 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
R.W.D. v. Walker County Department of Human Resources7/20/2001
at the hearing; that they were both represented by counsel; and that the record contained a "return of service receipt" signed by the father. Although the initial record did not contain a copy of the registered-mail receipts, the supplemental record on appeal contains several registered- and certified-mail receipts signed by the mother and father, addressed to their relatives' address in Texas and dated in June and November 2000. In addition, the record contains an answer by the mother and father, dated October 13, 2000, to the petition to terminate parental rights as to T.D. We, therefore, conclude, based on the evidence presented in this case, that the court did not err in determining that both parents had been properly notified of the termination proceedings. J.C. v. AGAPE of Cent. Alabama, 590 So. 2d 302 (Ala Civ. App. 1991).
Next, the parents argue that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence the results of T.D.'s blood test and their own police reports. Although we do not provide a detailed recitation of the evidence, it appears that the trial court had ample evidence to conclude that it was in the children's best interests to terminate the parents' parental rights. Kim Holder, the DHR social worker initially assigned to the case, testified as to the information contained in the confidential reports to the court. She provided a detailed case history, including the agency's interaction with the parents since 1997, the parents' history of drug abuse, T.D.'s testing positive for cocaine at birth, and efforts by the agency toward reunification between 1997 and 1999 and relative placement after 1999. We conclude that any consideration of the additional medical or police reports admitted into evidence was harmless error, based on the corroborating testimony by the DHR social worker. R.M. v. State Dep't of Human Res., 735 So. 2d 1218 (Ala. Civ. App. 1998); Franklin v. State Dep't of Human Res., 513 So. 2d 625 (Ala. Civ. App. 1987).
Last, we note that the aunt testified during the proceeding that she preferred that the children be adopted by the foster family, because, she said, she did not "want to cause any emotional damage" to them. She stated, in part:
"[The foster parents] had them for a year, they haven't seen us for over a year and I'm not gonna cause no -- I don't want to cause no damage pulling them out. ... I would like for them to stay with the [foster parents] because I would just like to see them and since my house caught on fire the other morning, I don't want to bring no other children in."
The aunt further testified that if she could obtain the children through a gradual process then she would reconsider taking the children and that at the time of the proceeding she preferred to visit with the children. The uncle stated that he was currently unemployed; that he was completing truck-driving school; and that he thought he could adequately provide for the entire family, which included his own two children, his wife, his mother, and the brother's three children.
This court has historically given great deference to the discretion of the trial court, which is in the best position to observe witnesses and hear their testimony. After thoroughly reviewing the record, we conclude that the court did not err in terminating the mother and father's parental rights. A.H. v. State Dep't of Human Res., 763 So. 2d 968 (Ala. Civ. App. 2000).
AFFIRMED.
Crawley, Thompson, Pittman, and Murdock, JJ., concur.
|