R.T. v. B.N.H.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 01/07/2011 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 2090968 R.T. v. B.N.H. Appeal from M a r s h a l l J u v e n i l e Court (CS-08-900001.02) MOORE, J u d g e . R.T. D.F. ("the g r a n d m o t h e r " ) , ("the c h i l d " ) , appeals the paternal grandmother o f from a judgment o f t h e M a r s h a l l J u v e n i l e C o u r t ("the j u v e n i l e c o u r t " ) d e n y i n g h e r p e t i t i o n f o r 2090968 grandparent v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s with the c h i l d . We d i s m i s s the appeal. Procedural History On December 19, 2008, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t e n t e r e d establishing ("the m o t h e r " ) and S.W. child. On 1 juvenile the the p a t e r n i t y of the c h i l d February court ("the f a t h e r " ) 19, 2009, the an and g r a n t i n g joint order B.N.H. custody of the mother filed a motion f o r immediate r e l i e f , i n the a l l e g i n g that c h i l d h a d been a b u s e d d u r i n g t h e t i m e t h a t he h a d been i n t h e c a r e o f t h e f a t h e r and t h a t t h e c h i l d w o u l d be s u b j e c t t o irreparable harm i f the father were e x e r c i s e v i s i t a t i o n with the c h i l d . the j u v e n i l e c o u r t terminate child that there to continue to The m o t h e r r e q u e s t e d t h a t the father's v i s i t a t i o n with the pending a f u r t h e r hearing. j u v e n i l e court entered allowed On F e b r u a r y 20, 2009, t h e an e x p a r t e o r d e r specifically finding " e x i s t [ e d ] a s u b s t a n t i a l r i s k o f i r r e p a r a b l e harm t o t h e ... c h i l d " and t e r m i n a t i n g t h e f a t h e r ' s v i s i t a t i o n the c h i l d pending a f u r t h e r h e a r i n g i n the case. with On M a r c h 25, A c o p y o f t h a t j u d g m e n t i s n o t i n c l u d e d i n t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l ; however, t h e s u b s t a n c e o f t h a t judgment i s s t a t e d by the j u v e n i l e c o u r t i n a subsequent judgment t h a t i s i n t h e record. 1 2 2090968 2009, t h e f a t h e r f i l e d an a n s w e r as w e l l as a c o u n t e r c l a i m f o r custody and a motion f o r contempt. On May 27, 2009, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t e n t e r e d t h e f o l l o w i n g handwritten "Parties notation agree VIP Center; will case-action-summary both complete sheet: cooperative t o a [ D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s ' ] parties court [program]; the they that p a r e n t s & submit study; both on to participate father's visitation & complete family home drug t o be as a r r a n g e d [ b y ] ... f o r m a l o r d e r t o f o l l o w . " T h a t n o t a t i o n was n o t " s i g n e d o r i n i t i a l e d b y t h e j u d g e , " a n d , t h e r e f o r e , i t was n o t a s u f f i c i e n t o r d e r p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 8 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. A p p a r e n t l y , t h e r e was a s e p a r a t e o r d e r e n t e r e d b y t h e j u v e n i l e court that same day that, among other things, allowed s u p e r v i s e d v i s i t a t i o n between t h e c h i l d and t h e grandmother. Subsequently, following 2 on June 15, 2009, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t e n t e r e d t h e order: " T h i s c a u s e h a v i n g come b e f o r e t h e C o u r t on t h i s t h e 2 7 t h d a y o f May, 2009 a n d e a c h p a r t y b e i n g p r e s e n t w i t h t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e a t t o r n e y s and t h e p a r t i e s announcing t h a t a temporary agreement has T h a t o r d er i s n o t i n t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l , b u t t h e r substance o f t h a t order i s e x p l a i n e d i n a subsequent order e n t e r e d by t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t , which i s i n t h e r e c o r d . 