J.H. v. Jefferson County Department of Human Resources (Appeal from Jefferson Juvenile Court: JU-20-1429.02).

Rel: December 13, 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-2024-0569
_________________________

J.H.

v.

Jefferson County Department of Human Resources

Appeal from Jefferson Juvenile Court
(JU-20-1429.02)

LEWIS, Judge.

J.H. ("the father") appeals from a judgment entered by the Jefferson

Juvenile Court ("the juvenile court") terminating his parental rights to

P.P.H. ("the child"), who was born in December 2020. We affirm the

juvenile court's judgment.
CL-2024-0569

Procedural History

On October 17, 2023, the Jefferson County Department of Human

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

parental rights of the father and of R.P. ("the mother") to the child. On

January 25, 2024, the father filed a motion requesting that custody of the

child be transferred to the child's paternal grandmother C.W. ("the

paternal grandmother"). The paternal grandmother filed a motion to

intervene in the termination-of-parental-rights action on March 5, 2024.

The child's foster parents, An.M. and Ad.M., filed a motion to intervene

on March 20, 2024. Those motions were granted on April 1, 2024. On

April 24, 2024, the juvenile court entered an order awarding the paternal

grandmother "unsupervised daytime visitation, with the minor child, for

three (3) hours, one day, every other week."

After a trial, the juvenile court entered a judgment on May 29, 2024,

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

child. The juvenile court made the following findings, which are

pertinent to the issues raised on appeal:

"…[M]uch of the trial revolves around whether DHR has
exercised reasonable efforts as it relates to exploring paternal
relatives as possible placements for custody of the child and
whether this Court can conclude that there are no viable
2
CL-2024-0569

alternatives to the termination of the parents['] parental
rights. More specifically, DHR's first attempt, after three
years that this child had been in foster care, to perform an
Accurint search and to send out letters to the paternal side of
the family was made for the first and only time in January
2024. Also, called into question was the fact that the letters
that were sent out in January of 2024 were back dated
January 2023 and whether this was a mistake or an attempt
to make it appear as if DHR had made this attempt earlier.
In defense of DHR, the parents also have the responsibility of
making DHR aware of these alternate relative placements.
The only relative that the father provided DHR with was the
[child's] paternal aunt [Jan. H. ("the paternal aunt"),]…, o[n]
March 2022[,] and for whatever reason, that placement did
not work out. That the father then waited until August 2023
to provide the name of his mother, [the paternal
grandmother.] DHR has investigated these names as
requested by the father once those names were presented.

"There is no dispute that DHR worked with [the]
paternal aunt … around approximately June 2022 until
approximately June 2023. DHR worker stated that DHR did
not look into any other paternal relatives while they were
working with the [paternal] aunt. DHR did testify that
although they were working with the paternal aunt … for
many months, phone calls were made to both the paternal
grandmother and paternal grandfather, with the social
worker and [the paternal aunt] on [a] conference call with
them and that the paternal grandparents were aware of the
child being in foster care, they were aware that [the paternal
aunt] was attempting to gain custody of the child and that at
that time, the [paternal] grandmother could not obtain
custody of the child because she was taking care of her very
ill husband and that the [paternal] grandfather stated that he
would support and assist [the paternal aunt] if she got
custody. The telephone calls were made sometime between
June 2022 and June 2023. Furthermore, when DHR was
investigating [the paternal aunt] as a possible relative

3
CL-2024-0569

placement, [the paternal aunt] listed the paternal
grandmother and paternal grandfather as her family
support/backup if she needed help raising the child. [The
paternal aunt] does not deny this but says she hardly talks to
her parents, even though she listed them as her support, and
that because they don't talk a lot, they probably did not know
she had listed them as her support. That though there were
at least two attempts and possibly a third attempt to place the
child with [the paternal aunt], it did not work out and the
child remained in foster care. The point of all of this reference
is that this is where this Court can positively connect the
paternal grandparents['] knowledge of the child being in
foster care as the social worker, the [paternal] aunt and the
paternal grandmother all remember talking to each other
(again, the [paternal] grandfather was not present at court to
testify) about supporting their daughter if she got custody
proving that [the] paternal grandmother … and the paternal
grandfather … had knowledge that the child was not in the
care of the parents, that their daughter, [the paternal aunt],
was attempting to get custody, that they were willing to assist
their daughter if she got custody but did not make any request
for custody at that time and they were aware of DHR's
involvement with their grandchild.

