ALABAMA: S.P. v. E.T., V.T. and State Department of Human Resources
The Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama reversed a Jefferson Juvenile Court judgment that denied a long term foster parent’s motion to modify a custody arrangement that awarded the foster parents visitation and granted the biological aunt and uncle with custody of the child and relieving the Department of Human Resources from further supervision. The juvenile court, finding that the case was more of a determination of dependency, applied the McLendon standard to the case. This court found that because the facts were more of a custody issue, the correct standard to apply was the “best interest of the child” standard. Therefore, the judgment was reversed and remanded for the court to make a decision applying the best-interest standard.
Cite: No. 2040044; 20055 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 785 (Ala. Civ. App. Dec. 30, 2005)
Link to Full Opinion

STATE LAW/Custody/Permanency Hearings

ARIZONA: Veronica T. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security
In a case of first impression, the Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division One, held that in a proceeding for termination of parental rights, the state statutes did not prohibit more than one permanency hearing. The juvenile court held a permanency hearing within 12 months of the children’s entry into foster care, as required by statute, at which time the juvenile court approved a reunification plan. Three months later, at a review hearing, the juvenile court found that the case plan should be changed to severance and adoption. The state filed a motion for termination of parental rights. Six months after the initial permanency hearing, the juvenile court held a pre-trial conference. The Arizona Juvenile Court Rules of Procedure require termination trials to take place within 90 days of the permanency hearing. Accordingly, the mother requested that the motion for termination be dismissed. The juvenile court did so, but also designated the pretrial conference as a permanency hearing. The state re-filed the petition for termination and a trial was held two months later. Thus, the trial was timely if the second permanency hearing was proper but out of time if not. On appeal, the court held that nothing in the statutory scheme prohibited more than one permanency hearing and affirmed the juvenile court's order terminating the mother's parental rights.
Cite: No. 1 CA-JV 05-0038, 2005 Ariz. App. LEXIS 170 (Dec. 27, 2005)
Link to Full Opinion

STATE LAW/Foster Care/Placement Guidelines

WASHINGTON: In re the Dependency of A.K.
The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Three, held that the juvenile court may exercise its inherent contempt authority to exceed the seven-day detention allowed under RCW 13.34, but only when it finds that the statutory remedy is inadequate to meet the juvenile's needs, and that a different period of detention is necessary. The juvenile court had jailed foster children for more than seven days after the children repeatedly ran away from their court-ordered placements. The court held that the exercise of inherent contempt authority had to satisfy due process. Because the court found that one of the inherent contempt disposition orders at issue was not supported by specific findings, and that another order violated due process, those orders were vacated. The court affirmed the remaining two orders of inherent contempt because they were supported by sufficient findings and satisfied due process.
Cite: No. No. 23018-0-III, No. 23211-5-III, No. 23253-1-III, No. 23252-2-III, 2005 Wash. App. LEXIS 3208 (Wash. Ct. App. Dec. 20, 2005)
Link to Full Opinion

STATE LAW/Termination of Parental Rights/Involuntary

TEXAS: In the Interest of J.A.J.
The Texas Fourteenth Court of Appeals held that "infrequent spankings of a child that leave ‘marks’ or visible bruises 24 hours after the spanking" did not provide clear and convincing evidence of a parent's endangerment of the child to justify termination of parental rights. The court found that it is "not a court's function to determine whether parents measure up to an ideal, but to determine whether the child's welfare has been compromised." The court held that the evidence in the case was "both legally and factually insufficient to support a termination of parental rights."
Cite: No. 14-04-01031-CV, 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 10331 (Tex. Ct. App. Dec. 13, 2005)
Link to Full Opinion

STATE LAW/Rights of Birthparents

PENNSYLVANIA: Buccieri v. Campagna
The Pennsylvania Superior Court held that a birthfather was estopped to assert his paternity. The court held that because the birthfather waited eight years before seeking to form a paternal relationship he forfeited any right to demand a paternity test or assert parental rights, even though the fact of his biological connection to the child was undisputed.
Cite: No. 835 EDA 2005, 2005 PA Super 403, 2005 Pa. Super. LEXIS 4176 (Pa. Super. Ct. Dec. 7, 2005)
Link to Full Opinion

Brad in adoption move
Sydney Morning Herald (subscription) - Sydney,New South Wales,Australia
A legal petition seeking to change the names of the children to Zahara Jolie-Pitt and Maddox Jolie-Pitt was filed on Friday in Los Angeles, Pitt publicist ...