# L.M. v. Shelby County Department of Human Resources

> Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · December 9, 2011 · 86 So. 3d 377

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4872671

## Case

- **Full name:** L.M. v. SHELBY COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES J.K. v. Shelby County Department of Human Resources
- **Court:** Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama
- **Decided:** December 9, 2011
- **Citations:** 86 So. 3d 377; 2011 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 341; 2011 WL 6117941
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Bryan
- **Judges:** Bryan, Moore, Pittman, Thomas, Thompson, Writings
- **Cited by:** 23 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4872671

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that consideration of evidence existing at the time an initial petition for a termination of parental rights is denied is not barred by the doctrine of res judicata so long as the subsequent termination-of-parental-rights action is also based on new evidence of chan…
- recognizing that the rights of a parent may be terminated when that parent fails or refuses to protect his or her children from threat of harm presented by the other unfit, abusive, or neglectful parent by allowing the other parent access to family home
- finding that DHR presented insufficient evidence to justify its demand that common-law parents separate as a condition for father to retain his parental rights

## Opinion text

BRYAN, Judge,
concurring specially.
I fully concur in the main opinion, despite the fact that it is based, in part, on this court’s decision in T.B. v. DeKalb County Department of Human Resources, 12 So.3d 90, 99 (Ala.Civ.App.2008), in which I filed a dissenting opinion. See T.B., 12 So.3d at 99-100 . In T.B., I dissented from the judgment reversing the mother’s parental rights because I did not believe that this court had properly reversed the judgment terminating the parental rights of the father in a companion case, J.B. v. DeKalb County Department of Human Resources, 12 So.3d 100 (Ala.Civ.App.2008). However, in the present case, I fully concur in the conclusion reached in the main opinion that the juvenile court erroneously terminated the father’s parental rights. Thus, despite the fact that I find clear and convincing evidence in the record to support the juvenile court’s conclusion that the mother was unable to remain drug and alcohol free for a “sustainable period of time,” I agree with the conclusion in the main opinion that the judgment terminating the parental rights of the mother should be reversed because, from all that appears in the record before this court, there is nothing that would prevent an appropriately tailored award of custody to the father from being a viable alternative to the termination of her parental rights.
However, this conclusion is based on the fact that the record reveals that the mother and the father are in a committed long-term relationship. Indeed, the mother and the father indicated that they held themselves out to have a common-law marriage. Thus, I believe the decision in this case could be different if the facts of the case indicated that the relationship between the mother and the father was not stable. The record reveals that the mother works for, or at least with, the father and that the mother and the father are “always together.” I find no basis in the record for concluding that the father cannot protect the children from any potential danger presented by the possibility of the mother’s continued substance abuse.
With that being said, I caution the mother to continue her diligent efforts at maintaining an alcohol and drag-free lifestyle. My approval of this court’s decision today should not be read as an approval of the mother’s behavior, which has resulted in her children being kept in foster care for an extended period.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4872671. Public record. Not legal advice.