"It also appears that neither grandparent ever
attempted to visit with this child until somewhere around
August of 2023 when there was a motion made by father's
attorney for a home evaluation and request for visitation for
the paternal grandmother and in December 2023 that actual
visitation started. Furthermore, it was not until March 5,
2024[,] that the grandparents filed their Motion/Petitions for
Intervention in this case. Also, though the Court understands
that the [paternal] grandfather … lives in another state, it
speaks volumes that he was not present for this termination
trial, though he has been allowed to intervene as a party.

"A lot of blame has been put on DHR for things it should
have done and did not do throughout this case and rightfully

4
CL-2024-0569

so, however, there has to be much blame put on these parents
for their deficiencies as this child has been in foster care for
three and a half years with little to no change in their
circumstances and withholding the names of any relatives
until the midnight hour. There must also be blame put on
these grandparents, even though officially, they may not have
received a letter from DHR until January or February 2024,
the [paternal] grandparents have known this child was not in
custody of the parents, they have known that their daughter,
[the paternal aunt], was attempting to get custody of the
child, that it was not until August 2023 that paternal
grandmother … began to show interest in the child by
requesting through her son[']s attorney a home evaluation
and visitation and it was not until March 5, 2024[,] that the
paternal grandparents filed for intervention in this case.

"Furthermore, a lot of fuss was made about DHR
waiting until January 2024 to send out letters to the paternal
side of the family. This is frustrating to this Court as well[,]
but it also evidences DHR's requirement to provide recent
attempts to locate all viable alternatives in order to establish
that termination of parental rights is the least dramatic
alternative. This attempt revealed no new relatives or persons
interested in obtaining custody other than relatives we
already knew about, the paternal grandmother and paternal
grandfather.

"Code of Alabama[,] Section 12-15-319 is clear as to the
grounds for termination of parental rights when it comes to
the parents and unfortunately, without going into the many
details in this order, the Court would note that the parents
clearly meet [§§] 12-15-319(A)(7), (9), (10), (11), (12),
(13)(a),(b) and (c)[, Ala. Code 1975]. Furthermore, that same
Code of Alabama, Section 12-15-319(c)(1) and (2) is very clear
that these grandparents (1) did not attempt to care for the
child or obtain custody of the child within four months of the
child being removed from the custody of the parents or placed
in foster care, if the removal was known to the relative, and

5
CL-2024-0569

(2) that the goal of the current permanency plan formulated
by DHR is adoption by the current foster parents. Though
there may be an argument as to the timing of the letters that
were sent out by DHR and DHR's reasonable efforts as it
applies to investigating relatives for placement, it is evident
that the [paternal] grandparents have known for a long time
that the child was not in the parents['] custody and that DHR
was involved with this child and for whatever reason they did
not come forward nor w[ere] the[ir] name[s] provided by the
father until only recently. Furthermore, after three and a half
years, or approximately two years and nine months after
paternity was established, it is very hard for this Court to
believe that these grandparents 'did not know' that their
grandchild was not in the custody of the parents or wonder
why they had not seen him for three and a half years that he
has been alive, and that they have only now come forward to
request custody since termination of parental rights petitions
have been filed.

"This Court would also note that the parents have the
responsibility in providing DHR with the names of relatives
that may be interested in obtaining custody early in cases
such as this in order for the child not to languish in foster care
for three and a half years. That DHR did investigate each of
the two paternal relatives as they were presented by the
father, the first being the paternal aunt … beginning in June
2022 and continued to work with her until approximately
June 2023 at such time as the [paternal] aunt decided not to
go forward with her request for custody. That it was not until
August 2023 that [the] father supplied the name of [the
paternal grandmother] … as another relative resource and
DHR began home evaluations investigations, and eventually
setting up visitation with her. That at no time does this Court
recall where the father has ever presented the paternal
grandfather's name to DHR but even so, it was not until
March 5, 2024[,] that both the paternal grandmother and
paternal grandfather filed a Motion for Intervention and
Petition for Intervention in this case requesting custody.

