 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
D.S.S. v. Clay County Dept. of Human Resources9/17/1999
t of DHR's admitted failure to investigate the father's circumstances, there simply was not enough evidence to give the trial court a clear picture of the father's situation.
In V.M. v. State Dep't of Human Resources, 710 So. 2d 915 (Ala. Civ. App. 1998), this court reversed a judgment terminating a mother's parental rights because, we held, the trial court's Conclusion that there was no viable alternative to the termination was plainly and palpably wrong. In V.M., DHR had rejected a grandmother as a relative resource because it had negative, four-year-old information about the grandmother and because "the grandmother had shown a lack of initiative in contacting DHR regarding the necessary paperwork." 710 So. 2d at 921. This court stated:
"All of DHR's objections to the grandmother as a relative resource were based on past history ... and there was no evidence that she had been considered in light of her present circumstances her present willingness to be a resource for the children .... 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.' In light of the evidence that the grandmother's present circumstances had not been investigated, the trial court's decision to terminate the mother's parental rights based upon the lack of viable alternatives was plainly and palpably wrong." V.M., 710 So. 2d at 921 (emphasis added) (citation omitted).
The statements we made in V.M. apply with even greater force in this case. DHR made virtually no effort to investigate the father's current living conditions, had virtually no information about the father's current employment circumstances, and made the determination that the father was unreliable because he had neglected to telephone DHR about a home study. As we implied in V.M., and as we now explicitly hold, DHR -- not the prospective custodian -- has the burden of initiating investigations, and it is DHR's burden to prove the unsuitability of one who seeks to be considered as the custodian of a dependent child. Because DHR did not comply with its statutory duties regarding the father, its petition to terminate the father's parental rights was premature. We must, therefore, reverse the juvenile court's judgment terminating the parental rights of the father.
2980615 -- AFFIRMED.
2980616 -- REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Robertson, P.J., and Yates, Monroe, and Thompson, JJ., concur.
|