2 3 2090968 been reached i n this matter, i t i s therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED, a n d DECREED as f o l l o w s : "1. E a c h p a r t y h e r e t o w i l l c o n t a c t t h e M a r s h a l l C o u n t y C o u r t R e f e r r a l O f f i c e a n d be e v a l u a t e d a n d c o m p l y w i t h t h e M a r s h a l l C o u n t y F a m i l y Drug C o u r t Program and complete any and a l l d i r e c t i v e s t h e r e f r o m . The [ m o t h e r ] i s d e t e r m i n e d t o be i n d i g e n t f o r t h e p u r p o s e s o f t h e F a m i l y Drug C o u r t P r o g r a m . "2. The [ f a t h e r ] s h a l l r e c e i v e v i s i t a t i o n w i t h the minor child supervised at the VIP Center p u r s u a n t t o t h e C o u r t ' s O r d e r o f May 27, 2009. "3. The D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s i s o r d e r e d t o c o n d u c t a n d c o m p l e t e a f o r m a l home s t u d y on b o t h the [ m o t h e r ] and [ t h e f a t h e r ] p r i o r t o a f i n a l hearing herein. "4. The p a r t i e s a r e p e r m i t t e d t o conduct d i s c o v e r y i n t h i s cause p u r s u a n t t o t h e Alabama Rules of C i v i l Procedure." On February following 4, 2010, t h e j u v e n i l e court entered the judgment: "THE PARTIES HERETO, b y a n d t h r o u g h their respective counsel, having advised t h i s Court that an agreement r e s o l v i n g a l l issues now pending b e t w e e n them, a n d t h e C o u r t h a v i n g c o n s i d e r e d t h e same, i t i s h e r e b y ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS: "1. The [ f a t h e r ] s h a l l have no c o n t a c t w i t h e i t h e r t h e [ m o t h e r ] o r t h e ... c h i l d A l l prior o r d e r s r e g a r d i n g v i s i t a t i o n a r e r e s c i n d e d and t h e complete c a r e , c u s t o d y , and c o n t r o l of t h e minor c h i l d remains w i t h t h e [ m o t h e r ] . "2. T h i s m a t t e r i s p l a c e d on t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d o c k e t f o r a p e r i o d o f t w e l v e (12) months t o be 4 2090968 d i s m i s s e d i f no f u r t h e r p l e a d i n g s c o s t s t a x e d as p a i d . " are f i l e d herein, On M a r c h 1, 2010, t h e g r a n d m o t h e r moved t o i n t e r v e n e ; also filed petition, a petition f o r grandparent v i s i t a t i o n . the grandmother a l l e g e d t h a t the w e l l b e i n g c h i l d w o u l d be b e n e f i t e d by a l l o w i n g t h e c h i l d the grandmother r e s u l t without hearing and t h a t an o r d e r on d i s p o s i t i o n a l of v i s i t a t i o n . i s s u e s was m o t i o n t o i n t e r v e n e was g r a n t e d the j u v e n i l e court grandmother's within 10 position that the the her of the to v i s i t with On M a r c h 2, 2010, held an were for visitation. The order effective April mother filed grandmother's a and a r g u m e n t s on M a r c h 8, 2010. entered visitation days, In " g r a v e and i r r e p a r a b l e harm" w o u l d heard r e g a r d i n g the grandmother's request 2010, she On A p r i l reinstating 20, caselaw 2010, 3 the unless, supporting visitation 5, should her be terminated. A l t h o u g h the j u v e n i l e c o u r t had g r a n t e d the grandmother's motion to intervene on March 8, 2010, the mother filed a r e s p o n s e t o t h e g r a n d m o t h e r ' s m o t i o n t o i n t e r v e n e on M a r c h 10, 2010, alleging 3 that the grandmother lacked S e e s u p r a n o t e 2 and a c c o m p a n y i n g t e x t . 5 standing to 2090968 intervene and t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t jurisdiction to grandparent clerical the subject-matter grandmother's petition for visitation. On A p r i l a consider lacked 13, 2010, t h e m o t h e r error i n t h e May 27, filed 2009, a motion to c o r r e c t order, stating that " [ t ] h e p a r t i e s ... h a d no i n t e n t , a t any p o i n t , t o c r e a t e separate child], for visitation right [ f o r the o n l y t h a t she be p e r m i t t e d the Father." On May grandmother] with a [the to provide transportation 7, 2010, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t entered an o r d e r , p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 6 0 ( a ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., c o r r e c t i n g t h e May not but 27, 2009, order to r e f l e c t a w a r d e d any v i s i t a t i o n that she transportation aside the A p r i l visitation had t h a t the grandmother r i g h t s i n t h e May simply been 27, 2009, order to provide f o r the f a t h e r ; the j u v e n i l e court also set 5, 2010, o r d e r with the permitted was r e i n s t a t i n g the grandmother's child. On J u n e 23, 2010, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t h e a r d a r g u m e n t s the on grandmother's On petition f o r grandparent v i s i t a t i o n . J u n e 28, 2010, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t e n t e r e d a judgment denying t h e g r a n d m o t h e r ' s p e t i t i o n , h o l d i n g t h a t i t was b a r r e d by A l a . 