B.A.N. v. G.T.B.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 04/08/2011 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 2091086 B.A.N. v. G.T.B. Appeal from C o f f e e J u v e n i l e Court (CS-03-2.03) MOORE, Judge. B.A.N. Coffee child") ("the m o t h e r " ) a p p e a l s Juvenile Court from a judgment o f t r a n s f e r r i n g custody t o G.T.B. ("the f a t h e r " ) . o f T.N.B. We d i s m i s s . the "(the 2091086 On F e b r u a r y 5, 2010, t h e f a t h e r f i l e d juvenile court requesting custody of the c h i l d that and t h a t , awarded c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d . a petition i n the he be a w a r d e d p e n d e n t e upon a f i n a l The f a t h e r hearing, lite he be asserted: "1. T h i s H o n o r a b l e C o u r t i s s u e d an O r d e r i n t h i s m a t t e r on o r a b o u t t h e 1 4 t h d a y o f O c t o b e r 2003 w h e r e i n t h e [ f a t h e r ] was a d j u d i c a t e d t o [ b e ] the f a t h e r o f t h e [ c h i l d ] . "2. [ T h e f a t h e r ] was g r a n t e d v i s i t a t i o n ordered t o pay c h i l d support. "3. Since s a i d Order t h e r e has been a m a t e r i a l change o f c i r c u m s t a n c e s t h a t w a r r a n t s a change i n custody. "4. The ... c h i l d h a s b e e n removed f r o m [ t h e m o t h e r ' s c u s t o d y ] b y [ t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s ('DHR')] due t o v a r i o u s conditions t h a t have p u t t h e ... c h i l d a t r i s k . DHR h a s implemented a s a f e t y p l a n and t h e mother has delegated p a r e n t a l a u t h o r i t y and p l a c e d t h e minor c h i l d w i t h [ t h e m o t h e r ' s ] mother. "5. [The f a t h e r ] avers interest of the temporary custody permanent c u s t o d y "6. [The father] avers that without the intervention of this Honorable Court i r r e p a r a b l e harm w i l l o c c u r t o t h e ... c h i l d , i n that, there i s nothing to prevent [ t h e m o t h e r ] f r o m now c o m i n g a n d t a k i n g t h e ... c h i l d w i t h h e r b e c a u s e t h e r e i s no c o u r t o r d e r s t a t i n g otherwise. "7. The ... c h i l d i s l i v i n g i n t h e home o f h e r g r a n d m o t h e r a n d g r a n d f a t h e r . The g r a n d f a t h e r i s [andwas] t h a t i t w i l l be i n t h e b e s t ... c h i l d f o r h i m t o have pending a f i n a l h e a r i n g and thereafter. 2 2091086 very i l l w i t h cancer. [The f a t h e r ] i s a f i p r o p e r p e r s o n t o have c u s t o d y a n d t h e ... d e s i r e s t o l i v e w i t h [ t h e ] f a t h e r and f a t h e r ] i s ready, w i l l i n g and a b l e t o take o f t h e ... c h i l d . " On F e b r u a r y 6, 2010, t h e j u v e n i l e parte order s t a t i n g , i n pertinent t and child [the care c o u r t e n t e r e d an e x part: " B a s e d upon t h e p l e a d i n g s f i l e d , follows: t h e C o u r t f i n d s as "1. As t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s h a s i m p l e m e n t e d a s a f e t y p l a n , n e i t h e r t h e m o t h e r ... n o r t h e f a t h e r ... s h a l l remove t h e ... c h i l d f r o m t h e c u r r e n t p l a c e m e n t p e n d i n g f u r t h e r ORDER o f t h e Court o r absent e x i g e n t circumstances. "2. I f e x i g e n t circumstances e x i s t [ ] t h a t would w a r r a n t immediate removal o f t h e c h i l d , then t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s may remove t h e c h i l d and s h a l l i m m e d i a t e l y f i l e a d e p e n d e n c y p e t i t i o n . " The j u v e n i l e c o u r t a l s o s e t t h e m a t t e r f o r a h e a r i n g on M a r c h 2, 2 0 1 0 . Following juvenile ore tenus proceedings on M a r c h 2, 2010, t h e c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r M a r c h 3 0 , 2010, t h a t , o t h e r t h i n g s , awarded t h e mother and t h e f a t h e r pendente custody of the c h i l d , w i t h the father having p h y s i c a l of the the c h i l d first foralternating and t h i r d Mondays seven-day o f each b e g i n n i n g on t h e s e c o n d 3 lite custody p e r i o d s b e g i n n i n g on month and t h e mother having p h y s i c a l custody of the c h i l d f o r a l t e r n a t i n g periods among and f o u r t h seven-day Mondays o f e a c h 2091086 month. The juvenile father to report drug screens