6
CL-2024-0569

"…[E]ven though; 1) DHR had changed its case plan to
termination of parental rights with adoption by current foster
parents; and 2) even though DHR had filed the Termination
of Parental Rights Petition on October 17, 2023; and 3) even
though the Court is very much aware that these grandparents
have known [their] grandchild was in foster care or was not
in the custody of the child's parents much more than four
months before filing any pleading to get custody; and 4) even
though DHR sent out letters to the relatives in January 2024
that may have been dated January 2023; and 5) even though
it took the grandparents until March 7, 2023[,] to file a Motion
to Intervene to request custody; and 6) even though Code of
Alabama, [§§] 12-15-319(c)(1) and (2) applies, this Court
granted the interventions and gave the paternal
grandparents an opportunity to be heard so that the Court
would be certain that in fact, all viable alternatives to
termination had be[en] considered.

"The Court once again states that the [paternal]
grandfather did not appear for his opportunity to be heard[,]
and he appears to be the one person who was the most upset
about the date of the letters that DHR sent out in January
2024.

"The [paternal] grandmother did appear and in
consideration of her testimony the Court appreciates her
willingness but also has to consider the following: her lacking
of a relationship with the child other than some visits in the
last six months; the fact that even when given the chance on
at least four occasions to be interviewed by the bonding
expert, the [paternal] grandmother refused to participate; the
fact that …[neither] she nor the [paternal] grandfather filed
anything to get custody of this child for far more than four
months once they learned of the child not being in the custody
of the parents; the fact that at the time the paternal
grandparents did file for intervention, DHR's case plan was
'termination of parental rights, adoption by current foster

7
CL-2024-0569

parents' and had been since at least October 17, 2023[,] when
the termination petitions were filed; that after given the
opportunity to listen to the grandmother and considering the
timing of her request, the Court feels that the filing of these
motions to intervene were not as much about the best interest
of the child but more about the best interest of her son, the
father of the child, who has had three and [one] half years to
do what he had to do to get custody and for whatever reason,
has not done so and this appears to be a last chance 'Hail
Mary' attempt to stop the termination of parental rights from
happening; and finally, the Court considers the attachment
that this child has developed to his foster parents, the persons
that have been there for him every single day for at least the
last three years. Unfortunately, the Court feels that the
paternal grandmother … and the paternal grandfather … are
not viable alternatives to termination of parental rights and
their requests for custody are hereby denied.

"….

"…[T]he Court is not required to consider a relative to
be a candidate for legal guardian of the child in a proceeding
for termination of parental rights if the relatives did not
attempt to care or obtain custody of the child within four
months of the child being removed from the custody of the
parents or placed in foster care, if the removal was known to
the relative and the goal of the current permanency plan
formulated by DHR is adoption by the current foster
parents[.]

"…[DHR] has investigated all viable alternatives to
termination of parental rights and the Court finds that there
exists no other viable alternatives consistent with the best
interests of the child, other than termination of parental
rights[.]"

(Emphasis in original.)
8
CL-2024-0569

The father timely filed his notice of appeal with this court on June

11, 2024. The mother did not appeal.

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

9
CL-2024-0569

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: (1) that DHR failed to use reasonable

efforts to explore paternal relatives of the child for potential placement

and (2) that placement of the child with the paternal grandmother was a

viable alternative to termination of his parental rights.1

1Although the father mentions the paternal grandfather, his
argument focuses solely on placement with the paternal grandmother.
The paternal grandmother and the paternal grandfather were not
married to each other.
10
CL-2024-0569

With respect to the father's argument that DHR failed to use

reasonable efforts to explore paternal relatives of the child for potential

placement, this court has explained:

"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
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 father'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). "DHR, and not a possible

relative custodian, has the burden of initiating an investigation into the

suitability of a possible relative placement for a child." A.R.H.B. v.

Madison Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 378 So. 3d 543, 549 (Ala. Civ. App.

11
CL-2024-0569

2022). " 'Although DHR has a responsibility to investigate alternate

relative placements for a child, that obligation does not entirely alleviate

the responsibility of the parent who purports to oppose the termination

of his or her parental rights of making DHR social workers aware of

alternative placement possibilities.' " J.F.S. v. Mobile Cnty. Dep't of

Hum. Res., 38 So. 3d at 78 (quoting B.S. v. Cullman Cnty. Dep't of Hum.

Res., 865 So. 2d 1188, 1197 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003)).

