P.D. v. S.S.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Rel: 01/21/2011 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal 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 R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , 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, 2010 - 2011 2090301 P.D. v. S.S. Appeal from Montgomery J u v e n i l e Court (JU-2009-231.01, JU-2009-232.01, and JU-2009-233.01) PITTMAN, J u d g e . P.D. Montgomery ("the m o t h e r " ) Juvenile (collectively, "the Court appeals awarding children"), from a custody judgment of the of her children born of t h emarriage t o her 2090301 former husband ("the father"), t o S.S., the f a t h e r ' s sister ("the a u n t " ) . In father, March the 2009, aunt d e p e n d e n t and the the about a petitioned sought month to after have the the death children custody of the c h i l d r e n . of the declared Additionally, a u n t f i l e d an ex p a r t e m o t i o n s e e k i n g t e m p o r a r y c u s t o d y o f children granted ("the the ex ex parte parte motion"). motion pending The a juvenile hearing court on the d e p e n d e n c y and c u s t o d y p e t i t i o n s , w h i c h was t h e r e a f t e r h e l d i n October 2009. I n a j u d g m e n t , d a t e d O c t o b e r 23, 2009, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t f o u n d t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n were d e p e n d e n t , children to the aunt, and awarded c u s t o d y o f t h e granted v i s i t a t i o n rights to the m o t h e r , t h e t e r m s o f w h i c h were t o be d e c i d e d and a g r e e d upon by the p a r t i e s . That order also provided that the mother's v i s i t s were t o be s u p e r v i s e d b y t h e a u n t o r b y a n o t h e r p e r s o n approved by the aunt. In response, the mother t i m e l y f i l e d postjudgment on motion to a l t e r , November 6, guardian ad 2009, litem amend, o r v a c a t e t h a t to which responded the aunt and i n opposition. the The a judgment children's mother then f i l e d , p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 59.1, A l a . R. C i v . P., a n o t i c e o f t h e 2 2090301 p a r t i e s ' express the time juvenile for agreement t o e x t e n d u n t i l a court ruling on the postjudgment h e a r d a r g u m e n t s on m o t i o n on December 1, 2009, b u t t h a t m o t i o n by t h e end juvenile purported court the On motion. mother's i t d i d not o f t h a t day. to December 1, 2009, The 1 postjudgment expressly rule December 8, amend i t s p r e v i o u s 2009, the c h i l d r e n , at a minimum, during S u n d a y a t 5 p.m. that the from S a t u r d a y third the mother's v i s i t a t i o n upon a g r e e m e n t o f The 12 p.m. be increased or to with until weekend o f e a c h month could the p a r t i e s . at the judgment p r o v i d e t h a t t h e m o t h e r s h o u l d have s u p e r v i s e d v i s i t a t i o n on and changed mother t h e r e a f t e r t i m e l y a p p e a l e d , and t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t j u d g e c e r t i f i e d t h e r e c o r d as adequate f o r a p p e l l a t e review. The mother mother contends custody of the this court denied to raises that See R u l e 2 8 ( A ) , A l a . R. J u v . three the issues on appeal. j u v e n i l e court erred First, in P. the awarding c h i l d r e n t o the aunt. Second, the mother asks address whether by o p e r a t i o n o f l a w her postjudgment so as t o r e n d e r motion was v o i d the j u v e n i l e The m o t h e r ' s n o t i c e o f t h e p a r t i e s ' a g r e e m e n t t o e x t e n d t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s t i m e t o r u l e on h e r p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n c o n t e m p l a t e d t h a t t h e h e a r i n g on t h a t h e r m o t i o n w o u l d be h e l d as s c h e d u l e d on November 24, 2009. However, t h a t h e a r i n g was a p p a r e n t l y c o n t i n u e d u n t i l December 1, 2009. 