In a case that highlights the different factors that a court must consider before it may terminate parental rights, the Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama recently reversed a decision from a child custody case arising from Jackson County, Alabama. This case, R.D. v. G.A.W. II, involves a mother’s attempt to have a judgment that terminated her parental rights appealed.

In 2018, G.A.W. II “the Father” and R.D. “the Mother” began divorce proceedings in Jackson County. The Father was awarded sole physical custody of their children due to the mother’s substance abuse issues. Eventually, the father would petition the court to have the mother’s parental rights terminated. In support of his petition, the Father cited the Mother’s residence in rehabilitation facilities, ongoing legal issues, inconsistent visitation, and lack of support as the reasons her parental rights should be terminated.

Once the termination trial began in April 2024, the court would review the Mother’s history of arrests, temporary sober-living arrangements, and probation violations. The evidence presented showed the mother had very limited and inconsistent communication with the children. The Father also testified that the Mother’s instability had caused a negative emotional impact on the children. The court agreed with the Father’s petition and concluded the trial, but not before heavily emphasizing that the Mother’s continued struggles with sobriety and unstable living conditions as major factors leading to the termination of her parental rights. The Mother would then file an appeal.

On appeal, the mother argued that a juvenile court can only terminate parental rights if there is clear and convincing evidence of grounds for termination, no viable alternative, and that termination is in the best interests of the children. The appellate court focused on whether a viable alternative to termination existed, while also placing emphasis on the noncustodial parent’s right to maintain a relationship with their child, which may only be restricted by the most narrowly tailored means to protect the child.

The Court examined the custody arrangement that was in effect at the time of termination. Under that arrangement the children resided with the Father, they would only visit with the Mother through telephone calls and could have supervised in-person visitation at a designated location. The Father provided for the needs of the children without requiring assistance, and most importantly, no evidence was presented that showed continued visitation with their Mother would harm the children. Accordingly, the Court concluded that maintaining the existing custody arrangement was a viable alternative to termination.

R.D. v. G.A.W. II demonstrates that the termination of parental rights should only be a last-resort action for the court, unless there is evidence that the child would be harmed. In child custody actions, the child’s well-being is the utmost important consideration. In this case, the Court could not uphold the termination of the Mother’s parental rights because the custodial arrangement could have been continued without causing harm to her children.

When it comes to child custody cases, the court will always put the child’s best interests first. Typically, the court will only terminate parental rights in extreme cases where the child’s safety is in jeopardy. However, without adequate legal representation the court may still terminate parental rights if your attorney does not present a viable alternative.

If you have a Federal Criminal case, a State Criminal case, a Municipal Case or a Family Law case, contact Joe Ingram or Joe Ingram Law, LLC at 205-335-2640. Get Relief * Get Results.