time of the termination hearing (Alabama) · Go Syfert
← Alabama issues

time of the termination hearing in Alabama

9 Alabama opinions name it 1 courts 2003–2017 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Alabama courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (3)

CaseFollowedCited
In Re KAWgreen
mo · 2004 · cited in 1 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
1 sentence

2015See In re K.A.W., 133 S.W.3d 1 , 10 n. 6 (Mo.2004) (“ ‘[I]t is inappropriate to use prior determinations of neglect as dispositive on the neglect issue at the time of the termination hearing.

11
K.J. v. S.P.green
alacivapp · 2011 · cited in 1 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014
1 sentence

2014Similarly, in K.J. v. S.P., 78 So.3d 994, 997 (Ala.Civ.App.2011), this court determined that the trial court had erred in terminating the parental rights of the mother in that case, noting that the evidence indicated that, at the time of the termination hearing, the mother had been attending counseling, had found employment, and was engaged to be married.

11
Montgomery County Department of Human Resources v. W.J.green
alacivapp · 2009 · cited in 1 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010
1 sentence

2010After reviewing the record on appeal, we must conclude that “[t]he juvenile court erred in implicitly determining that DHR had not produced clear and convincing evidence demonstrating that DHR’s reasonable efforts to rehabilitate the [mother] had failed and that the [mother] was unable or unwilling to discharge his responsibilities to and for the childfren].” Montgomery County Dep’t of Human Res. v. W.J., 34 So.3d 686, 692-93 (Ala.Civ.App.2009) (citing former § 26-18-7(a)(6), Ala.Code 1975, and former § 26-18-7(b)(1), (2), and (4), Ala.Code 1975).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (8)

CaseCitedYears
B.J.K.A. v. Cleburne County Department of Human Resources green
alacivapp · 2009
1 sentence

2017B.J.K.A. , supra. Also, there was evidence from which the juvenile court could reasonably question the mother's credibility.

12017–2017
Mg v. Dhr green
alacivapp · 2009
1 sentence

2012In M.G. v. Etowah County Department of Human Resources, 26 So.3d 436 (Ala.Civ.App.2009), the main opinion stated: “DHR did not present any evidence from the drug-rehabilitation professionals who had treated the mother regarding the depth of the mother’s drug addiction or the extent of her recovery.

12012–2012
Hoffman v. United States green
scotus · 1951
2 sentences

2011Thus, under the circumstances existing at the time of the termination hearing, the mother and the father clearly had reason to believe that responsive answers to the questions posed to them “ ‘might be dangerous because injurious disclosure could result.’ ” Ex parte Baugh, 530 So.2d at 241 (quoting Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. at 486 .

2011Thus, under the circumstances existing at the time of the termination hearing, the mother and the father clearly had reason to believe that responsive answers to the questions posed to them “ ‘might be dangerous because injurious disclosure could result.’ ” Ex parte Baugh, 530 So.2d at 241 (quoting Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. at 486 .

12011–2011
Ex Parte Baugh green
ala · 1988
2 sentences

2011Thus, under the circumstances existing at the time of the termination hearing, the mother and the father clearly had reason to believe that responsive answers to the questions posed to them “ ‘might be dangerous because injurious disclosure could result.’ ” Ex parte Baugh, 530 So.2d at 241 (quoting Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. at 486 .

2011Thus, under the circumstances existing at the time of the termination hearing, the mother and the father clearly had reason to believe that responsive answers to the questions posed to them “ ‘might be dangerous because injurious disclosure could result.’ ” Ex parte Baugh, 530 So.2d at 241 (quoting Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. at 486 .

12011–2011
Ex Parte As green
ala · 2011
2 sentences

2011Although recognizing that the child was dependent because the mother was incarcerated at the time of the termination hearing, 73 So.3d at 1227 , the supreme court reversed the juvenile court’s termination of the mother’s parental rights.

2011Id. at 1229 .

12011–2011
Ex Parte TV green
ala · 2007
1 sentence

2007Ex parte T.V., supra. Evidence Presented at the Termination Hearing The evidence presented at the termination hearing established that the mother, who was 42 years old at the time of the termination hearing, has lived for many years on her own in a suitably furnished and clean apartment with subsidized rent.

12007–2007
K.A.C. v. Jefferson County Dhr green
alacivapp · 1999
1 sentence

2003"The termination of parental rights is a drastic measure, and the courts gravely consider such action." K.A.C. v. Jefferson County Dep't of Human Res. , 744 So.2d 938 , 940 (Ala.Civ.App. 1999) (citing Ex parte Beasley , 564 So.2d 950 (Ala. 1990)).

12003–2003
Ex Parte Beasley green
ala · 1990
1 sentence

2003"The termination of parental rights is a drastic measure, and the courts gravely consider such action." K.A.C. v. Jefferson County Dep't of Human Res. , 744 So.2d 938 , 940 (Ala.Civ.App. 1999) (citing Ex parte Beasley , 564 So.2d 950 (Ala. 1990)).

12003–2003

Statutes the citing opinions construe

AL § Ala. Code § 12-15-319 (4) AL § Ala. Code § 6-11-20 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

IN 669 (1984–2023) IA 655 (1989–2026) NC 207 (1994–2026) MI 121 (1999–2026) PA 69 (2006–2026) OR 39 (1997–2026) GA 36 (1995–2018) CO 24 (1998–2026) NE 23 (2003–2026) AR 21 (2002–2025) TX 19 (1990–2022) AZ 19 (2009–2026) VA 15 (2003–2020) WA 12 (1987–2026) CA 10 (1991–2015) AL 9 (2003–2017) MO 9 (1985–2022) ME 8 (2010–2020) KS 8 (2008–2025) UT 7 (1998–2011) MN 7 (1980–1990) MT 6 (2006–2026) LA 4 (1999–2016) CT 4 (2016–2020) TN 3 (2003–2021) NM 3 (2002–2021) FL 3 (2004–2009) IL 2 (2020–2021) VT 2 (2011–2012) ID 2 (2021–2022) AK 2 (1988–2020)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check