Tc v. Cullman County Dhr
899 So. 2d 281 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A report prepared by a social services agency specifically for a termination of parental rights hearing is not admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule (Rule 803(6)) because it is created in anticipation of litigation, not in the regular course of business for systematic operational purposes.
Facts:
- The parents, T.C. (mother) and B.P.B. (father), were never married and separated around 1992 or 1993.
- In 1995, T.C. asked B.P.B. to take custody of their two children, J.T.B. and T.N.B., which he did for the next six years.
- While in B.P.B.'s care, the children were the subject of three abuse/neglect investigations, one involving him throwing an object that struck his daughter and another where he brandished a gun during an altercation with his girlfriend in front of them.
- In the summer of 2001, B.P.B., citing a need to regain his 'mental stability' after a breakup, asked T.C. to take custody of the children.
- In September 2001, DHR received a report that T.C. was leaving the children with irresponsible caregivers and using drugs; T.C. subsequently tested positive for methamphetamines.
- In November 2001, DHR took custody of the children after confirming T.C. was unemployed, homeless, and the children had been truant for two weeks.
- During the 25 months the children were in foster care, T.C. failed to secure stable housing or employment, completed only one of her service plan goals, and admitted to recent drug use.
- During the same period, B.P.B. maintained stable housing and employment but failed multiple drug screens, paid minimal child support, and verbally abused the children during phone calls, blaming his daughter for his drug relapse.
Procedural Posture:
- The Cullman County Department of Human Resources (DHR) filed petitions in the Cullman Juvenile Court to terminate the parental rights of T.C. and B.P.B.
- At a consolidated hearing, the juvenile court admitted DHR's 'Court Report' into evidence over the parents' hearsay objections.
- The juvenile court entered judgments terminating the parental rights of both parents as to both children.
- T.C. and B.P.B., the appellants, appealed the judgments to the Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a court report prepared by the Department of Human Resources specifically for a petition to terminate parental rights qualify as an admissible business record under the hearsay exception in Rule 803(6) of the Alabama Rules of Evidence?
Opinions:
Majority - Crawley, Judge
No. A court report prepared by a social services agency for a termination of parental rights hearing does not qualify as an admissible business record because it is prepared in anticipation of litigation. Citing Palmer v. Hoffman, the court reasoned that the business records exception applies to records made for the systematic conduct of an enterprise, not those whose primary utility is for litigation. The document's title, 'Court Report on Petition for the Termination of Parental Rights,' and its creation six weeks before trial demonstrated it was prepared for litigation. However, the court found the erroneous admission of the report to be harmless error. The admissible evidence against both parents was so overwhelming—including the mother's persistent drug use and instability and the father's continued drug use, failure to pay support, and diagnosed narcissistic personality disorder—that the juvenile court would have terminated their parental rights regardless of the report.
Concurring - Murdock, Judge
No. The concurring opinion agrees that the report is inadmissible but writes separately to expand on the reasoning. Judge Murdock argues that the very nature of DHR's 'business' in dependent children cases is to anticipate litigation, meaning even regularly prepared reports may lack the inherent reliability required by the business records exception. Furthermore, the report contained inadmissible 'hearsay within hearsay' because it included statements from non-employees (like neighbors and an ex-spouse) who were under no business duty of accuracy, making their contributions unreliable.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the distinction between records created for internal business functions and those prepared for litigation, narrowing the application of the business records exception in termination of parental rights (TPR) cases. By deeming DHR 'court reports' as inadmissible hearsay, the court protects parents' due process rights to confront and cross-examine witnesses. The ruling forces DHR to prove its case through direct testimony rather than relying on a comprehensive but potentially biased summary report, thereby increasing the evidentiary burden on the state in TPR proceedings and ensuring a more adversarial testing of the facts.
