Code of Alabama

Ala. Code § 26-18-7 (2026)

Grounds for Termination of Parental Rights; Factors Considered; Presumption Arising from Abandonment.

✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaAla. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Amended and renumbered as Section 12-15-319 by Act 2008-277, §19, effective January 1, 2009.

(Acts 1984, No. 84-261, p. 442, §7; Act 97-851, p. 138, §1; Act 98-370, p. 670, §1.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 263 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1985–2024 · leading case: A.D.B.H. v. Houston Cnty. Dep't of Human Resources, 1 So. 3d 53 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

A.D.B.H. v. Houston Cnty. Dep't of Human Resources, 1 So. 3d 53 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008). · cites it 26× “Code 1975, § 26-18-7, limits an adjudicatory hearing to consideration of whether grounds for termination exist based on a review of evidence supporting the factors set out in that statute and other relevant evidence. Whether a dependent child may be placed with a relative is…”

Jl v. State Dept. of Human Resources, 961 So. 2d 839 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007). · cites it 27× “Compare the 1998 amendment to § 26-18-7, Ala.Code 1975, adding subsections (7)a.”

Ex Parte Beasley, 564 So. 2d 950 (Ala. 1990). · cites it 9× “GROUNDS The grounds that must be proved are set out in Ala.Code 1975, § 26-18-7, which provides: "(a) If the court finds from clear and convincing evidence, competent, material and relevant in nature, that the parents of a child are unable or unwilling to discharge their…”

Jb v. Jefferson Cnty. Dhr, 869 So. 2d 475 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003). · cites it 17× “Code 1975,] § 26-18-7. Second, after the court has found that there exist grounds to order the termination of parental rights, the court must inquire as to whether all viable alternatives to a termination of parental rights have been considered.”

Dm v. Walker Cnty. Dhr, 919 So. 2d 1197 (Ala. Civ. App. 2005). · cites it 10× “], shall be terminated pursuant to the Code of Alabama § 26-18-7 et seq. "2. That [DHR] has made reasonable efforts to finalize the permanency plan of adoption.”

M.D.C. v. K.D., 39 So. 3d 1117 (Ala. 2009). · cites it 25× ““Reading the statutory definitions of parental rights and responsibilities found in § 12-15-1 into § 26-18-7 [now § 12-15-319, as amended] reveals the legislature’s intent: “‘If the court finds from clear and convincing evidence, competent, material, and relevant in nature, that…”

J.E. v. V.C.E., 1 So. 3d 1002 (Ala. 2008). · cites it 22× ““The statute [Ala.Code 1975, § 26-18-7, 4 ] requires in subsection (a) that the Court *1006 consider eight factors, which it has done.”

A.A. v. Cleburne Cnty. Dhr, 912 So. 2d 261 (Ala. Civ. App. 2005). · cites it 14× “In determining the child's best interests, the trial court must consider whether a party to a custody proceeding is physically, financially, and mentally able to care for the child.”

Bs v. Cullman Cnty. Dept., Hum. Res., 865 So. 2d 1188 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003). · cites it 11× “§ 26-18-7, Ala.Code 1975. The trial court shall consider whether the parents have abandoned their children, whether the parents have problems with drugs or alcohol, and whether reasonable *1195 efforts to rehabilitate the parents have failed.”

Me v. Shelby Cnty. Dhr, 972 So. 2d 89 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007). · cites it 10× “For a finding of dependency, the court must consider whether there are grounds for terminating the parental rights, including but not limited to the grounds specified in § 26-18-7. 564 So.2d at 954 . After making a finding of dependency, the court must ensure that `all viable…”

Ex Parte State Dept. of Human Resources, 890 So. 2d 114 (Ala. 2004). · cites it 11× “Therefore, we agree with the Court of Civil Appeals that a proceeding to terminate a parent's rights pursuant to § 26-18-7, Ala.Code 1975, is an adjudication.”

C.V. v. J.M.J., 810 So. 2d 700 (Ala. 2001). · cites it 22× “Ala.Code 1975, § 26-18-7. Initially, the law favors the natural parents of a child by presuming that a child’s best interests are served by placing the child in the custody of its natural parents.”

Show all 263 citing cases →

— Ala. Code § 26-18-7(1) — 2 cases

K.W.J. v. J.W.B., 933 So. 2d 1075 (Ala. Civ. App. 2005).

Kwj v. Jwb, 933 So. 2d 1075 (Ala. Civ. App. 2005).

— Ala. Code § 26-18-7(4) — 1 case

Jl v. State Dept. of Human Resources, 961 So. 2d 839 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007). “Compare the 1998 amendment to § 26-18-7, Ala.Code 1975, adding subsections (7)a.”