1 3 2090301 court's order purporting to amend t h e judgment. Third, the mother argues t h a t the j u v e n i l e c o u r t e r r e d i n r e q u i r i n g t h a t her v i s i t a t i o n be supervised by, and to occur at the d i s c r e t i o n of, the We the b e g i n by addressing j u v e n i l e court to the that aunt. the mother's f i r s t argument e r r e d i n awarding custody of the juvenile mother's parental "terminated" to be nonparent court rights w i t h o u t the an was erred unfit because the juvenile that determination would mother says, The terminated the mother the children necessarily be aunt were the of found custody court was 3) to had not assuming based on dependent, incorrect a a that because, the aunt d i d not prove dependency. initially asserts that the her p a r e n t a l r i g h t s w i t h o u t f i r s t an u n f i t p a r e n t . mother's the to 1) incorrectly an u n f i t p a r e n t ; and custody asserts having f i r s t award the determination says, the that of she that children reasons: 2) f o u n d t h e m o t h e r t o be award three were, parent; improper for j u v e n i l e court's first was visitation aunt. I n s u p p o r t of t h a t argument, the mother the her in requiring apparent juvenile court finding that she However, t h a t a s s e r t i o n i s b a s e d on the misunderstanding 4 of the juvenile court's 2090301 decision. 2 The j u v e n i l e c o u r t d i d n o t t e r m i n a t e the mother's p a r e n t a l r i g h t s ; i n s t e a d , i t c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n were dependent. court The t r i a l judge, during transcript reveals the hearing that the j u v e n i l e on t h e m o t h e r ' s postjudgment motion, e x p r e s s l y i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e mother's p a r e n t a l r i g h t s had n o t been t e r m i n a t e d , s t a t i n g t h a t t h e judge d i s a g r e e d the n o t i o n that, " i fchildren are placed with with third parties, t h e r e [ m u s t ] n e c e s s a r i l y be a f i n d i n g o f u n f i t n e s s a g a i n s t t h e n a t u r a l p a r e n t " because, i n t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s view, such a f i n d i n g o f u n f i t n e s s "removes from a n a t u r a l p a r e n t any v i a b l e possibility t o make changes in ... circumstances t o be r e u n i t e d w i t h t h e c h i l d . " I n f a c t , t h e mother, i n h e r b r i e f t o t h i s court, c i t e s that statement i n support of her contention that the j u v e n i l e court d i d n o t f i n d t h e m o t h e r t o be u n f i t . However, t h e m o t h e r ' s r e f e r e n c e t o t h a t s t a t e m e n t her apparent determination misapprehension that the of children the demonstrates juvenile were court's dependent, a The aunt, i n h e r b r i e f t o t h i s c o u r t , a l s o i n c o r r e c t l y t r e a t s t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n as a f i n d i n g o f u n f i t n e s s and a termination of parental rights, instead of a d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f d e p e n d e n c y , w h i c h i t was. The j u d g m e n t , as w e l l as t h e j u v e n i l e j u d g e ' s s t a t e m e n t s made a t t h e h e a r i n g on the mother's postjudgment motion, i n d i c a t e s o n l y t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n h a d been a d j u d g e d dependent. 2 5 2090301 determination t h a t e n t a i l s a much l e s s s e v e r e outcome f o r mother than would a t e r m i n a t i o n of her p a r e n t a l r i g h t s . the mother's argument that the juvenile court s a t i s f y a p r e r e q u i s i t e of f i n d i n g u n f i t n e s s before her parental rights (which did not occur) 3 the Thus, failed to terminating is factually unsound. The m o t h e r n e x t c o n t e n d s t h a t , b e c a u s e t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t did not find the mother u n f i t , custody should not have b e e n a w a r d e d t o t h e a u n t , a n o n p a r e n t , b a s e d on Ex p a r t e T e r r y , So. 2d 628, 632 (Ala. 1986), which case governs 494 custody When a j u v e n i l e c o u r t f i n d s t h a t a c h i l d i s d e p e n d e n t and the c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t of t h a t c h i l d i s d i v e s t e d of h i s or her r i g h t to custody, without a t e r m i n a t i o n of t h a t parent's p a r e n t a l r i g h t s or a f i n d i n g of u n f