court to "court and to also any pendente l i t e t h a t m o t i o n was Thereafter, 2010, day the father among joint pertinent or alcohol The issue the frequent treatment mother a final filed vacate judgment; denied. f o l l o w i n g ore other t e n u s p r o c e e d i n g s on A u g u s t entered a f i n a l things, l e g a l custody of r i g h t s of judgment t h a t awarded the p r i m a r y p h y s i c a l custody of the reasonable m o t h e r and t h a t the j u v e n i l e c o u r t c u s t o d y o r d e r and j u v e n i l e court that, drug referral officer." a "motion to v a c a t e " requesting the the r e f e r r a l " f o r random and undergo recommended by t h e " c o u r t ordered child, child, visitation. the same and the awarded the and That mother 2, father awarded the mother judgment stated, in part: "1) M a t e r i a l circumstances p r e v i o u s O r d e r o f J u l y 27, CS-2003-2.02 was e n t e r e d . have c h a n g e d s i n c e the 2004, [ i n ] c a s e number " 2 ) The C o u r t f u r t h e r f i n d s due t o the mother's p r o l o n g e d and c o n t i n u e d d r u g u s e , and h e r r e f u s a l t o a b i d e by t h e p r e v i o u s c o u r t o r d e r , t h e p o s i t i v e good b r o u g h t a b o u t by a m o d i f i c a t i o n o f c u s t o d y w o u l d more t h a n o f f s e t t h e d i s r u p t i v e e f f e c t i n u p r o o t i n g the Also for ... child." on A u g u s t 2, 2010, the father f i l e d a "motion f o r c r e d i t c h i l d support a r r e a r s " requesting 4 t h a t the j u v e n i l e court 2091086 award him support date a credit i n the amount o f $865.84 f o r a l l c h i l d - a r r e a r s t h a t had a c c u m u l a t e d s i n c e M a r c h 30, the juvenile court entered the pendente awarding the f a t h e r j o i n t p h y s i c a l custody 2010, lite the order of the c h i l d . The j u v e n i l e c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r g r a n t i n g t h a t m o t i o n on A u g u s t 5, 2010. alter, On amend, juvenile filed had or 2010, the the August mother f i l e d 2, t h a t motion the n o t i c e of appeal appeal, the 12, vacate court denied her On find August to t h i s 2010, judgment; same day. The subject-matter i s s u e t o be jurisdiction i s s u e s ; we, whether the to enter the 2010. however, j u v e n i l e court i t s A u g u s t 2, judgment. "'[A] l a c k of s u b j e c t - m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n i s not s u b j e c t t o w a i v e r by t h e p a r t i e s , and i t i s o u r d u t y t o c o n s i d e r a l a c k o f s u b j e c t - m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n ex mero motu.' Ex p a r t e T.C. [Ms. 2090433, June 18, 2010] So. 3d , ( A l a . C i v . App. 2010) ( c i t i n g Ex p a r t e P r o g r e s s i v e S p e c i a l t y I n s . Co., 31 So. 3d 661, 662 n.1 ( A l a . 2 0 0 9 ) ) . I n Ex p a r t e T.C., s u p r a , we e x p l a i n e d t h e r e c e n t change i n t h e law r e g a r d i n g the j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s e x e r c i s e of r e t a i n e d j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r c h i l d - c u s t o d y d e t e r m i n a t i o n s when a child has not been f o u n d t o be dependent, d e l i n q u e n t , or i n need of s u p e r v i s i o n : "'Under f o r m e r l a w , "once a j u v e n i l e c o u r t o b t a i n [ e d ] j u r i s d i c t i o n i n any c a s e involving a child," ... "that court retain[ed] jurisdiction over t h a t case 5 to mother c o u r t on A u g u s t 13, the mother r a i s e s t h r e e dispositive a motion 2010, 2091086 u n t i l t h e c h i l d r e a c h e [ d ] t h e age o f 21 y e a r s o r u n t i l t h e c o u r t , b y i t s own o r d e r , t e r m i n a t e [ d ] t h a t j u r i s d i c t i o n . " W.B.G.M. v. P.S.T., 999 So. 2d 971, 973 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008) ( c i t i n g f o r m e r §§ 1 2 - 1 5 - 3 2 ( a ) & 2 6 - 1 7 - 1 0 ( e ) , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 ) . Thus, u n d e r former l a w , "[w]hen a j u v e n i l e c o u r t h a [ d ] jurisdiction to make an initial child-custody determination, i t retain[ed] j u r i s d i c t i o n over a p e t i t i o n t o modify t h a t c u s t o d y judgment t o t h e e x c l u s i o n o f any other s t a t e court u n t i l the c h i l d