6 2090968 Code 1975, f i l e d her § 30-3-4.1(g). notice On J u l y 12, of appeal to t h i s 2010, the grandmother court. Discussion The record reveals that the juvenile court initially d e c i d e d t h e i s s u e o f t h e c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d i n December 2008 "as part was born out parte of a p a t e r n i t y proceeding of wedlock to L.N.K., [Ms. (Ala. C i v . App. the i n v o l v i n g the m o t h e r and the 2090965, December 3, 2010] 2010). child, who father." Ex So. 3d I n December 2008, "only juvenile courts could adjudicate such p a t e r n i t y cases. See f o r m e r § 1 2 - 1 5 - 3 1 ( 2 ) , A l a . Code 1975 ( p r o v i d i n g t h a t j u v e n i l e c o u r t s s h a l l have e x c l u s i v e o r i g i n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n ' [ i ] n proceedings to establish paternity of a child born out of wedlock'). As p a r t o f a p a t e r n i t y p r o c e e d i n g , a juvenile court also could decide custody and child-support issues. See f o r m e r § 1 2 - 1 5 - 3 0 ( b ) ( 1 ) , A l a . Code 1975 ( p r o v i d i n g t h a t the j u v e n i l e c o u r t shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction of ' [ p ] r o c e e d i n g s t o d e t e r m i n e c u s t o d y ... o f a c h i l d when t h e c h i l d i s o t h e r w i s e b e f o r e t h e c o u r t ' ) ; and C.D.W. v. S t a t e ex r e l . J.O.S., 852 So. 2d 159 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2002) ( h o l d i n g t h a t an a c t i o n s e e k i n g t o e s t a b l i s h p a t e r n i t y and f o r an award of child support is within the juvenile court's jurisdiction). " F o r m e r l y , once a j u v e n i l e c o u r t d e c i d e d c u s t o d y and child-support i s s u e s as p a r t o f a p a t e r n i t y proceeding, that j u v e n i l e court retained continuing e x c l u s i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n over those i s s u e s unless i t t e r m i n a t e d i t s own jurisdiction. See former § 12-15-32, A l a . Code 1975 ( p r o v i d i n g t h a t , once a 7 , 2090968 juvenile court obtains j u r i s d i c t i o n i n any c a s e involving a c h i l d , that court retains j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h a t c a s e u n t i l t h e c h i l d r e a c h e s t h e age o f 21 years or u n t i l the court, b y i t s own order, t e r m i n a t e s t h a t j u r i s d i c t i o n ) ; see a l s o W.B.G.M. v. P.S.T., 999 So. 2d 971 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008) . However, i n 2008, t h e l e g i s l a t u r e e n a c t e d t h e new A l a b a m a J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e A c t ('the new A J J A ' ) , § 12-15-101 e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1975, w h i c h amended and r e n u m b e r e d t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f f o r m e r § 12-15-32 as § 12-15-117, A l a . Code 1975. Section 12-15-117 provides, i n pertinent p a r t : "'(a) Once a child has been a d j u d i c a t e d dependent, d e l i n q u e n t , or i n need o f s u p e r v i s i o n , j u r i s d i c t i o n o f the j u v e n i l e c o u r t s h a l l t e r m i n a t e when t h e c h i l d becomes 21 y e a r s o f age u n l e s s , p r i o r t h e r e t o , the judge of the j u v e n i l e c o u r t t e r m i n a t e s i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n over the case i n v o l v i n g the c h i l d . ' "By i t s p l a i n t e r m s , § 1 2 - 1 5 - 1 1 7 ( a ) does n o t g r a n t juvenile courts continuing jurisdiction over children unless they have been 'adjudicated dependent, d e l i n q u e n t , or i n need o f s u p e r v i s i o n . ' Thus, t h i s c o u r t has h e l d t h a t a j u v e n i l e c o u r t no l o n g e r has c o n t i n u i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n over a c h i l d b a s e d s o l e l y on i t s h a v i n g made a p r i o r p a t e r n i t y determination. Ex p a r t e T.C., [Ms. 2090433, June 18, 2010] So. 3d ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 0 ) . " L.N.K., So. 3d juvenile court December at 2008 c u s t o d y We Justice note, . d i d not