i t n e s s , t h a t p a r e n t r e t a i n s " r e s i d u a l p a r e n t a l r i g h t s " t o t h a t c h i l d , as d e f i n e d u n d e r A l a . Code 1975, § 1 2 - 1 5 - 1 0 2 ( 2 3 ) , w h i c h " i n c l u d [ e ] , b u t [ a r e ] not n e c e s s a r i l y l i m i t e d t o , the r i g h t to v i s i t a t i o n , the r i g h t to withhold consent to adoption, the r i g h t to determine r e l i g i o u s a f f i l i a t i o n , and t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r s u p p o r t , u n l e s s d e t e r m i n e d by o r d e r o f t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t n o t t o be i n the best i n t e r e s t of the c h i l d . " 3 6 2090301 d i s p u t e s between p a r e n t s and n o n p a r e n t s . 4 In Terry, the court stated: "'The p r i m a f a c i e r i g h t o f a n a t u r a l p a r e n t t o t h e c u s t o d y o f h i s o r h e r c h i l d , as a g a i n s t t h e r i g h t o f custody i n a nonparent, i s grounded i n t h e common l a w c o n c e p t t h a t t h e p r i m a r y p a r e n t a l r i g h t of custody i s i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t and w e l f a r e o f t h e c h i l d a s a m a t t e r o f l a w . So s t r o n g i s t h i s presumption, absent a showing of voluntary f o r f e i t u r e o f t h a t r i g h t , t h a t i t c a n be overcome o n l y by a f i n d i n g , s u p p o r t e d by competent e v i d e n c e , t h a t t h e parent s e e k i n g custody i s g u i l t y o f such misconduct o r n e g l e c t t o a degree which renders t h a t p a r e n t an u n f i t a n d i m p r o p e r p e r s o n t o be e n t r u s t e d w i t h t h e care and u p b r i n g i n g o f t h e c h i l d i n q u e s t i o n . H a n l o n v. Mooney, 407 So. 2d 559 ( A l a . 1981).'" 494 So. 2d a t 632 ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e Mathews, 428 So. 2d 59 (Ala. 1983)). Terry applies between a p a r e n t and nonparent; or c h i l d r e n , 58, i n child-custody disputes i t does n o t a p p l y i f t h e c h i l d t h e c u s t o d y o f whom i s d i s p u t e d , have b e e n t o be d e p e n d e n t , a s i s t h e c a s e h e r e . found See W.T.H. v. M.M.M., The a u n t a r g u e s t h a t a n a t u r a l p a r e n t ' s p r i m a f a c i e r i g h t t o c u s t o d y o f h i s o r h e r c h i l d " c a n be overcome b y c l e a r a n d c o n v i n c i n g evidence t h a t removal from t h e p a r e n t ' s custody i s i n t h e c h i l d ' s b e s t i n t e r e s t s , " c i t i n g S.F. v . D e p a r t m e n t o f Human Res., 680 So. 2d 346, 347 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 6 ) ; Brown v. A l a b a m a Dep't o f P e n s i o n s & S e c . , 473 So. 2d 533, 534 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 5 ) ; a n d G.L. v. S t a t e Dep't o f Human R e s . , 646 So. 2d 81, 84 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 4 ) . However, t h o s e c a s e s t h a t she c i t e s t o s u p p o r t h e r a r g u m e n t a r e i n a p p l i c a b l e b e c a u s e they involve a t r i a l court's determination to terminate p a r e n t a l r i g h t s , which has n o t o c c u r r e d i n t h i s case. 4 7 2090301 915 So. 2d 64, 70 (Ala. Civ. App. 2005) (discussing abundance of c a s e l a w r e g a r d i n g the d i s t i n c t i o n between custody disputes proceeding). children (Ala. be See parent because the j u v e n i l e court found dependent, no Anonymous v. C i v . App. 1986) child- the d i s p o s i t i o n a l phase of a dependency Therefore, to necessary. and the finding Anonymous, (stating that of 504 the unfitness So. 2d 289, a determination i s u n f i t i s u n n e c e s s a r y t o award c u s t o d y was 291 that a to a nonparent a f t e r a f i n d i n g t h a t a c h i l d i s dependent). The t h i r d g r o u n d upon w h i c h t h e m o t h e r c o n t e n d s t h a t j u v e n i l e court e r r e d i n awarding custody the to the aunt i s t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t c o u l d n o t have p r o p e r l y d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n were d e p e n d e n t b e c a u s e , t h e m o t h e r s a y s , t h e a u n t d i d n o t p r o v e d e p e n d e n c y . Under A l a . Code 1975, juvenile court's determination be b a s e d on c l e a r and t h a t a c h i l d i s dependent i s t o convincing evidence. t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n was In juvenile reviewing court a dependency not The mother argues so supported. determination b a s e d upon e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d w i l l not d i s t u r b t h a t d e t e r m i n a t i o n without was See plainly § 12-15-311(a), a and palpably wrong. 