## Facts

- H.B. is the biological mother of H.M.P. (born Jan. 30, 2007) and has a diagnosis of psychotic schizophrenia, for which she received treatment and medication.
- DHR first removed the child in 2008 after reports of unsafe conditions and the mother’s erratic behavior; the mother was hospitalized and later engaged in treatment.
- By 2010, the child was returned to the mother.
- In 2012, DHR removed the child again after the home was deemed unsanitary due to numerous cats; DHR required suitable housing and mental-health stability.
- The mother and maternal grandmother moved into a three-bedroom home, and the child was returned in December 2013 under DHR supervision.
- In August 2015, during service of an arrest warrant on a theft charge, DHR reported the home lacked electricity and running water and was unsanitary; DHR removed the child a third time.
- After the third removal, DHR offered a psychological evaluation, parenting classes, and housekeeping assistance; the mother initially declined services.
- In January 2016, DHR changed the permanency plan to adoption and filed a termination petition in February 2016.
- By March 2016, utilities were restored; the mother began cooperating with DHR, was compliant with medication and therapy, and received probation on the theft charge.
- At trial, DHR presented no evidence the child had been physically harmed or medically neglected by the mother; evidence indicated the child was fed, sheltered, well-groomed, attended school regularly, and was bonded with the mother and maternal grandmother.

## Issues

1. Whether clear and convincing evidence supported terminating the mother’s parental rights based on current inability or unwillingness to discharge parental responsibilities and an unlikely prospect of change in the foreseeable future.
2. Whether DHR proved that no viable less-drastic alternative to termination existed.

## Decision

- The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals reversed the judgment terminating the mother’s parental rights and remanded.
- The court concluded the evidence did not clearly and convincingly establish the mother’s current parental unfitness or that her condition was unlikely to improve in the foreseeable future.
- The court also held DHR failed to prove the absence of viable alternatives to termination, given the child’s bonds and the lack of evidence of harm.

## Legal Principles

- Termination of parental rights requires clear and convincing evidence that the parent is currently unable or unwilling to discharge parental responsibilities and that the condition is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.
- A court must consider and reject viable less-drastic alternatives before terminating parental rights; termination is a last-resort remedy.
- Mental illness is not, by itself, a sufficient ground for termination absent proof linking the condition to parenting incapacity or a substantial risk of harm to the child.
- Evidence of the parent’s present circumstances and progress toward reunification is central; past problems do not alone establish current unfitness.

## Conclusion

The appellate court reversed the termination of H.B.’s parental rights because DHR did not meet the clear-and-convincing evidence standard as to current unfitness and did not show that less-drastic alternatives were unavailable, particularly in light of the mother’s progress, the child’s well-being, and the child’s family bonds.


H.B. v. Mobile Cnty. Dep’t of Hum. Res., 236 So. 3d 875 (Ala. Civ. App. 2017)