State Department of Human Resources, on behalf of J.A.S. v. A. G.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 10/23/2009 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e Reporter o f Decisions, Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 2080790 State Department o f Human Resources, on b e h a l f o f J.A.S. v. A.G. Appeal from Mobile J u v e n i l e Court (CS-05-125.01) THOMAS, J u d g e . On October Resources Mobile 29, 2008, ("DHR"), on b e h a l f the State o f J.A.S., Department filed o f Human a petition i n J u v e n i l e C o u r t t o h o l d A.G. i n c o n t e m p t f o r f a i l i n g t o pay c o u r t - o r d e r e d c h i l d support. The j u v e n i l e c o u r t assigned 2080790 the c a s e t o a r e f e r e e , who c o n d u c t e d an o r e t e n u s h e a r i n g A p r i l 20, 2009. The r e f e r e e d e t e r m i n e d t h a t A.G. d i d n o t have t h e a b i l i t y t o p a y and, t h e r e f o r e , t h a t he s h o u l d n o t be h e l d i n contempt f o r h i s f a i l i n g t o p a y c h i l d support. also reinstated administratively support. A.G.'s license, for his failure had t o pay been child adopted the On May 1, 2009, DHR f i l e d a m o t i o n f o r a of the referee's j u v e n i l e court denied The r e f e r e e which 23, 2009, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t referee's findings. rehearing driver's suspended On A p r i l 1 on findings. DHR's m o t i o n . On May 2 1 , 2009, t h e DHR, on b e h a l f o f J.A.S., t i m e l y appealed the j u v e n i l e court's order denying i t s motion for a rehearing. DHR argues on a p p e a l that the j u v e n i l e court erred i n d e n y i n g i t s motion f o r a r e h e a r i n g and t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t e r r e d b y r e i n s t a t i n g A.G.'s d r i v e r ' s l i c e n s e . B e c a u s e we f i n d that the j u v e n i l e court rehearing, we p r e t e r m i t e r r e d b y d e n y i n g DHR's m o t i o n f o r a c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f DHR's s e c o n d i s s u e . A l a b a m a Code 1 9 7 5 , § 30-3-170 e t s e q . , p r o v i d e s , u n d e r c e r t a i n circumstances, f o r the suspension of a parent's d r i v e r ' s l i c e n s e f o r f a i l u r e t o pay c h i l d support. 1 2 2080790 A l a b a m a Code 1975, § 12-15-10 6 ( f ) , provides: "A r e h e a r i n g b e f o r e a j u d g e w i t h a u t h o r i t y o v e r j u v e n i l e court matters concerning the matter heard by t h e r e f e r e e s h a l l be s c h e d u l e d i f a n y p a r t y f i l e s a w r i t t e n request t h e r e f o r w i t h i n t h e time frames provided i n subsection ( e ) . ... When an a d e q u a t e r e c o r d h a s b e e n made i n t h e p r o c e e d i n g b e f o r e t h e referee, the judge s h a l l review the record before rehearing a n d may a d m i t new e v i d e n c e at the r e h e a r i n g . I f t h e r e c o r d i s not adequate, the r e h e a r i n g s h a l l be de n o v o . " Additionally, Rule 2.1(F), A l a . R. J u v . P., p r o v i d e s : "A r e h e a r i n g b e f o r e a j u d g e w i t h a u t h o r i t y o v e r j u v e n i l e matters concerning the matter heard by the r e f e r e e s h a l l be s c h e d u l e d i f any p a r t y f i l e s a w r i t t e n request t h e r e f o r w i t h i n t h e time frames p r o v i d e d i n s u b s e c t i o n (E) a b o v e . Once a r e h e a r i n g i s s c h e d u l e d , t h e p a r t i e s s h a l l be n o t i f i e d o f t h e date, t h e time, and t h e p l a c e o f t h e r e h e a r i n g . N o t i c e t o a p a r t y r e p r e s e n t e d b y c o u n s e l s h a l l be g i v e n t o c o u n s e l a n d s u c h n o t i c e s h a l l be s u f f i c i e n t u n l e s s t h e c o u r t o r d e r s o t h e r w i s e . When an a d e q u a t e r e c o r d h a s b e e n made i n t h e p r o c e e d i n g b e f o r e t h e referee, the judge s h a l l review the record before r e h e a r i n g a n d , i n h i s o r h e r d i s c r e t i o n , may a d m i t new e v i d e n c e a t t h e r e h e a r i n g . I f t h e r e c o r d i s n o t a d e q u a t e , t h e r e h e a r i n g s h a l l be de n o v o . " I n Ex p a r t e T.R., 4 So. 3d 487 ( A l a . 2 0 0 8 ) , t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t c o n s i d e r e d t h e i s s u e w h e t h e r A l a . Code 1975, § 1 2 - 1 5 - 6 ( d ) -- a p r e d e c e s s o r substantially similar s t a t u t e o f § 1 2 - 1 5 - 1 0 6 ( f ) t h a t was t o § 12-15-106(f) -- a n d R u l e 2.1(F) mandate t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t g r a n t a r e h e a r i n g on a t i m e l y filed motion f o r a rehearing and whether 3 the denial of a 2080790 r e h e a r i n g c o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d our supreme c o u r t harmless e r r o r . In that case, held: " R u l e 2.1(F) p r o v i d e s , a n d 12-15-6 p r o v i d e d , t h a t upon a w r i t t e n r e q u e s t f o r a r e h e a r i n g b e f o r e a j u d g e , t h e t r i a l c o u r t s h a l l schedule and conduct a h e a r i n g , i f f o r no o t h e r p u r p o s e , t o p r o v i d e a p a r t y w i t h an o p p o r t u n i t y t o a r g u e why t h e r e f e r e e e r r e d , why t h e r e c o r d i s n o t a d e q u a t e , a n d / o r why t h e r e c o r d s h o u l d be s u p p l e m e n t e d w i t h a d d i t i o n a l e v i d e n c e ( r e g a r d l e s s o f w h e t h e r t h e r e i s an a d e q u a t e record of the referee's proceedings). In the p r e s e n t c a s e , t h e m o t h e r was d e n i e d h e r r i g h t t o a ' r e h e a r i n g ' under t h e r u l e and t h e s t a t u t e . This was e r r o r on t h e p a r t o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t a n d , we conclude, error that 'affected [ a ] substantial r i g h t [ ] ' o f t h e m o t h e r , i . e . , t h e r i g h t t o have h e r case reheard by a judge." T.R., 4 So. 3d a t 490. In denying this case, DHR's as i n T.R., timely filed the j u v e n i l e court motion for a e r r e d by rehearing. A c c o r d i n g l y , we r e v e r s e t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t , a n d we remand t h e c a u s e f o r p r o c e e d i n g s consistent with this opinion. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Thompson, P . J . , and P i t t m a n , concur. 4 Bryan, and Moore, JJ.,

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.