8 made ore by tenus, the we a showing t h a t i t J.L. v. W.E., [Ms. 2090301 2090210, J u l y 23, 2010) So. ( q u o t i n g L.A.C. v. Civ. App. Human 2008)); Res., (quoting Ex and So. 2d of juvenile court between review, had 34, could been , the v. So. (Ala. Civ. 3d 322, 2d (Ala. Civ. 475, fact-finding address have the (Ala. by of 2008) ( A l a . 2000)) role of the trial Applying that question concluded established App. 477 of a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w ) . we 326-27 App. C l e b u r n e C o u n t y Dep't 39-40 R.T.S. , 771 standard standard dependency a l s o J.B. parte the 3d T.S.C., 8 So. see 992 (distinguishing court 2010] whether the that the children's clear and convincing evidence. " [ C ] l e a r and convincing evidence i s " ' " ' [ e ] v i d e n c e t h a t , when w e i g h e d a g a i n s t evidence i n o p p o s i t i o n , w i l l produce i n the mind of the t r i e r of f a c t a f i r m c o n v i c t i o n as t o e a c h e s s e n t i a l e l e m e n t o f t h e c l a i m and a high probability as to the c o r r e c t n e s s of the c o n c l u s i o n . Proof by c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e r e q u i r e s a l e v e l of proof g r e a t e r than a preponderance of the evidence or the s u b s t a n t i a l weight of the evidence, but l e s s than beyond a reasonable doubt.'"'" J.L., quoting So. 3d a t ( q u o t i n g L.A.C., 8 So. i n t u r n A l a . Code 1975, 9 § 3d a t 3 2 6 - 2 7 ) , 6-11-20(b)(4)). 2090301 Under A l a . Code. 1975, § 1 2 - 1 5 - 1 0 2 ( 8 ) a . , a "dependent child" i s " [ a ] c h i l d who h a s b e e n a d j u d i c a t e d d e p e n d e n t b y a j u v e n i l e c o u r t and i s i n need o f care o r s u p e r v i s i o n and meets a n y o f t h e f o l l o w i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s : " 1 . Whose p a r e n t , l e g a l g u a r d i a n , legal custodian, or other custodian subjects the c h i l d o r any o t h e r c h i l d i n t h e h o u s e h o l d t o a b u s e , as d e f i n e d i n s u b d i v i s i o n (2) o f S e c t i o n 12-15-301[,] or neglect[,] as d e f i n e d i n s u b d i v i s i o n (4) o f S e c t i o n 12-15-301, o r a l l o w s t h e c h i l d t o be s o s u b j e c t e d . "2. Who i s without a parent, legal g u a r d i a n , o r l e g a l c u s t o d i a n w i l l i n g and a b l e to provide f o r the care, support, or education of t h e c h i l d . "3. Whose p a r e n t , l e g a l g u a r d i a n , legal custodian, or other custodian neglects or r e f u s e s , when a b l e t o do so o r when t h e s e r v i c e i s o f f e r e d without charge, t o provide or a l l o w medical, s u r g i c a l , or other care necessary f o r the h e a l t h or w e l l - b e i n g of the c h i l d . "4. Whose p a r e n t , l e g a l g u a r d i a n , legal custodian, or other custodian f a i l s , refuses, or n e g l e c t s t o send t h e c h i l d t o s c h o o l i n accordance w i t h t h e terms o f t h e compulsory s c h o o l attendance laws o f t h i s s t a t e . "5. Whose p a r e n t , l e g a l g u a r d i a n , legal c u s t o d i a n , o r o t h e r c u s t o d i a n has abandoned t h e c h i l d , as d e f i n e d i n s u b d i v i s i o n (1) o f S e c t i o n 12-15-301. "6. Whose p a r e n t , l e g a l g u a r d i a n , legal custodian, or other custodian i s unable or 10 2090301 unwilling to responsibilities discharge his or t o and f o r t h e c h i l d . "7. Who h a s been p l a c e d f o r a d o p t i o n i n v i o l a t i o n of the law. her care or "8. Who, f o r any o t h e r c a u s e , i s i n n e e d o f t h e c a r e and p r o t e c t i o n o f t h e s t a t e . " "In determining j u v e n i l e c o u r t "'may whether a child is dependent, the c o n s i d e r