Thus, retain we conclude jurisdiction that the to modify i t s determination. however, A c t , A l a . Code t h a t , u n d e r t h e new 1975, § 8 12-15-1 et Alabama seq. Juvenile ("the new 2090968 AJJA"), the j u v e n i l e court, an o r d e r "on an e m e r g e n c y b a s i s , may of p r o t e c t i o n or r e s t r a i n t t o p r o t e c t safety of a c h i l d " enter the h e a l t h or A l a . Code 1975, § 12-15-138. I n the p r e s e n t c a s e , t h e m o t h e r ' s F e b r u a r y 19, 2009, m o t i o n a l l e g e d that the c h i l d been i n the care subject had been abused d u r i n g of the f a t h e r t o i r r e p a r a b l e harm continue to requested exercise that the terminated. We sufficient to jurisdiction pursuant conclude invoke under to that § and t h a t the c h i l d i f the father were visitation father's the time t h a t with the visitation that the those juvenile 12-15-138. jurisdiction The allowed the and juvenile i n entering to she child allegations court's had w o u l d be child, with he be were emergency court acted i t s February 20, 2009, e x p a r t e o r d e r s u s p e n d i n g t h e f a t h e r ' s v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s and, subsequently, adopting the supervised i n entering i t s June p a r t i e s ' settlement into a parents. agreement 2009, order providing for v i s i t a t i o n by t h e f a t h e r . A f t e r the j u v e n i l e court entered addressing 15, t h e June 15, 2009, t h e emergency s i t u a t i o n , however, t h e case pure "The custody and visitation dispute c l e a r i n t e n t of the L e g i s l a t u r e 9 order evolved between the [in enacting 2090968 t h e new state A J J A ] was should insofar as no longer their juvenile-court June 18, also not deciding jurisdiction." So. Code 3d 1975, include Accordingly, be the § a Ex , T.C., ("A dispute juvenile court [Ms. on the subsequent except to parents."). to appeals. Lowndes 4 28, 2010, See Eagerton County, subject-matter 909 take and v i s i t a t i o n d i s p u t e petition for June 15, judgment So. v. from jurisdiction, 783, any by 2009, a r e v o i d , i n c l u d i n g which S e c o n d E c o n . Dev. 2d or grandparent- Thus, a l l o r d e r s and j u d g m e n t s e n t e r e d j u v e n i l e court after June see action the order g r a n t i n g the grandmother's motion to i n t e r v e n e the core 2090433, dependency between this 2010); lacked j u r i s d i c t i o n a c t i o n on t h e p a r e n t s ' c u s t o d y visitation rights. incidental parte 12-15-114(a) custody grandmother's disputes ( A l a . C i v . App. any the custody resolution is directly 2010] Ala. shall t o p r o v i d e t h a t the j u v e n i l e c o u r t s of 788 the grandmother Coop. D i s t . ( A l a . 2005) judgment and entered of ("Without in the We n o t e t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t d i d have j u r i s d i c t i o n t o c o r r e c t i t s May 27, 2009, o r d e r on May 7, 2010, p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 6 0 ( a ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. T h i s a p p e a l does n o t c o n c e r n t h e v a l i d i t y o r c o r r e c t n e s s o f t h a t o r d e r , and o u r h o l d i n g s h o u l d n o t be c o n s t r u e d i n any manner as a p p l y i n g t o t h e May 7, 2010, order. 4 10 2090968 action i s void."). "This court a p p e a l from a v o i d judgment." June 4, 2010] ___ So. i s required to dismiss Owens v. Owens, 3d ___ , ___ an [Ms. 2081158, ( A l a . C i v . App. 2010). A c c o r d i n g l y , we d i s m i s s t h e g r a n d m o t h e r ' s a p p e a l as b e i n g f r o m a void judgment, albeit with instructions to the juvenile c o u r t t o v a c a t e any o r d e r s a n d j u d g m e n t s i t e n t e r e d a f t e r June 15, 2009. See Owens, B e c a u s e we 2010, judgment conclude that i s void, s e c o n d argument that her So. 3d a t petition . the j u v e n i l e court's June 28, we do n o t a d d r e s s t h e g r a n d m o t h e r ' s 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 by c o n c l u d i n g for grandparent-visitation rights p r e c l u d e d b y A l a . Code 1975, § 30-3-4.1. APPEAL DISMISSED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, P . J . , a n d B r y a n a n d Thomas, J J . , concur. Pittman, J . , concurs i n the r e s u l t , without writing. 11 was

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.