L.D. v. Jefferson County Department of Human Resources (Appeal from Jefferson Juvenile Court: JU-21-1233.03).

Rel: December 6, 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
OCTOBER TERM, 2024-2025
________________________

CL-2024-0397, CL-2024-0398, CL-2024-0399, and CL-2024-0400
________________________

M.A.D.

v.

Jefferson County Department of Human Resources

________________________

CL-2024-0406, CL-2024-0407, CL-2024-0408, and CL-2024-0409
________________________

L.D.

v.

Jefferson County Department of Human Resources

Appeals from Jefferson Juvenile Court
(JU-21-1232.02, JU-21-1233.03, JU-21-1234.02, and JU-23-654.02)
CL-2024-0397, CL-2024-0398, CL-2024-0399, CL-2024-0400, CL-2024-
0406, CL-2024-0407, CL-2024-0408, and CL-2024-0409

LEWIS, Judge.

In appeal numbers CL-2024-0397, CL-2024-0398, CL-2024-0399,

and CL-2024-0400, M.A.D. ("the father") appeals from judgments entered

by the Jefferson Juvenile Court ("the juvenile court") in case numbers

JU-21-1232.02, JU-21-1233.03, JU-21-1234.02, and JU-23-654.02,

terminating his parental rights to I.D., whose date of birth is May 7,

2017; M.D., whose date of birth is July 24, 2019; L.A.D., whose date of

birth is December 28, 2015; and W.D., whose date of birth is April 9, 2022,

(collectively "the children"). In appeal numbers CL-2024-0406, CL-2024-

0407, CL-2024-0408, and CL-2024-0409, L.D. ("the mother") appeals

from those same judgments to the extent that her parental rights to the

children were terminated. We affirm the judgments.

Procedural History

On May 7, 2017, the Jefferson County Department of Human

Resources ("DHR") filed petitions to terminate the parental rights of the

father and of the mother to the children. The father filed responses to

the petitions on November 25, 2023. After a trial that was held over

multiple days, the juvenile court entered essentially identical judgments

2
CL-2024-0397, CL-2024-0398, CL-2024-0399, CL-2024-0400, CL-2024-
0406, CL-2024-0407, CL-2024-0408, and CL-2024-0409

on May 15, 2024, terminating the parental rights of the father and of the

mother to the children. The juvenile court's judgments stated, in

pertinent part:

"The parents maltreated [L.A.D.] by failing to seek medical
treatment for a year and a half after [she] ingested lye. The
parents were aware that [L.A.D.] was in need of medical
attention and willfully neglected their responsibility to seek
appropriate treatment for her until such time as she was
within hours to a day of death. As a result of the parent[s']
willful neglect, [L.A.D.] has permanent damage to her
esophagus, underwent multiple surgeries, suffered significant
pain, and must use a g tube to receive proper nutrition. The
father continues to express his belief as it relates to the
current condition of [L.A.D.] and her ability to maintain
appropriate nutrition without the use of a g-tube, despite
being informed by medical professionals that she must use a
[gastrostomy tube ("g-tube")] now[] and will likely need one
for the rest of her life. Proper medical care is essential to
maintaining the health of [L.A.D.], and ongoing medical care
is absolutely necessary.

"The parents have consistently expressed that they believe
medical intervention and care are unnecessary, except in
emergencies. They have shown through their actions for years
that they do not seek appropriate medical or dental attention
for themselves or their children. While they indicated they
had changed their views regarding medical intervention at
the [termination-of-parental-rights] trial[,] they are not
credible. Upon consideration of their history of contrary
statements, their history [of] failing to seek medical
treatment for their children, including during the pendency of
this case, their demeanor and facial expressions at trial, as
well as their contradicting statements in this matter, their

3
CL-2024-0397, CL-2024-0398, CL-2024-0399, CL-2024-0400, CL-2024-
0406, CL-2024-0407, CL-2024-0408, and CL-2024-0409

veracity is questionable at best. This Court found them to be
untruthful multiple times during the trial.

"The parents maltreated older siblings of th[e] child[ren]. The
mother's parental rights were involuntarily terminated to
multiple siblings of th[e] child[ren]. The father's [parental]
rights were involuntarily terminated to a sibling of th[e]
child[ren]. They have shown a pattern of neglecting the needs
of their children for over a decade, and have not demonstrated
that they adjusted their circumstances, even after their
parental rights were terminated as to the child[ren]'s older
siblings.