any c o m p e t e n t e v i d e n c e r e l e v a n t to the a b i l i t y or w i l l i n g n e s s of the parent t o discharge h i s or her r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s at ( q u o t i n g M.E. So. 2d 89, 100 juvenile properly dependent, we clear convincing dependency, The must concluded review 972 2 0 0 7 ) ) . To a s s e s s w h e t h e r t h e the that the children r e c o r d to determine evidence to support r e c o r d r e v e a l s t h a t t h e mother children: 1995; a son son So. 3d a were whether finding of as d e f i n e d a b o v e , was p r e s e n t e d t o t h a t c o u r t . three another J.L., v. S h e l b y C o u n t y Dep't o f Human R e s . , ( A l a . C i v . App. court and to the c h i l d a daughter ("the and the father daughter"), born ("the o l d e r s o n " ) , b o r n i n January ("the y o u n g e r son") b o r n i n September in 1997; had July and a 1998. 5 The I n M a r c h 2009, when t h i s a c t i o n was commenced, t h e d a u g h t e r was 13 y e a r s o l d , t h e o l d e r s o n was 12 y e a r s o l d , and t h e y o u n g e r s o n was 10 y e a r s o l d . 5 11 2090301 mother and the father had separated which time the family was living shows t h a t t h e m o t h e r and the in or around i n Montgomery. children lived 2005, The at record i n F l o r i d a from December 2005 u n t i l A u g u s t 2006, a t w h i c h t i m e t h e y moved b a c k t o Montgomery. I n F e b r u a r y 2009, t h e This of a c t i o n a r o s e when t h e d e p e n d e n c y as 2009. In the father attended and the custody of, c h i l d r e n had "until school he [had died. aunt p e t i t i o n e d f o r a f i n d i n g a u n t ' s p e t i t i o n s and claimed that the to, father her lived children ex parte that the father had m o t h e r and the died; that, c h i l d r e n had been u s i n g recently lost weight and the children hotel ("the room; t h a t had moved the day them before the t h e a u n t c l a i m e d , was the had "unstable" aunt the the "a known allegedly mother had hostile "very son, had mother's o n l y 12 and had claimed, appeared half brother"), the and moved i n t o a h o t e l room w i t h combative"; t h a t the mother's d i s a b l e d of the her the t h a t t h e m o t h e r was drugs because, she to Alabama, m o t h e r ' s a l l e g e d b o y f r i e n d who, drug d e a l e r " ; motion, m o t h e r had after returning March children the b a c k t o A l a b a m a " w i t h o u t n o t i f y i n g a n y o n e " on the in i n Florida with died]"; in Florida until the and half brother a l s o been l i v i n g source of income in was 2090301 the h a l f b r o t h e r ' s S o c i a l S e c u r i t y b e n e f i t s ; t h a t the mother was w a n t e d f o r a r r e s t i n Montgomery C o u n t y , i n E l m o r e C o u n t y , and in Florida; had p l a n n e d t o a r r e s t the mother the t h a t the mother might attempt t o for her a r r e s t s or Montgomery C o u n t y S h e r i f f ' s flee the f o l l o w i n g day; area "become c o m b a t i v e that to a v o i d the and office the warrants p o s s i b l y harm the c h i l d r e n t o a v o i d a p p r e h e n s i o n " ; t h a t t h e m o t h e r had a "known gambling gambling problem" establishments; believed t o be and had frequented t h a t t h e d a u g h t e r , who, p r e g n a n t , had not the local the aunt claimed, been r e c e i v i n g p r e n a t a l care; t h a t the aunt b e l i e v e d t h a t the appropriate c h i l d r e n were p o s s i b l y i n d a n g e r as a r e s u l t o f l i v i n g w i t h t h e m o t h e r ; that, because the m o t h e r had left Florida without with the family. The aunt's ex parte and motion g r a n t e d by t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t p e n d i n g a h e a r i n g on t h e At the undisputed ore tenus proceeding, held in October e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e y o u n g e r son had o v e r 10 d a y s o f s c h o o l , and and notifying anyone, the mother c o u l d p o t e n t i a l l y l e a v e the a r e a contact was lose was matter. 