P.L.G. v. Mobile County Department of Human Resources

          Appeals from Mobile Juvenile Court (JU-13-469.04 and JU-13-470.05)

          PER CURIAM

         P.L.G ("the mother) separately appeals from two judgments of the Mobile Juvenile Court ("the juvenile court") terminating her parental rights to S.L.G. and C.I.G. ("the children"), respectively. We reverse the judgments and remand the causes with instructions to the juvenile court.

         Facts and Procedural History

         The children are twins and were born to the mother in September 2012. On December 5, 2017, the Mobile County Department of Human Resources ("DHR") filed separate petitions in the juvenile court seeking judgments terminating the parental rights of the mother and C.L.O. ("the father") to the children. In the petitions, DHR alleged, among other things, that the father's location was unknown; that the children were dependent and had been in the custody of DHR since October 2016; that the parents had abandoned and neglected the children; that the mother has "untreated mental health issues that prevent [her] from providing adequate care for the child[ren]"; and that efforts by DHR to rehabilitate the mother had been unsuccessful. Separate counsel were appointed to represent the mother and the father. The father was served by publication.

         A trial was held in the juvenile court on March 22, 2018, and April 3, 2018. The father was represented by counsel but did not attend the trial. Testimony was presented from a psychologist, a mental-health and substance-abuse therapist, DHR caseworkers, and the mother.

         On July 19, 2018, judgments rendered by the juvenile court on July 6, 2018, were entered in each case. The judgments were substantially identical except for specific references to each child, and provided, in part:

"6. The Court finds that the mother has failed to modify her circumstances to meet the needs of the children since the finding of dependency. The Court finds that the mother has recently made improvements in her circumstances, but that by failing to participate in any meaningful manner starting in July of 2017, she has[, as] of this time[, ] failed to put herself in a position where she can care for the child[ren]. From the psychological evidence that was presented, the Court finds it unlikely that the mother will be able to follow through, in high stress situations, to deal with the child[ren].

"7. There is no known relative willing or able to take the care, custody, and control of the child[ren].

"8. Termination of parental rights is in the best interest of the child[ren] to promote permanency.

"9. [DHR] made all reasonable efforts to finalize the plan of adoption after the same was accepted by the court.

"10. The Court finds [DHR] made all reasonable efforts to promote reunification but that said efforts failed in large part due to the failure of the mother to consistently follow the recommendations and accept the services offered.

"12. From the foregoing, the [juvenile] Court concludes that termination of parental rights is in the best interest of the child[ren;] however[, ] given the mother's recent efforts[, ] the Court finds that[, ] if [DHR] is unable to find an adoptive resource, ... the issue of the termination of the mother's parental rights should be revisited.

"Wherefore, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED by the Court that any and all rights in and to [the children] of [the mother and father] be and hereby are ORDERED terminated and the permanent care, custody, and control of [the children] is hereby awarded to [DHR] which ...