— Ala. Code § 26-18-7(6) — 1 case

Jl v. State Dept. of Human Resources, 961 So. 2d 839 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007). “Compare the 1998 amendment to § 26-18-7, Ala.Code 1975, adding subsections (7)a.”

— Ala. Code § 26-18-7(a) — 124 cases

A.D.B.H. v. Houston Cnty. Dep't of Human Resources, 1 So. 3d 53 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008). “Code 1975, § 26-18-7, limits an adjudicatory hearing to consideration of whether grounds for termination exist based on a review of evidence supporting the factors set out in that statute and other relevant evidence. Whether a dependent child may be placed with a relative is…”

Jb v. Jefferson Cnty. Dhr, 869 So. 2d 475 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003). “Code 1975,] § 26-18-7. Second, after the court has found that there exist grounds to order the termination of parental rights, the court must inquire as to whether all viable alternatives to a termination of parental rights have been considered.”

A.A. v. Cleburne Cnty. Dhr, 912 So. 2d 261 (Ala. Civ. App. 2005). “In determining the child's best interests, the trial court must consider whether a party to a custody proceeding is physically, financially, and mentally able to care for the child.”

Dm v. Walker Cnty. Dhr, 919 So. 2d 1197 (Ala. Civ. App. 2005). “], shall be terminated pursuant to the Code of Alabama § 26-18-7 et seq. "2. That [DHR] has made reasonable efforts to finalize the permanency plan of adoption.”

Ex Parte State Dept. of Human Resources, 890 So. 2d 114 (Ala. 2004). “Therefore, we agree with the Court of Civil Appeals that a proceeding to terminate a parent's rights pursuant to § 26-18-7, Ala.Code 1975, is an adjudication.”

— Ala. Code § 26-18-7(a)(1) — 23 cases

Ex Parte Beasley, 564 So. 2d 950 (Ala. 1990). “GROUNDS The grounds that must be proved are set out in Ala.Code 1975, § 26-18-7, which provides: "(a) If the court finds from clear and convincing evidence, competent, material and relevant in nature, that the parents of a child are unable or unwilling to discharge their…”

Jl v. State Dept. of Human Resources, 961 So. 2d 839 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007). “Compare the 1998 amendment to § 26-18-7, Ala.Code 1975, adding subsections (7)a.”

G.P. v. Houston Cnty. Dep't of Human Resources, 42 So. 3d 112 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010).

HH v. Baldwin Cnty. DHR, 989 So. 2d 1094 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008).

— Ala. Code § 26-18-7(a)(2) — 10 cases

C.S.B. v. State Dep't of Human Resources, 26 So. 3d 426 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009).

A.R. v. State Dep't of Human Resources, 992 So. 2d 748 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008).

K.J. v. Tuscaloosa Cnty. Dep't of Human Resources, 13 So. 3d 971 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008).

M.G. v. Etowah Cnty. Dep't of Human Resources, 26 So. 3d 436 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009).

M. M. v. State Dep't of Human Resources, 689 So. 2d 174 (Ala. Civ. App. 1997).

— Ala. Code § 26-18-7(a)(3) — 8 cases

B.M. v. State, 895 So. 2d 319 (Ala. Civ. App. 2004).

S.D.P. v. U.R.S., 18 So. 3d 936 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009).

T.G. v. Houston Cnty. Dep't of Human Resources, 6 So. 3d 1182 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008).

L.T. v. W.L., 47 So. 3d 1241 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009).

Ex Parte CV, 810 So. 2d 700 (Ala. 2001).

— Ala. Code § 26-18-7(a)(4) — 14 cases

Jl v. State Dept. of Human Resources, 961 So. 2d 839 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007). “Compare the 1998 amendment to § 26-18-7, Ala.Code 1975, adding subsections (7)a.”

K.P. v. Etowah Cnty. Dep't of Human Resources, 43 So. 3d 602 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010).

J.F.S. v. Mobile Cnty. Dep't of Human Resources, 38 So. 3d 75 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009).

Glc v. State Dept. of Human Resources, 777 So. 2d 706 (Ala. Civ. App. 2000).

S.D.P. v. U.R.S., 18 So. 3d 936 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009).

— Ala. Code § 26-18-7(a)(5) — 3 cases

B.M. v. State, 895 So. 2d 319 (Ala. Civ. App. 2004).

T.G. v. Houston Cnty. Dep't of Human Resources, 6 So. 3d 1182 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008).

BM v. State, 895 So. 2d 319 (Ala. Civ. App. 2004).