2009, missed t h a t t h e d a u g h t e r had m i s s e d more t h a n 20 d a y s o f s c h o o l , w h i l e l i v i n g w i t h t h e m o t h e r . F u r t h e r , by t h e m o t h e r ' s own testimony, i t was 13 r e v e a l e d t h a t the mother 2090301 had experienced financial t o move s e v e r a l t i m e s on two o c c a s i o n s , d i f f i c u l t i e s t h a t had r e q u i r e d her s i n c e 2005; t h e m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t , she and t h e c h i l d r e n had l i v e d Additionally, the guardian she t h e mother had t r e a t e d acute believed i n hotels. ad l i t e m t e s t i f i e d t h a t , medical although problems t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n had s u f f e r e d , she a l s o b e l i e v e d t h e c h i l d r e n had not received proper medical care while l i v i n g with the m o t h e r . She e x p l a i n e d t h a t , a f t e r h a v i n g b e e n p l a c e d u n d e r t h e custody o f t h e a u n t , two o f t h e c h i l d r e n h a d b e e n p r e s c r i b e d g l a s s e s . The r e c o r d f u r t h e r shows t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n n e v e r h a d medical of i n s u r a n c e w h i l e they l i v e d w i t h t h e i r mother. I n l i g h t those facts, the j u v e n i l e court h a d ample t h e c h i l d r e n dependent. grounds upon See A l a . Code which to adjudicate 1975, § 1 2 - 1 5 - 1 0 2 ( 8 ) a . ( 3 ) a n d (4) ( p r o v i d i n g t h a t a c h i l d may be a d j u d i c a t e d d e p e n d e n t when a p a r e n t to provide parent adequate "fails, medical refuses, care "neglects or refuses" f o r the c h i l d or neglects" t o send o r when a the c h i l d to s c h o o l r e g u l a r l y , as c o m p e l l e d t o do so u n d e r A l a b a m a l a w ) . A f t e r a c h i l d i s d e t e r m i n e d t o be d e p e n d e n t b y c l e a r a n d convincing evidence, a j u v e n i l e c o u r t may a w a r d c u s t o d y based on what t h a t c o u r t d e t e r m i n e s t o be " f o r t h e w e l f a r e a n d b e s t 14 2090301 interests The of the c h i l d . " mother has A l a . Code 1975, § 12-15-314(a)(4). not c h a l l e n g e d the j u v e n i l e court's decision t h a t i t i s i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t o f t h e c h i l d r e n t o be i n t h e custody of custodial the to thus, we refrain from reviewing the disposition. The m o t h e r as aunt; also challenges the j u v e n i l e court's visitation, postjudgment including whether o r d e r o f December 8, the 2009, juvenile purporting judgment court's to alter t h e v i s i t a t i o n a r r a n g e m e n t i s v o i d . The m o t h e r a r g u e s t h a t t h e postjudgment order issued the after j u v e n i l e c o u r t may i s void expiration because, of the she contends, period within r u l e on a p o s t j u d g m e n t i t which was a motion. In o r d e r t o a s s e s s the m e r i t s of the mother's arguments, we must d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s judgment dated O c t o b e r 23, 2009, o r t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s o r d e r d a t e d December 8, 2009, i s e f f e c t i v e , and o n l y t h e n may we d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r the v i s i t a t i o n t o t h e mother awarded R u l e 1 ( B ) , A l a . R. was p r o p e r . J u v . P., p r o v i d e s , i n p a r t , t h a t " [ a ] p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n i s deemed d e n i e d i f n o t r u l e d on w i t h i n 14 d a y s o f f i l i n g . " However, R u l e 59.1, A l a . R. C i v . P., w h i c h i s made a p p l i c a b l e t o j u v e n i l e p r o c e e d i n g s u n d e r R u l e 1, A l a . R. 15 2090301 Juv. P., provides parties, may be which t h a t , "with the express consent of a l l the consent s h a l l record reveals i s s u e d on O c t o b e r 14 23, postjudgment parties had of the Juv. P. motion, agreed after the 2009, w h i c h was of the e n t r y 1, A l a . R. that, final 2009, t h e m o t h e r f i l e d on November 6, days Rule of r e c o r d , " that period extended. The motion appear to a the hearing mother extend the filed period filed within judgment. on a was postjudgment properly juvenile court's Before the judgment the notice within See mother's that a l l which the j u v e n i l e c o u r t c o u l d e x