A.S. v. C.M.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 4/08/11 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, 2010-2011 2091107 A.S. v. C.M. Appeal from Elmore J u v e n i l e Court (JU-09-405) THOMAS, J u d g e . A.S. ("the m o t h e r " ) C i r c u i t Court appeals t h e judgment o f t h e Elmore ("the c i r c u i t c o u r t " ) the Elmore J u v e n i l e Court r e v e r s i n g t h e judgment o f ("the j u v e n i l e c o u r t " ) C.M. ("the f a t h e r " ) c u s t o d y and g r a n t i n g o f t h e p a r t i e s ' m i n o r c h i l d ("the 2091107 child"). We dismiss the appeal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Facts and P r o c e d u r a l History The p a r t i e s became r o m a n t i c a l l y i n v o l v e d a t a y o u n g age, and, although the p a r t i e s never married, t h e p a r t i e s on M a r c h 15, 2006. A f t e r t h e c h i l d was b o r n , t h e p a r t i e s moved i n t o a home t o g e t h e r . March or A p r i l since that The p a r t i e s s e p a r a t e d i n 2008, and t h e c h i l d has l i v e d w i t h the mother time. The r e c o r d history t h e c h i l d was b o r n t o of t h i s court had case. recognized court on a p p e a l i s s c a n t In i t s final that, ordered the concerning the on November father judgment, 18, t o pay amount o f $357 t o t h e m o t h e r ; t h a t 2008, child procedural the the juvenile support judgment circuit i n the i s not i n the record. On J u l y 9, 2009, t h e f a t h e r f i l e d i n t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t a p l e a d i n g t i t l e d " p e t i t i o n t o d e t e r m i n e p a t e r n i t y , c u s t o d y , and the award o f c h i l d s u p p o r t . " As t h e t i t l e o f t h e m o t i o n w o u l d suggest, the father requested the c i r c u i t court that "enter the father an o r d e r i s the granting "natural father" the father 2 of the care, to determine the child, custody, to and 2091107 control" of the c h i l d , support. August The m o t h e r f i l e d 21, 2009. "[p]aternity paternity of the father test has the n a t u r a l has both parties the never also 2008, established. performed." f a t h e r of the c h i l d , a judicial support. determination father the father the to "enter mother an o r d e r c u s t o d y and c o n t r o l o f t h e m i n o r the n a t u r a l mentioned The that of the c h i l d , as t h e n a t u r a l juvenile Although In their court's both of pleadings, November 18, order. circuit "for the father On O c t o b e r 26, 2009, w i t h o u t a r e q u e s t f r o m e i t h e r the A t o determine that the f a t h e r i s , recognized party that court requested i s , i n fact, stated been c h i l d i n t h e i r respective pleadings. neither been and t o o r d e r t h e f a t h e r p a y c h i l d parties father t h e mother on never g r a n t i n g t h e mother t h e c a r e , child," child an answer and c o u n t e r p e t i t i o n I n her pleading, requested the c i r c u i t in fact, and t o o r d e r t h e m o t h e r t o p a y further court t r a n s f e r r e d the case t o the j u v e n i l e proceedings pursuant to the Uniform party, court Parentage Act." The c a s e was t r i e d i n t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t 2010, and t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t on F e b r u a r y 25, e n t e r e d a j u d g m e n t on M a r c h 16, 3 2091107 2010, a w a r d i n g c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d the t o the mother. Neither t r a n s c r i p t o f t h e F e b r u a r y 25, 2010, p r o c e e d i n g s n o r t h e juvenile record. court's March 16, 2010, judgment appears On M a r c h 24, 2010, t h e f a t h e r a p p e a l e d t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s judgment t o t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t p u r s u a n t t o R u l e Ala. R. i n the 28(B), J u v . P. The c i r c u i t c o u r t h e l d an o r e t e n u s t r i a l 15, 2010, and, on J u l y 28, 2010, e n t e r e d the c i r c u i t court t i t l e d "order modifying de novo on J u l y i t s judgment, w h i c h physical custody," r e v e r s i n g t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s M a r c h 16, 2010, j u d g m e n t . circuit court held, i n pertinent part: "The A l a b a m a C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s h a s h e l d t h a t an a