— Ala. Code § 26-18-7(a)(6) — 36 cases

D.A. v. Calhoun Cnty. Dhr, 892 So. 2d 963 (Ala. Civ. App. 2004).

HH v. Baldwin Cnty. DHR, 989 So. 2d 1094 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008).

Jl v. State Dept. of Human Resources, 961 So. 2d 839 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007). “Compare the 1998 amendment to § 26-18-7, Ala.Code 1975, adding subsections (7)a.”

State Dept. of Human Resources v. Ak, 851 So. 2d 1 (Ala. Civ. App. 2002).

— Ala. Code § 26-18-7(a)(7) — 1 case

Hemrick v. State, 922 So. 2d 967 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005).

— Ala. Code § 26-18-7(a)(8) — 3 cases

C.S.B. v. State Dep't of Human Resources, 26 So. 3d 426 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009).

K.J. v. Tuscaloosa Cnty. Dep't of Human Resources, 13 So. 3d 971 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008).

— Ala. Code § 26-18-7(a)(l) — 9 cases

J.E. v. V.C.E., 1 So. 3d 1002 (Ala. 2008). ““The statute [Ala.Code 1975, § 26-18-7, 4 ] requires in subsection (a) that the Court *1006 consider eight factors, which it has done.”

F.P. v. J.K.M., 857 So. 2d 125 (Ala. 2003).

A.J.H.T. v. K.O.H., 983 So. 2d 394 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007).

S.D.P. v. U.R.S., 18 So. 3d 936 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009).

B.J.C. v. D.E., 874 So. 2d 1109 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003).

— Ala. Code § 26-18-7(b) — 49 cases

J.E. v. V.C.E., 1 So. 3d 1002 (Ala. 2008). ““The statute [Ala.Code 1975, § 26-18-7, 4 ] requires in subsection (a) that the Court *1006 consider eight factors, which it has done.”

Me v. Shelby Cnty. Dhr, 972 So. 2d 89 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007). “For a finding of dependency, the court must consider whether there are grounds for terminating the parental rights, including but not limited to the grounds specified in § 26-18-7. 564 So.2d at 954 . After making a finding of dependency, the court must ensure that `all viable…”

J.A. v. Etowah Cnty. Dep't of Human Resources, 12 So. 3d 1245 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009).

— Ala. Code § 26-18-7(b)(1) — 10 cases

Jefferson Cnty. Dep't of Human Resources v. L.S., 60 So. 3d 308 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010).

C.V. v. J.M.J., 810 So. 2d 700 (Ala. 2001). “Ala.Code 1975, § 26-18-7. Initially, the law favors the natural parents of a child by presuming that a child’s best interests are served by placing the child in the custody of its natural parents.”

Montgomery Cnty. Dep't of Human Resources v. W.J., 34 So. 3d 686 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009).

Na v. Jh, 571 So. 2d 1130 (Ala. Civ. App. 1990).

— Ala. Code § 26-18-7(b)(2) — 2 cases

Bs v. Cullman Cnty. Dept., Hum. Res., 865 So. 2d 1188 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003). “§ 26-18-7, Ala.Code 1975. The trial court shall consider whether the parents have abandoned their children, whether the parents have problems with drugs or alcohol, and whether reasonable *1195 efforts to rehabilitate the parents have failed.”

— Ala. Code § 26-18-7(b)(3) — 5 cases

A.J.H.T. v. K.O.H., 983 So. 2d 394 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007).

W.W. v. Clay Cnty. Dep't of Human Resources, 656 So. 2d 870 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995).

Ajht v. Koh, 983 So. 2d 394 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007).

J.N. v. Calhoun Cnty. Dep't of Human Resources, 706 So. 2d 1265 (Ala. Civ. App. 1997).

— Ala. Code § 26-18-7(b)(4) — 16 cases

A.R. v. State Dep't of Human Resources, 992 So. 2d 748 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008).

Montgomery Cnty. Dep't of Human Resources v. W.J., 34 So. 3d 686 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009).

Jefferson Cnty. Dep't of Human Resources v. L.S., 60 So. 3d 308 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010).

— Ala. Code § 26-18-7(b)(l) — 2 cases

A.J.H.T. v. K.O.H., 983 So. 2d 394 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007).

N.A. v. J.H., 571 So. 2d 1130 (Ala. 1990).

— Ala. Code § 26-18-7(c) — 26 cases

J.B. v. DeKalb Cnty. Dep't of Human Resources, 12 So. 3d 100 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008).

A.J.H.T. v. K.O.H., 983 So. 2d 394 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007).

K.H.M. v. D.l.i., Jr., 895 So. 2d 950 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003).

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.