Ez v. Calhoun County Dept. of Human Res.

Citations: 828 So. 2d 332; 2002 WL 254015Docket: 2001197 and 2001198

Court: Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama; February 21, 2002; Alabama; State Appellate Court

Combined Opinion SummaryCombined Opinion Original

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

In the case E.Z. v. Calhoun County Department of Human Resources, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals reviewed a termination of parental rights involving E.Z. and L.Z., whose children were removed from their custody due to serious allegations of sexual abuse and violations of a safety plan. Initially, their daughter P.Z. was placed with her paternal grandparents after the Covington County DHR received a report of abuse by the father, a convicted sex offender. After the parents’ relocation to Jacksonville and subsequent violations of the safety plan, P.Z. was removed and placed in foster care, along with her two brothers, B.Z. and K.Z.

Concerns arose during supervised visits when the boys reported inappropriate touching and allegations of sexual abuse during these visitations. The DHR provided counseling for the parents, including a sexual-offender course for the father. In January 2000, the DHR filed a petition to terminate parental rights, leading to a termination trial in June 2001, where the juvenile court ruled against the parents, citing the best interests of the children. 

The court underscored the fundamental right to family integrity and established a presumption that parental custody is typically in a child's best interest. However, this presumption can be overcome by clear and convincing evidence demonstrating the parent's inability to care for the child. The court's decision to terminate parental rights is presumed correct unless shown to be unsupported by evidence or plainly wrong.

To terminate parental rights, a juvenile court must establish, through clear and convincing evidence, that a child is dependent and that no alternatives to termination exist. Parental rights can be terminated if parents are unable or unwilling to fulfill their responsibilities and if their situation is unlikely to improve. Specific factors guiding this decision include failed rehabilitation efforts and lack of compliance with agreements made with caseworkers.

The testimony of several Department of Human Resources (DHR) caseworkers outlined the family's history and the services provided over four years. Tamantha Gibson, the caseworker from March 1997 to December 1998, described a safety plan requiring P.Z. to live with paternal grandparents, which was violated when P.Z. returned to her parents. This led to the children being placed in foster care due to safety concerns related to the father's status as a sexual offender.

Penny McGee, who served from December 1998 to May 2000, noted the parents' failure to adhere to an individualized service plan (ISP) by not notifying DHR of residence changes, maintaining sufficient income, or supervising transport of the children. She also highlighted inappropriate discussions the father had with the children during a separation from the mother. In February 2000, DHR shifted from a reunification plan to considering relative placement or termination of rights.

Elaine Hubbard, the caseworker from August 2000 to February 2001, reported on the parents' tumultuous relationship, including the mother’s infidelities and the father’s relocation to Michigan for his well-being. Despite exploring relative resources, including the father’s brother, no suitable options were found. Gloria Craig, the caseworker from March 2001 until the termination trial in June 2001, confirmed the unsuitability of the father's brother and the lack of response from other relatives, as well as the health issues of the paternal grandparents, preventing them from being custodians.

The caseworker noted that, while the parents maintained visitation with their children, the Department of Human Resources (DHR) did not pursue further family reunification efforts. Psychologist Dr. David Wilson evaluated both parents and determined that the father has a cognitive disorder affecting his understanding and impulse control, while the mother has a full-scale IQ of 68, categorizing her as mildly mentally retarded and exhibiting a passive-dependent personality. Dr. Wilson concluded that neither parent could adequately care for the children. He also diagnosed P.Z. with adjustment disorder with a depressed mood and indicated signs of potential sexual abuse by the father, despite P.Z. retracting her claims out of anger towards him.

Counselor Wayne Hamberger, who treated the parents and supervised their visits, acknowledged the father's completion of a sexual-offender program but expressed concerns about the parents' instability, both relationally and financially. He highlighted the inappropriate emotional dependency the father placed on the children and his tendency to discuss inappropriate matters with them, such as the mother’s infidelity. Hamberger criticized the father for prioritizing the mother’s needs over the family’s welfare and questioned the mother’s maturity for protecting the children.

The father, a disabled veteran receiving $960 monthly in benefits, struggled with employment and financial stability, having moved eight times during DHR's involvement. He admitted to past financial issues, including borrowing from a pawnshop and eviction due to nonpayment of rent. While he denied sexually abusing his daughter, he described a prior sexual relationship with a 12-year-old girl as a "mistake," claiming ignorance of its illegality. He acknowledged the necessity of marital stability for reunification and stated he would not reconcile with the mother if she had another affair. Following their December 2000 divorce, he felt overwhelmed by personal losses, prompting a move to Michigan.

The mother admitted to having four affairs over four years, acknowledging the potential impact on her ability to reunite with her children, though she did not consider this at the time of each affair. She receives $530 monthly in Social Security disability payments. While she believed that four years should have been enough for stability in her marriage and finances, she requested additional time from DHR. The juvenile court's decision to terminate both parents' rights is upheld, based on evidence indicating their inability to provide a stable environment for their children. The father's cognitive disorder and the mother's mild mental retardation hinder their decision-making and parenting capabilities. Experts Dr. Wilson and Mr. Hamberger concluded that neither parent could adequately care for the children alone, and their dysfunctional relationship further impaired their parenting. The judgment of parental rights termination is affirmed. The record does not specify the perpetrator of alleged abuse during visitation.