p r e s s l y r u l e on t h e m o t h e r ' s m o t i o n t o December 1, 2009. The hearing on the mother's postjudgment m o t i o n was h e l d on t h a t d a t e , d u r i n g w h i c h t h e j u v e n i l e j u d g e stated i n t e n t t o amend t h e j u d g m e n t t o g r a n t an supervised Florida, visitation where the on t h e t h i r d aunt lived, t h e mother weekend o f e a c h month i n and also to state that v i s i t a t i o n c o u l d be i n c r e a s e d o r c h a n g e d upon t h e a g r e e m e n t o f the parties. postjudgment However, order the until j u v e n i l e court December 8, t h e December 1, 2009, d e a d l i n e had 16 d i d not issue 2009, s e v e n days expired. a after 2090301 The a u n t a r g u e s t h a t " i t i s w e l l s e t t l e d b y c a s e l a w a n d the [ r ] u l e s t h a t " the j u v e n i l e court judge's statements during t h e h e a r i n g on t h e m o t h e r ' s p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n " c o n s t i t u t e [ ] an [o]rder from t h e t r i a l court." 6 In fact, the opposite i s t r u e ; Alabama "cases i n t e r p r e t i n g and i m p l e m e n t i n g R u l e 59.1, Ala. R. C i v . P., have made i t c l e a r 'dispose o f ' a pending post-judgment [that] a t r i a l judge can motion o n l y by e n t e r i n g a r u l i n g g r a n t i n g o r d e n y i n g t h e m o t i o n . " Ex p a r t e 899 So. 2d 244, 247 light ( A l a . 2004) of the facts of record, the order We (first emphasis we a g r e e w i t h Chamblee, added). In t h e mother that i s s u e d on December 8, 2009, i s v o i d . next address whether the j u v e n i l e court's award of v i s i t a t i o n t o t h e m o t h e r i n t h e o r i g i n a l j u d g m e n t was p r o p e r . The mother setting contends forth that the juvenile a visitation schedule court erred i n not f o r t h e mother and i n g r a n t i n g o n l y s u p e r v i s e d v i s i t a t i o n . We a d d r e s s e a c h i s s u e i n turn. I n A.M.B. v . R.B.B., 4 So. 3d 468 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 7 ) , we outlined the applicable law governing a trial court's T h e a u n t does n o t c i t e a r u l e o r c a s e l a w t o s u p p o r t h e r contention. 6 17 2090301 determination his o f v i s i t a t i o n between a n o n c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t and or her children: "[T]he determination of proper visitation " ' " i s w i t h i n t h e sound d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t , and t h a t c o u r t ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n should n o t be r e v e r s e d b y an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t a b s e n t a s h o w i n g o f an abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n . " Ex p a r t e B l a n d , 796 So. 2d 340 a t 343 [ ( A l a . 2000)]. "The primary consideration in setting v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s i s the best i n t e r e s t of the child. Each c h i l d visitation c a s e must be d e c i d e d on i t s own f a c t s a n d c i r c u m s t a n c e s . " D u B o i s v . D u B o i s , 714 So. 2d 308, 309 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1998) ( c i t a t i o n o m i t t e d ) . ' " W i l l i a m s v. W i l l i a m s , C i v . App. 2 004) . 905 So. 2d 820, 830 (Ala. "Although t h i s court recognizes t h a t v i s i t a t i o n i s a m a t t e r l e f t t o t h e sound d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t , s u c h d i s c r e t i o n i s n o t unbounded. T h i s c o u r t has p r e v i o u s l y h e l d t h a t i t i s r e v e r s i b l e error f o r a j u v e n i l e court t o leave the matter of a noncustodial parent's v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s t o the sole d i s c r e t i o n of a c u s t o d i a l parent or other legal c u s t o d i a n o f t h e c h i l d . S e e , e . g . , L.L.M. v . S.F., 919 So. 2 d 307 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2005) ( r e v e r s i n g a j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s v i s i t a t i o n award t h a t p l a c e d t h e f a t h e r i n c o n t r o l o f t h e mother's v i s i t a t i o n w i t h t h e c h i l d ) , a n d K.B. v. C l e b u r n e