"The parents have shown a history of a lack of protective
capacity due to an affinity for drug use. They neglected the
child[ren]'s older siblings while using drugs in the past[] and
continued to do so with the current set of children. [I.D.] was
subjected to sexual abuse by a housemate. Testimony
presented indicated that the molestation occurred while the
parents would smoke marijuana and sleep for excessive
periods of time.

"The mother suffers from an emotional illness of a duration or
nature as to render her unable to care for the needs of the
child[ren], specifically narcissistic personality disorder with
turbulent features. The father suffers from an emotional
illness of a duration or nature that renders him unable to care
for the needs of the child[ren], specifically narcissistic
personality disorder with paranoid features. Efforts at
rehabilitation have been unsuccessful.

"The parents failed to provide for the material needs of the
child[ren] or to pay a reasonable portion of support where the
parents were able to do so. The parents have been and remain
underemployed. They have intentionally under-reported their
income, including on an Affidavit of Substantial Hardship
submitted to this Court. They have not shown a history of

4
CL-2024-0397, CL-2024-0398, CL-2024-0399, CL-2024-0400, CL-2024-
0406, CL-2024-0407, CL-2024-0408, and CL-2024-0409

stable employment or current employment that is adequate to
provide for the material needs of the child[ren].

"…[S]ignificant emotional ties have developed between the
child[ren] and [their] current foster parents. [The children]
ha[ve] been in a stable and satisfactory environment with
[their] foster parents …. Severing the ties between the
child[ren] and [their] current foster parents is contrary to the
best interest of the child[ren].

"After due consideration of the testimony and evidence
presented, the Court finds from clear and convincing
evidence, competent, material and relevant in nature, that
the child[ren] named herein [are] dependent child[ren]
pursuant to Title 12-15-102, Code of Alabama, 1975.

"The Court does find, pursuant to Title 12-15-319, Code of
Alabama, 1975, that the mother and [the] father are unable
to discharge their responsibilities to and for th[e] child[ren];
that the conduct and condition of the mother and the … father
is such as to render them unable to properly care for th[e]
child[ren], and that such conduct and condition are unlikely
to change in the foreseeable future.

"The mother and [the] father have failed to adjust their
circumstances to meet the child[ren]'s needs, pursuant to
Title 12-15-319, Code of Alabama, 1975 and Title 12-15-301,
Code of Alabama, 1975.

"The Court also finds that there are no suitable relative
resources willing or able to receive custody of the child[ren].
The Court finds there is no viable alternative to termination
of parental rights in this case.

"In addition, the Court finds that the State of Alabama
Department of Human Resources is willing and able to accept

5
CL-2024-0397, CL-2024-0398, CL-2024-0399, CL-2024-0400, CL-2024-
0406, CL-2024-0407, CL-2024-0408, and CL-2024-0409

permanent legal custody, as provided in Title 12-15-320, Code
of Alabama, 1975.

"In accordance with Public Law 96-272, as amended by Public
Law 105-89 and Section 12-15-319, Code of Alabama 1975,
this Court further finds that it would be in the best interest of
the child[ren] to terminate the parental rights of the
child[ren]'s mother and … father.

"It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED as
follows:

"1. That the parental rights of the mother … are hereby
permanently severed and terminated as to [the children];

"2. That the parental rights of the … father … are hereby
permanently severed and terminated as to [the children];

"3. That [the children are] hereby placed into the permanent
legal custody of the State of Alabama Department of Human
Resources;

"4. In accordance with Public Law 96-272, as amended by
Public Law 105-89 and Section 12-15-312, Code of Alabama
1975, the Court finds that placement of the … child[ren] with
[the] mother or … [the] father would be contrary to the said
child[ren]'s welfare and interests based on the mother and …
[the] father failing to discharge their responsibilities to the
child[ren] and their failure to adjust their circumstances to
meet the needs of the child[ren] and other evidence presented
at trial.

"5. This Court finds that reasonable efforts to reunite said
child[ren] with family have been made by the Department of
Human Resources, and that such efforts at reunification have
failed based on the evidence presented at trial. Further, the
Court finds that the Department of Human Resources has

6
CL-2024-0397, CL-2024-0398, CL-2024-0399, CL-2024-0400, CL-2024-
0406, CL-2024-0407, CL-2024-0408, and CL-2024-0409

made reasonable efforts to finalize the permanency plan for
[the children] and concurs with the plan for the child[ren] of
adoption by current foster parent[s]."

(Capitalization in original.) The father timely filed his notices of appeal

on May 28, 2024. The mother timely filed her notices of appeal on May

30, 2024. See Rule 4(a)(2), Ala. R. App. P.

