Permanency
The appellate court reviewed the decision under the standard that termination judgments must be supported by clear and convincing evidence, giving deference to the juvenile court’s factual findings made after hearing testimony in person (*ore tenus*).
Both parents argued DHR failed to make reasonable efforts toward reunification. The appeals court countered that parents must also make themselves available and work to address their issues.
Regarding the mother, the court found that her repeated relapses, even after completing treatment, demonstrated her conduct was unlikely to change soon. The child’s need for permanency outweighed giving the mother further chances.
As for the father, the court noted that his frequent incarceration hampered DHR’s efforts, and he failed to complete recommended rehabilitation. The court concluded DHR’s efforts were reasonable given the father’s history of non-engagement and recent arrest for drug possession shortly before the hearing.
The court dismissed the argument that maintaining the status quo (continued foster care) was a viable alternative, as there was no evidence of a beneficial emotional bond between the father and the child.
Dissent Highlights DHR’s Delay in Service Provision
Judge Bowden issued a notable dissent, focusing sharply on the *process* of reunification efforts concerning the mother. Judge Bowden argued that DHR failed its “immediate duty” to attempt reunification promptly.
The dissenting judge pointed out that DHR did not offer specific rehabilitation services like the “color-code drug-testing services” until September 2024—more than nineteen months after the child entered state custody in May 2023. Judge Bowden stressed that the state must identify barriers and develop a tailored plan “as quickly and safely as possible.” Because the record lacked evidence of DHR’s immediate actions following custody removal in 2023, the dissent suggested the termination of the mother’s rights should be reversed based on DHR’s failure to meet its initial duty, regardless of the mother’s later conduct.
Despite the dissent, the majority affirmed the termination of parental rights for both the mother and the father, prioritizing the child’s need for stability.