The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals has reversed a juvenile court's decision that awarded custody of two children to their mother, impacting the ongoing legal battle between foster parents and biological parents. The case, H.J. and J.C. v. S.L., Jr.; G.H.; Sarah Brazzolotto, in her capacity as guardian ad litem; and St. Clair County Department of Human Resources, was filed under docket number CL-2026-0170 on September 18, 2026. The court's ruling emphasizes the importance of due process in custody hearings involving children.
The dispute began when the St. Clair County Department of Human Resources (DHR) initiated dependency actions concerning the children, N.H. and D.H. The juvenile court found the children dependent and awarded legal custody to DHR while granting physical custody to the foster parents, H.J. and J.C. Following this, DHR sought to terminate the parental rights of the children's biological parents, S.L., Jr. and G.H. The foster parents intervened in these actions, asserting their desire for custody.
In November 2025, the children's mother filed motions to dismiss the termination actions, seeking to regain custody. The juvenile court scheduled a hearing for January 27, 2026, to address these motions. However, just days before the hearing, the foster parents filed their own petitions seeking legal custody of the children, claiming that the children were dependent and that it was in their best interests to terminate the parents' rights.
During the January 27 hearing, the juvenile court focused on whether the children remained dependent. The court indicated that it would consider the best interests of the children but ultimately ruled that the children were no longer dependent and awarded custody to the mother on January 30, 2026. The foster parents subsequently filed a motion to alter or amend this decision, arguing that the court had not properly considered the children's best interests.
The court ruled on February 17, 2026, granting the foster parents' motion in part and determining that the children were dependent as to the father but not the mother. Ultimately, the court awarded custody back to the mother, dismissing the foster parents' claims.
In its opinion, the court stated, "The foster parents were entitled to due process in those actions, including the right to reasonable notice of a dispositional hearing." The judge emphasized that the foster parents had not received adequate notice about the nature of the hearings, which deprived them of their right to present evidence and argue for custody.
The court's ruling has significant implications for future custody cases, particularly those involving dependency actions. It underscores the necessity of providing all parties with clear and reasonable notice of hearings that could affect custody decisions. The ruling may set a precedent for how courts handle similar cases in the future, ensuring that all parties are afforded their due process rights.
The foster parents' appeals were deemed timely, as the court found that their successive postjudgment motion raised new issues that could not have been addressed in their initial motion. This decision highlights the importance of procedural fairness in juvenile court proceedings.
Looking ahead, the case may still have further developments as the foster parents could seek additional appeals or related actions based on the court's ruling. The juvenile court has retained jurisdiction over the dependency actions, indicating that further hearings may be scheduled to review the status of the children's welfare.