reache[d] 21 y e a r s o f age o r t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t t e r m i n a t e [ d ] i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n . " I d . a t 974. "'However, ... t h e L e g i s l a t u r e h a s m a n d a t e d a c o n t r a r y r u l e as t o c u s t o d y c a s e s f i l e d a f t e r J a n u a r y 1, 2009: " ' " A c t No. 2008-277, A l a . A c t s 2008, r e p l a c e s ... § 1 2 - 1 5 - 3 2 [ ] w i t h a new Code s e c t i o n , A l a . Code 1975, § 12-15-117, that limits a juvenile court's r e t a i n e d j u r i s d i c t i o n t o cases i n which 'a child has been adj u d i c a t e d dependent, delin[q]uent, o r i n need of s u p e r v i s i o n ' (emphasis added [ i n W.B.G.M.]). ..." "'999 So. 2d at 975 (Pittman, J . , c o n c u r r i n g s p e c i a l l y ) . To l i k e e f f e c t i s § 12-15-114(a), which p r o v i d e s t h a t although a j u v e n i l e c o u r t has o r i g i n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n t o d e c i d e an a c t i o n a l l e g i n g t h a t a c h i l d i s dependent, " [ a ] dependency a c t i o n s h a l l not i n c l u d e a custody dispute between parents." The clear intent of the Legislature was to provide that the j u v e n i l e c o u r t s o f t h i s s t a t e s h o u l d no l o n g e r be d e c i d i n g c u s t o d y d i s p u t e s e x c e p t 6 2091086 i n s o f a r as t h e i r r e s o l u t i o n i s d i r e c t l y incidental to core juvenile-court j u r i s d i c t i o n ( s u c h as i n o r i g i n a l p a t e r n i t y a c t i o n s , see A l a . Code 1975, § 2 6 - 1 7 - 1 0 4 ) . "'... To t h e e x t e n t t h a t a j u v e n i l e c o u r t has p r o p e r l y made an i n i t i a l c u s t o d y a w a r d , o r has p r o p e r l y m o d i f i e d a c u s t o d y judgment under the s t a t u t o r y framework s e t f o r t h i n t h e m a i n o p i n i o n i n W.B.G.M., those judgments remain valid and enforceable notwithstanding [Ala. Code 1975, §§ 12-15-114 and 1 2 - 1 5 - 1 1 7 ] . Any s u c h j u d g m e n t s w o u l d , h o w e v e r , be p r o s p e c t i v e l y m o d i f i a b l e i n A l a b a m a o n l y by t h e c i r c u i t courts, which are constitutionally c o n s t i t u t e d as " t r i a l c o u r t s o f general j u r i s d i c t i o n . " A l a . C o n s t . 1901, § 139(a) (Off. Recomp.).'" K.C. v. R.L.P., (Ala. [Ms. Civ. App. 2090433, J u n e 18, 2010)). 2011] So. The the See 2090797, J a n . 2011) 2010] 3d record , in this j u v e n i l e court (quoting So. a l s o B.L.R. v. 14, 3d 2011] So. Ex T.C., parte , N.M.N., [Ms. ( A l a . C i v . App. (Ala. Civ. 2091064, M a r c h the father's parties February p e t i t i o n as a r e q u e s t t o m o d i f y a p r i o r c u s t o d y As 5, custody r e t a i n j u r i s d i c t i o n to modify a determination only in 7 cases [Ms. App. 11, i n which and 2010, determination. e x p l a i n e d a b o v e , p u r s u a n t t o § 12-15-117, A l a . Code j u v e n i l e c o u r t s now , 2010). case i n d i c a t e s t h a t the treated 3d a 1975, previous child has 2091086 previously been found dependent, delinquent, s u p e r v i s i o n , which i s n o t t h e case here. from the previous custody custody judgment o r i n need o f The "CS" d e s i g n a t i o n i n 2004 shows that the o f t h e c h i l d was d e t e r m i n e d a s p a r t o f a c h i l d - s u p p o r t action. Accordingly, jurisdiction i n modifying So. the juvenile acted Because the juvenile court of the c h i l d . without . 3d a t the custody court lacked K.C., subject-matter j u r i s d i c t i o n over the f a t h e r ' s c u s t o d y - m o d i f i c a t i o n the judgment from w h i c h t h e mother a p p e a l s B.N.H., [Ms. 2090968, J a n . 7, 2011] Civ. App. 2 0 1 1 ) . appeal from "'This a void court judgment.'" i svoid. So. 3d i s required R.T., , petition, R.T. v . (Ala. to dismiss an So. 3d a t ( q u o t i n g Owens v. Owens, 51 So. 3 d 364, 367 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2010)). Thus, we d i s m i s s instructions judgment. to the juvenile R.T., So. 3d a t APPEAL DISMISSED WITH Pittman court appeal, to vacate albeit with i t s void . INSTRUCTIONS. and Bryan, J J . , concur. Thompson, without t h e mother's P . J . , a n d Thomas, writings. 8 J . , concur i n the result,

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.