In a case exploring the procedural side of child custody, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals recently presided over an appeal that began in the Cullman Juvenile Court in Cullman County. The case of T.S. v. Cullman County Department of Human Resources and D.W. delves into the admissibility of remote testimony under relevant Alabama law, which permits such testimony only under specific compelling circumstances.

On August 11, 2023, T.S., the mother of two dependent children, lost custody, as the Cullman Juvenile Court awarded legal custody to the Cullman County Department of Human Resources (“DHR”). Following this determination, the children’s grandmother filed petitions, seeking custody of the dependent children. On November 14, 2023, another trial was held. In a series of four separate judgments, the children were deemed dependent, and custody was granted to the grandmother. The children’s mother filed post-judgment motions in response to each judgment, but all of the motions were denied, giving rise to this appeal.

On appeal, the mother argued that the juvenile court erred by allowing the grandmother to testify over Facetime. The grandmother and DHR argued that under Rule 33(B) of the Alabama Rules of Juvenile Procedure, the Court acted within its discretion. Rule 33(B) authorizes use of audiovisual technology in certain juvenile hearings. On appeal, the Court found that Rule 33(B) does not, however, expressly authorize remote testimony for trials involving adjudicatory and dispositional hearings.

Alternatively, DHR argued the admissibility of the testimony under Rule 43(a) of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure. This rule allows oral testimony unless there are compelling reasons that remote testimony is necessary. The Court found, however, that the grandmother did not show compelling circumstances, or otherwise request permission to testify remotely. Instead, the grandmother chose not to travel to Alabama for the trial. In the absence of justification, the juvenile court erred in allowing the grandmother to testify remotely. The testimony should not have been admitted. Since the testimony was a critical component of the Court’s decision, the error was not harmless. Therefore, the judgments were reversed, and the case was remanded for a new trial.

T.S. v. Cullman County Department of Human Resources and D.W. illustrates the intricacies of civil procedure, demonstrating the impact procedural elements can have on trial outcomes. It is important to keep this principle in mind and ensure that any unconventional actions comply with the relevant procedural rules of the court. Noncompliance that materially impacts the judgment risks reversal, extending proceedings and delaying settlement of the matter.

If you have a Federal Criminal case, a State Criminal case, a Municipal Case or a Family Law case, contact Joe Ingram or Joe Ingram Law LLC at 205-335-2640. Get Relief Get Results.