In this case, the juvenile court found as follows: DHR failed "to

perform an Accurint search and to send out letters to the paternal side of

the family" until January 2024, approximately three years after the child

was placed into foster care. However, those efforts "revealed no new

relatives or persons interested in obtaining custody other than relatives

[that were already known], the paternal grandmother and paternal

grandfather." The juvenile court noted that "DHR worked with [the

paternal aunt] [from] around approximately June 2022 until

approximately June 2023." The juvenile court found that the paternal

grandparents were willing to support the paternal aunt in obtaining

custody of the child; however, the paternal grandmother was unable to

"obtain custody of the child because she was taking care of her very ill

12
CL-2024-0569

husband." The juvenile court noted that "it was not until August 2023

that paternal grandmother … began to show interest in the child by

requesting through her son[']s attorney a home evaluation and visitation

and it was not until March 5, 2024[,] that the paternal grandparents filed

for intervention in this case." According to the juvenile court's judgment,

DHR conducted a home evaluation on the paternal grandmother's home

and set up visitation for her and the child.

The father's argument focuses on DHR's failure to timely notify the

paternal grandparents that the child was in foster care and to attempt to

locate other paternal relatives in a timely manner. However, the father

does not challenge the juvenile court's findings (1) that DHR made

repeated efforts to explore the paternal aunt as a relative resource; (2)

that the paternal grandparents were aware (despite any failure on DHR's

part to notify them) that the child was in foster care;2 (3) that the

paternal grandparents delayed in attempting to obtain custody of the

child despite their knowledge that the child was in foster care; (4) that,

2The paternal grandmother testified that she found out that the

child was in foster care shortly after her husband died in January 2022.
The paternal grandfather testified that he knew in 2021 that the child
was in foster care.
13
CL-2024-0569

once the paternal grandmother sought custody of the child, DHR made

efforts to investigate her; and (5) that the Accurint search, albeit

untimely conducted, revealed no other relative resources. Moreover, we

have reviewed the transcript and have determined that those findings

are supported by the evidence.

Considering those findings, we cannot conclude that the juvenile

court erred in finding that there was clear and convincing evidence that

DHR made reasonable efforts to locate viable relative placements.

Turning to the father's second argument, that placement of the

child with the paternal grandmother was a viable alternative, we note

that the juvenile court found that

"[the paternal] grandparents (1) did not attempt to care for
the child or obtain custody of the child within four months of
the child being removed from the custody of the parents or
placed in foster care, if the removal was known to the relative,
and (2) … the goal of the current permanency plan formulated
by DHR is adoption by the current foster parents."

(Emphasis omitted.) The father does not challenge those findings on

appeal. Moreover, we note that those findings are supported by the

evidence in the record.

Section 12-15-319(c), Ala. Code 1975, provides:

14
CL-2024-0569

"The juvenile court is not required to consider a relative
to be a candidate for legal guardian of the child in a
proceeding for termination of parental rights if both of the
following circumstances exist:

"(1) The relative did not attempt to care for
the child or obtain custody of the child within four
months of the child being removed from the
custody of the parents or placed in foster care, if
the removal was known to the relative.

"(2) The goal of the current permanency plan
formulated by the Department of Human
Resources is adoption by the current foster
parents."

In Z.P. v. Mobile County Department of Human Resources, [Ms. CL-

2024-0177, Sept. 27, 2024] ___ So. 3d ___, ___ (Ala. Civ. App. 2024), this

court explained that "[s]ection 12-15-319(c)[, Ala. Code 1975,] vests a

juvenile court with the discretion to disregard a relative as a potential

custodian of the child under the enumerated circumstances." When "§

12-15-319(c) is implicated … the juvenile court ha[s] the discretion to

refuse to consider the … relatives [at issue] as potential custodians for

the child and the placement of the child with a paternal relative as a

viable alternative to the termination of the father's parental rights." ___

So. 3d at ___.

15
CL-2024-0569

Because the juvenile court found that § 12-15-319(c) was applicable

and the father did not challenge that finding on appeal, we cannot

conclude that the juvenile court exceeded its discretion in determining

that placement of the child with either of the paternal grandparents was

not a viable alternative to the termination of the father's parental rights.

See Z.P., ___ So. 3d at ___.

Conclusion

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

AFFIRMED.

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

16