C o u n t y Dep't o f Human R e s 8 9 7 So. 2d 379 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2004) ( r e v e r s i n g a j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s v i s i t a t i o n award t h a t essentially conditioned t h e mother's right to v i s i t a t i o n w i t h h e r c h i l d upon t h e c o n s e n t o f t h e c h i l d ' s a u n t a n d u n c l e ) ; s e e a l s o D.B. v . M a d i s o n C o u n t y Dep't o f Human R e s . , 937 So. 2d 5 3 5 , 541 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2006) ( p l u r a l i t y o p i n i o n r e v e r s i n g a j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t t h a t made t h e m o t h e r ' s visitation '"subject to any conditions and 18 2090301 limitations deemed to be necessary and a p p r o p r i a t e " ' b y t h e c h i l d ' s g r e a t a u n t , who was awarded custody o f t h e c h i l d ) . " 4 So. 3 d a t 471-72. In A.M.B., supervised the juvenile visitation court as a g r e e d had awarded t h e mother t o by t h e mother and t h e c u s t o d i a n . We remanded t h a t c a s e t o t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t "with i n s t r u c t i o n s t o set f o r t h a s p e c i f i c v i s i t a t i o n schedule s o as to provide f o r reasonable c h i l d . " 4 So. 3d a t 472. the judgment entered c o n t a c t between t h e mother and t h e L i k e t h e j u d g m e n t a t i s s u e i n A.M.B., by the j u v e n i l e court i n this case a w a r d e d v i s i t a t i o n t o t h e m o t h e r " a s may be a g r e e d upon b y t h e [aunt] a n d t h e m o t h e r , p r o v i d e d t h a t s u c h v i s i t a t i o n s h a l l be s u p e r v i s e d b y [ t h e a u n t ] o r s u c h p e r s o n a s may be a p p r o v e d b y [the a u n t ] . " T h e r e f o r e , a s we d i d i n A.M.B., we h o l d t h a t t h e juvenile i n not court visitation mother's judgment, erred schedule, visitation, leave open especially setting because as s e t f o r t h forth a specific t h e terms of the i n the juvenile court's the p o s s i b i l i t y f o r t h e aunt to u n i l a t e r a l l y t e r m i n a t e t h e m o t h e r ' s v i s i t a t i o n a l t o g e t h e r . See Bryant v. B r y a n t , 739 So. 2 d 53, 19 56-57 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 1 ) . 2090301 We also erred in agree w i t h awarding c h i l d r e n . The on the the her the only mother that supervised juvenile visitation r e c o r d r e v e a l s t h a t t h e m o t h e r has c h i l d r e n . A d d i t i o n a l l y , the a u n t was voluntarily the given custody of record the court with the never abused shows t h a t , c h i l d r e n , the enrolled herself i n parenting since mother classes. Although t h e a u n t , i n h e r ex p a r t e m o t i o n , had a l l e g e d t h a t the was t h a t a l l e g a t i o n was l i v i n g w i t h a known d r u g d e a l e r , substantiated at trial. In light of the lack has of mother not evidence i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e m o t h e r had e v e r a b u s e d t h e c h i l d r e n o r had placed was the c h i l d r e n i n harm's way, improper. Cf. Civ. App. parent's J a c k s o n v. 2007) (main c h e c k s and there "had 999 488, So. 2d i n d i c a t i n g that 494 was or reverse the worthless to illegal drug mother use or conversation"). affirm determination However, we children a improper evidence i n d i c a t i n g t h a t the the associated a c t i v i t y therefore no (Ala. limiting been a r r e s t e d o n l y f o r w r i t i n g exposed ever court's opinion visitation v i s i t a t i o n t o s u p e r v i s e d v i s i t a t i o n w o u l d be when t h e m o t h e r had We Jackson, supervised the that judgment the judgment 20 as children as to to the juvenile are dependent. visitation, and we 2090301 remand t h i s c a s e set to the juvenile court with instructions to f o r t h an u n s u p e r v i s e d v i s i t a t i o n schedule f o r t h e mother and t h e c h i l d r e n . AFFIRMED I N PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, P . J . , a n d Thomas, J . , c o n c u r . Bryan a n d Moore, J J . , concur writings. 21 i n the result, without

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.