(Ala.1996)).” Glass v. Anniston City Bd. of Educ., 957 So.2d 1143, 1147 (Ala.Civ.App.2006). Additionally, “‘[a] literal interpretation will not be adopted, when it would defeat the purposes of a statute, if any other reasonable construction can be given to the words.’” Limestone County Water & Sewer Auth. v. City d, but nothing in § 26-18-5(b) prevents DHR from filing a petition to terminate parental rights before the 15th month of the child’s stay in foster care. Moreover, once a child in the legal custody of DHR has been in foster care for 15 out of the most recent 22 months, § 26-18 — 5(b) requires DHR to either file the petition or establish that a statutory exception to the mandatory filing requirement exists. See In re Clifford M., 261 Neb. 862, 880, 626 N.W.2d 549, 563 (2001) (<HOLDING>). Section 26-18-5(b) states that DHR “shall”
holding foster parents not liable for willful act of their foster child holding that the trial court did not err in finding that a trust relationship existed between a foster mother and foster child where it found that the child immediately became attached to the foster mother and was confiding in her when she made statements admitted under the hearsay exception recognizing that a nebraska statute requires that states juvenile courts to hold exception hearing within 30 days of 15th month child is in foster care holding that a child has a  1983 action against the state while in foster care where the state is deliberately indifferent to the likelihood that a foster home is unsafe yet places the child there or allows the child to remain there holding that the requirement that an alien appeal a removal order within 30 days is jurisdictional