Summary of the Evidence

In 2015, the Georgia Department of Child Protective Services

became involved with the mother and the father and the children's four

half siblings, who were living with the mother and the father at that time.

One of those children was the father's child, and the other three were the

mother's. The father's mother and sister testified that, while those

children were in the parents' care, they had observed those children to be

dirty. The father's sister testified that she had observed the children's

half siblings unsupervised with full diapers. On one occasion, she found

those children in a dog kennel, dirty, with full diapers, without food or

water, and red in the face. She testified that the parents were asleep at

that time. The father's sister also testified that she witnessed the father

blowing marijuana in one of those children's faces as that child was

breastfeeding.

7
CL-2024-0397, CL-2024-0398, CL-2024-0399, CL-2024-0400, CL-2024-
0406, CL-2024-0407, CL-2024-0408, and CL-2024-0409

While the children's half siblings were in protective custody, the

parents made the decision to flee Georgia with L.A.D., who was born in

Alabama in 2015 and was not in protective custody. A termination-of-

parental-rights action was brought, but the parents did not challenge the

termination of their parental rights as to the children's four half siblings.

After leaving Georgia, the parents lived a nomadic lifestyle,

backpacking across the country, living in tents and in the homes of other

individuals. The mother gave birth to I.D. in a bunker in the side of a

hill and gave birth to M.D. in a tent. The mother received no prenatal

care, and the births were not attended by a medical practitioner. The

parents did not take any of the children to visit a medical doctor or a

dentist. The parents used marijuana, foraged for fruit and vegetables,

and sometimes visited soup kitchens. They considered themselves

sovereign citizens and did not obtain birth certificates for L.A.D., I.D.,

and M.D.

While living at the home of friends in the spring of 2020, L.A.D.

ingested lye. The parents testified that L.A.D. drooled for an hour but

was able to eat that same day. Testimony from Dr. Michael Taylor, an

expert in general pediatrics and pediatric child abuse, indicated that the

8
CL-2024-0397, CL-2024-0398, CL-2024-0399, CL-2024-0400, CL-2024-
0406, CL-2024-0407, CL-2024-0408, and CL-2024-0409

ingestion of lye causes such pain that children are normally given a

morphine drip. However, the parents did not take L.A.D. for medical

attention. According to the parents, L.A.D. had some food aversions but

was otherwise able to eat until shortly before the mother took L.A.D. to

the hospital in December 2021. The evidence indicated that L.A.D. had

a complete esophageal stricture such that no liquid could pass through.

She was severely malnourished, dehydrated, hypoglycemic, and close to

death. Dr. Taylor testified that it would have taken months for L.A.D. to

decline to the condition she was in upon admission to the hospital. By

the time of the trial, L.A.D. had undergone multiple surgeries and

received most of her nutrition via a gastrostomy tube ("g-tube").

Natlie Brodie, a DHR crisis stabilization worker, testified that,

when I.D. and M.D. arrived at the hospital, they appeared very dirty and

smelled of urine, feces, and body odor. The evidence also indicated that,

at the same house where L.A.D. ingested lye, the parents had allowed a

male to care for and bathe I.D., and he had repeatedly sexually abused

I.D.

DHR was awarded custody of L.A.D., I.D., and M.D. in December

2021. The parents were eventually allowed unsupervised visitation with

9
CL-2024-0397, CL-2024-0398, CL-2024-0399, CL-2024-0400, CL-2024-
0406, CL-2024-0407, CL-2024-0408, and CL-2024-0409

those children, and they were allowed to maintain custody of W.D. after

his birth. L.A.D.'s foster mother testified that, when L.A.D. returned

from unsupervised visitations, she was dirty and odorous. After the

parents gave L.A.D. incorrect dosages of her medications during an

unsupervised visitation, the visitations were required to be supervised.

DHR was also awarded custody of W.D. after the dosing error.

Dr. Michael Keller, a pediatric dentist, testified that L.A.D. had 13

cavities, some of which were visible to the naked eye and that I.D. had 6

cavities. Dr. Keller testified that he extracted six of L.A.D.'s teeth,

placed four crowns, completed two root canals, and placed two fillings in

her teeth.

The evidence indicated that, while the children were in foster care,

the parents delayed giving consent for medical procedures that were

recommended for the children. The father testified that he did not think

that L.A.D. needed the g-tube anymore. Micky Bendt, who supervised

visitations, testified that, as recently as April 2024, the parents had

stated that L.A.D. did not need the g-tube. However, testimony from Dr.

