(a) The State or County Department of Human Resources shall make a thorough investigation promptly upon either the oral or written report. The primary purpose of such an investigation shall be the protection of the child.
(b) The investigation, to the extent that is reasonably possible, shall include:
(1) The nature, extent and cause of the child abuse or neglect;
(2) The identity of the person responsible therefor;
(3) The names and conditions of other children in the home;
(4) An evaluation of the parents or person responsible for the care of the child;
(5) The home environment and the relationship of the child or children to the parents or other persons responsible for their care; and
(6) All other data deemed pertinent.
(c) The investigation may include a visit to the child’s home, an interview with the subject child, and may include a physical, psychological, or psychiatric examination of any child or children in that home. If the admission to the home, school, or any other place that the child may be, or permission of the parent or other persons responsible for the child or children, for the physical, psychological, or psychiatric examination, cannot be obtained, then a court of competent jurisdiction, upon cause shown, shall order the parents or persons responsible and in charge of any place where the child may be to allow the interview, examinations, and investigation. If, before the examination is complete, the opinion of the investigators is that immediate removal is necessary to protect a child or children from further abuse or neglect, a court of competent jurisdiction, on petition by the investigators and with good cause being shown, shall issue an order for temporary removal and custody.
(d) The county department of human resources shall make a complete written report of the investigation, together with its recommendations. Such reports may be made available to the appropriate court, the district attorney, and the appropriate law enforcement agency upon request. The county department of human resources shall make a written report or case summary, together with services offered and accepted to the state’s central registry on forms supplied by the registry for that purpose.
(Acts 1975, No. 1124, p. 2213, §1.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
12
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1990–2023 · leading case:
Ross v. State of Alabama, 15 F. Supp. 2d 1173 (M.D. Ala. 1998).
Ross v. State of Alabama, 15 F. Supp. 2d 1173 (M.D. Ala. 1998).
· cites it 8× “For example, DHR is charged with making investigations upon oral or written reports of child abuse, Ala.Code § 26-14-7 (1975), and DHR is authorized to take a child into protective custody initially and without the consent of the child’s parents if the circumstances are such…”
Collier v. Buckner, 303 F. Supp. 3d 1232 (M.D. Ala. 2018).
· cites it 4× “Ala. Code 1975 § 26-14-7 ; Ala. Admin. Code r.”
Love v. Davis, 14 F. Supp. 2d 1273 (N.D. Ala. 1998).
· cites it 10× “Ala. Code § 26-14-7 (a) (1975) (emphasis supplied) (“§ 26-14-7”).”
Tomberlin v. Clark, 1 F. Supp. 3d 1213 (N.D. Ala. 2014).
· cites it 4× “Ala.Code § 26-14-7. At this stage of the litigation, the Court need not determine whether Dickinson followed the statutory prescription meticulously, because Plaintiff has not alleged that Dickinson did anything outside of the parameters for investigation established by Ala.”
Foy v. Holston, 94 F.3d 1528 (11th Cir. 1996).
“Ala.Code § 26-14-7. ("Abuse” is defined as "harm or threatened harm to a child’s health or welfare.”
Decatur City Bd. of Educ. v. Aycock, 562 So. 2d 1331 (Ala. Civ. App. 1990).
· cites it 5× “As of the time of the trial court’s hearing in April 1988, DHR representatives had been to court 170 times to obtain such an order. There have been no denials of the requests for such orders.”
R.D.N. v. A.M.N., 918 So. 2d 100 (Ala. 2005).
· cites it 2× “Code 1975, § 26-14-3, and that DHR *102 was required to investígate the report under Ala.Code 1975, § 26-14-7. The guardian ad litem made several statements critical of the father and of Dr.”
Ex Parte RDN, 918 So. 2d 100 (Ala. 2005).
· cites it 2× “Code 1975, § 26-14-3, and that DHR *102 was required to investigate the report under Ala.Code 1975, § 26-14-7. The guardian ad litem made several statements critical of the father and of Dr.”
M. v. Buckner (M.D. Ala. 2023).
· cites it 3× “Ala. Code § 26-14-7 (1975); Ala. Admin. Code r.”
Adkisson v. Eubanks (N.D. Ala. 2020).
· cites it 2× “’s sexual abuse allegation per Alabama Code § 26-14-7, DHR could not accept at face value A.”
Epps v. Buckner (MAG+) (M.D. Ala. 2021).
“• Published State reviews of DHR’s administration of children services reveal that the majority of DHR workers don’t even know what the CAN Assessment attached to Section 26-14-7(3) Code of Alabama is despite a CAN assessment being vital to DHR’s assessment as to whether an…”
— Ala. Code § 26-14-7(3) — 1 case
Epps v. Buckner (MAG+) (M.D. Ala. 2021).
“• Published State reviews of DHR’s administration of children services reveal that the majority of DHR workers don’t even know what the CAN Assessment attached to Section 26-14-7(3) Code of Alabama is despite a CAN assessment being vital to DHR’s assessment as to whether an…”
— Ala. Code § 26-14-7(a) — 1 case
Love v. Davis, 14 F. Supp. 2d 1273 (N.D. Ala. 1998).
“Ala. Code § 26-14-7 (a) (1975) (emphasis supplied) (“§ 26-14-7”).”
— Ala. Code § 26-14-7(d) — 1 case
Collier v. Buckner, 303 F. Supp. 3d 1232 (M.D. Ala. 2018).
“Ala. Code 1975 § 26-14-7 ; Ala. Admin. Code r.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.