K. W. N. v. S. A. M.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Norice: This opinion is subject to formial revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ( (334) 229-0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter. ALABAMA COURT OF C I V I L APPEALS SPECIAL TERM, 2009 2071163 K.W.N, V. S.A.M. Appeal from Cullman Juvenile Court (CS-07-138) On Application for Rehearing MOORE, Judge. On application for rehearing, S.A.M. argues that the Cullman Juvenile Court had jurisdiction to hear the custodymodification action because, he says, (1) the Shelby Circuit Court conferred jurisdiction on the Cullman Juvenile Court by 2071163 transferring the action and ordering that it be consolidated with a pending dependency action and (2) the Alabama Supreme Court conferred jurisdiction on the Cullman Juvenile Court by appointing a judge to hear the custody-modification action along with the dependency action. We find both of those arguments: unpersuasive . With regard to S.A.M.'s first argument, we note that this court has determined that a circuit court's transferring a custody-modification action to a juvenile court does not confer subject-matter jurisdiction on the juvenile court. C. D . S . V. K ยข S . S . . 963 So. 2d 125, 130 n.5 2007) . (Ala. Civ. App . V ' t regard to the second argument, we note that the \ih custody-modification action had already been transferred to the Cullm.an Juvenile Court when all the juvenile-court judges of Cullman County recused themselves and the Alabama Supreme Court appointed a judge to hear the case. That appointment did not confer subject-matter jurisdiction on the juvenile court. Instead, according to the express language of the supreme court's order, it only conferred the "full authority of a regti-lar circuit judge of Cullman County." S.A.M. also makes an argument with regard to the merits 2 2071163 of the appeal. dismisseo. the Because appeal, we we conclude have no that need to we correctly address that argument. Based on the foregoing, we overrule S.A.M.'s application for rehearing. APPLICATION OVERRULED. Thompson, P. J., and Pittm.an and Bryan, JJ. , concur. Thomas, J., recuses herself.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