Rachel Kassel, who treated L.A.D., indicated that L.A.D. received 82-98%

of her nutrition through the g-tube, that it was essential, and that it may

10
CL-2024-0397, CL-2024-0398, CL-2024-0399, CL-2024-0400, CL-2024-
0406, CL-2024-0407, CL-2024-0408, and CL-2024-0409

even be necessary for her entire life. The foster mother for L.A.D. and

W.D. testified that the father told L.A.D. in February 2023 that the bad

people were keeping her from the parents.

D.G. testified that he worked with the father at a restaurant until

the father's employment was terminated in the spring or summer of 2023.

According to D.G., the father stated multiple times that, if the children

were returned to him, he would go off the grid again. While the children

were in foster care, the mother posted an "Amazon Wishlist" on social

media, asking for items to use for camping, including a disposable skin

stapler.

Dr. Jack Carney, a psychologist, testified that he conducted

psychological evaluations on the father and the mother. According to Dr.

Carney, the mother and the father both have narcissistic personality

disorders, cannot properly care for the children, and will not change in

the foreseeable future. Both Dr. Taylor and Dr. Victoria Anderson, the

pediatrician for L.A.D. and W.D., testified that they would be concerned

about the parents taking care of the children.

Madison Hill, a child welfare worker for DHR, testified that the

parents earn only approximately $750 per month. Although the parents

11
CL-2024-0397, CL-2024-0398, CL-2024-0399, CL-2024-0400, CL-2024-
0406, CL-2024-0407, CL-2024-0408, and CL-2024-0409

are both able-bodied, the mother works only part time making food

deliveries. There was also evidence indicating that the father had given

away some of his tip money to other employees. Hill testified that the

parents have not demonstrated the ability to apply what they learned

through services to their parenting of the children.

Both the mother and the father consistently tested negative for

drugs and were both compliant with services. The parents had housing

and maintained employment. They provided material items to the

children while the children were in foster care. However, with respect to

the date of the start of trial, they had only recently been ordered to pay

child support, and they had made only one child-support payment. The

mother testified that the parents had adjusted their views on medical

care. Jamiyah Freeman, a family development specialist for Health

Connect America, testified that the mother stated that, if the children

were returned to her and the father, she planned to send the children to

school and to take the children to the same doctors that the children had

been seeing. The children's respective foster parents desired to adopt

them.

12
CL-2024-0397, CL-2024-0398, CL-2024-0399, CL-2024-0400, CL-2024-
0406, CL-2024-0407, CL-2024-0408, and CL-2024-0409

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,
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

13
CL-2024-0397, CL-2024-0398, CL-2024-0399, CL-2024-0400, CL-2024-
0406, CL-2024-0407, CL-2024-0408, and CL-2024-0409

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

I.

On appeal, the father and the mother both argue that the juvenile

court erred in determining that there was sufficient evidence that

grounds for termination of their parental rights 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 parents of [the] child[ren] are unable or unwilling to
discharge their responsibilities to and for the child[ren], or
that the conduct or condition of the parents renders them
unable to properly care for the child[ren] and that the conduct
or condition is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future, it

14
CL-2024-0397, CL-2024-0398, CL-2024-0399, CL-2024-0400, CL-2024-
0406, CL-2024-0407, CL-2024-0408, and CL-2024-0409

may terminate the parental rights of the parents. 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 parents are unable or unwilling to
discharge their 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:

"….

"(2) Emotional illness, mental illness, or
mental deficiency of the parent[s], or excessive use
of alcohol or controlled substances, of a duration or
nature as to render the parent[s] unable to care for
the needs of the child[ren].

"….

"(7) That reasonable efforts by the
Department of Human Resources or licensed
public or private child care agencies leading
toward the rehabilitation of the parents have
failed.

"(8) That parental rights to a sibling of the
child[ren] have been involuntarily terminated.

"(9) Failure by the parents to provide for the
material needs of the child[ren] or to pay a
reasonable portion of support of the child[ren]
where the parent[s] [are] able to do so.

"….

"(12) Lack of effort by the parent[s] to adjust
[their] circumstances to meet the needs of the

15
CL-2024-0397, CL-2024-0398, CL-2024-0399, CL-2024-0400, CL-2024-
0406, CL-2024-0407, CL-2024-0408, and CL-2024-0409

child[ren] 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.

"(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.

In this case, there was evidence indicating that both parents had

narcissistic personality disorders and that they were unable to properly

care for the children for the foreseeable future. Both parents had also had

their parental rights terminated previously. Moreover, the children were

all placed in foster homes with foster parents who desired to adopt them.

16
CL-2024-0397, CL-2024-0398, CL-2024-0399, CL-2024-0400, CL-2024-
0406, CL-2024-0407, CL-2024-0408, and CL-2024-0409

The parents point out that they had maintained housing,

employment, and sobriety, and that they had completed the services

requested by DHR. However, as the juvenile court's judgments found,

the parents had a long history of child neglect spanning multiple years

and involving multiple children. The parents' neglect had ultimately

resulted in L.A.D. almost losing her life. There was evidence tending to

show that the parents had progressed, but there was other evidence

indicating that the parents were simply complying with DHR in a

perfunctory manner and did not genuinely intend to change their

circumstances. Although the parents testified that they had changed,

the juvenile court found the parents' testimony to lack credibility. "[O]ur

standard of review does not permit this court to reweigh the evidence to

reach a different conclusion [than the juvenile court reached]." J.G. v.

Lauderdale Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 379 So. 3d 444, 448 (Ala. Civ. App.

2023) (citing Ex parte Bodie, 377 So. 3d 1051 (Ala. 2022)).

The father specifically argues that there was no evidence to support

the juvenile court's finding that "[t]he parents failed to provide for the

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

where the parents were able to do so." He points out that the parents

17
CL-2024-0397, CL-2024-0398, CL-2024-0399, CL-2024-0400, CL-2024-
0406, CL-2024-0407, CL-2024-0408, and CL-2024-0409

had provided items for the children and were only recently ordered to pay

child support. We note, however, that the juvenile court stated that "[t]he

parents have been and remain underemployed." The evidence indicates

that the father had been employed but had given away tip money.

Additionally, although the mother was able-bodied, she worked only part

time making food deliveries. We cannot conclude that the juvenile court

exceeded its discretion in determining that the parents were able to

contribute monetarily but chose not to do so until they were placed under

a court order shortly before the trial. 1

II.

The father also argues that maintaining visitation with the parents

is a viable alternative to termination of his parental rights. We note,

however, that the juvenile court did not make any specific findings of fact

1The father misquotes and misconstrues B.L. v. Elmore Cnty. Dep't

of Hum. Res., 324 So. 3d 829 (Ala. Civ. App. 2020). He states, purporting
to quote B.L.: "In absence of an order requiring parent to pay child
support in compliance with Ala. Code 1975, § 12-15-314(e), parent could
not be found to have failed to pay child support." The father's brief, p.
71. However, that language is not in B.L., and the court in B.L. did not
hold that a child-support order must exist in order for a juvenile court to
find that a parent failed to support his or her child in the context of a
termination-of-parental-rights action.

18
CL-2024-0397, CL-2024-0398, CL-2024-0399, CL-2024-0400, CL-2024-
0406, CL-2024-0407, CL-2024-0408, and CL-2024-0409

concerning the viability of maintaining the status quo, and the father did

not file a postjudgment motion challenging the sufficiency of the evidence

regarding that issue. Therefore, the father's argument on this point was

not preserved for this court's review. See New Props., L.L.C. v. Stewart,

905 So. 2d 797, 801-02 (Ala. 2004).

III.

Finally, the mother argues that the juvenile court erred in denying

the admission of a transcript from a June 10, 2022, hearing wherein

DHR's attorney stated that the parents had been compliant with services

and that there were no other services that could be offered. We note,

however, that the juvenile court allowed the mother to testify as to her

recollection of what DHR's attorney stated at the June 10, 2022, hearing.

The mother does not point to any specific statement that was not allowed

to be admitted that prejudiced her case. Therefore, we conclude that any

error in not admitting the transcript was harmless. See Rule 45, Ala. R.

App. P.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the juvenile court's judgments.

19
CL-2024-0397, CL-2024-0398, CL-2024-0399, CL-2024-0400, CL-2024-
0406, CL-2024-0407, CL-2024-0408, and CL-2024-0409

The motions to strike filed by DHR and the guardian ad litem are

denied as moot. We note, though, that this court has not considered any

exhibits that were not admitted as evidence during the trial.

CL-2024-0397 -- AFFIRMED.

CL-2024-0398 -- AFFIRMED.

CL-2024-0399 -- AFFIRMED.

CL-2024-0400 -- AFFIRMED.

CL-2024-0406 -- AFFIRMED.

CL-2024-0407 -- AFFIRMED.

CL-2024-0408 -- AFFIRMED.

CL-2024-0409 -- AFFIRMED.

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

20