w a r d o f c h i l d s u p p o r t t o one p a r t y i s an a w a r d o f c u s t o d y t o t h a t p a r t y . See T.B. v. C.D.L, 910 So. 2d 794 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 5 ) , and M.R.J. v. D.R.B., 17 So. 3d. 683 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 9 ) . On November [ 1 8 ] , 2008, R e f e r e e P a u l H i e b e l a w a r d e d c h i l d s u p p o r t o f $357.00 p e r month t o [ t h e m o t h e r ] f o r t h e b e n e f i t o f [ t h e c h i l d ] . T h e r e i s no i n d i c a t i o n i n t h a t o r d e r n o r i n t h e f i l e t h a t t h e R e f e r e e i n t e n d e d t o award either party custody. Furthermore, the petition f i l e d i n t h a t case d i d not request t h a t e i t h e r p a r t y be granted custody. Section 30-3-150 Code of A l a b a m a , 1975, s t a t e s t h a t j o i n t c u s t o d y i s t h e p o l i c y of t h i s s t a t e . S e c t i o n 30-3-151 Code o f A l a b a m a , 1975, d e f i n e s j o i n t c u s t o d y as ' j o i n t l e g a l custody and joint physical custody.' Section 30-3-155 Code o f A l a b a m a , 1975, e s t a b l i s h e s t h a t R u l e 3 2 [ , A l a . R. J u d . Admin.,] s h o u l d be u s e d t o e s t a b l i s h c h i l d s u p p o r t . Thus, i t w o u l d seem t h a t t h e J u v e n i l e C o u r t ' s c h i l d s u p p o r t o r d e r o f November 4 The 2091107 18, 2008, s h o u l d n o t be u s e d t o i n f e r t h a t t h e J u v e n i l e C o u r t awarded a n y t h i n g o t h e r than j o i n t custody to the p a r t i e s . However, b a s e d on t h e mandates o f t h e C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s , t h i s C o u r t w i l l a p p l y and does a p p l y t h e [Ex p a r t e ] M c L e n d o n [ , 455 So. 2d 863 ( A l a . 1984),] s t a n d a r d t o [the father's] p e t i t i o n f o r custody." The circuit c o u r t went substantial [entry awarding of on and m a t e r i a l the juvenile to hold change that "there i n circumstances c o u r t ' s November c h i l d support i n t h i s 18, been a since the 2008, order] c a s e " and t h a t " t h e change o f custody would m a t e r i a l l y promote t h e c h i l d ' s b e s t The m o t h e r f i l e d has a postjudgment motion pursuant 5 9 ( e ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., on A u g u s t 6, 2010, w h i c h c o u r t d e n i e d on A u g u s t 10, 2010. interest." to Rule the c i r c u i t The m o t h e r t i m e l y f i l e d h e r appeal to t h i s court. Discussion First, the mother argues 12-15-114(a), subject-matter A l a . Code on a p p e a l 1975, jurisdiction to the enter that, juvenile pursuant court i t s March 16, to § lacked 2010, j u d g m e n t d e t e r m i n i n g c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d and, t h u s , t h a t t h i s a p p e a l must be d i s m i s s e d . We agree. A l t h o u g h t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s November 18, 2008, j u d g m e n t i s n o t i n t h e r e c o r d , o u r supreme c o u r t h a s h e l d t h a t an o r d e r 5 2091107 r e q u i r i n g a man t o p a y c h i l d determination support of p a t e r n i t y . See i s an i m p l i c i t Ex parte judicial State G.M.F., 623 So. 2d 722, 723 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) ( h o l d i n g ex t h a t an o r d e r r e q u i r i n g a man t o p a y c h i l d s u p p o r t was an i m p l i c i t determination finality"). of paternity qualifying for circuit "judicial res judicata T h e r e f o r e , we t r e a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s November 18, 2008, judgment a s a j u d i c i a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n paternity r e l . as t o t h e c h i l d . court's 1 Further, J u l y 28, 2010, o r d e r of the f a t h e r ' s i t i s c l e a r from the that the c i r c u i t court t r e a t e d t h e f a t h e r ' s J u l y 9, 2009, p l e a d i n g a s a p e t i t i o n t o m o d i f y t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s November 18, 2008, j u d g m e n t . Ex p a r t e (Ala. the T.C. , [Ms. 2090433, June 18, 2010] So. 3d C i v . App. 2 0 1 0 ) , we e x p l a i n e d t h e r e c e n t law r e g a r d i n g jurisdiction over a juvenile court's exercise child-custody determinations h a s n o t b e e n f o u n d t o be d e p e n d e n t , d e l i n q u e n t , In , change i n of when retained a child o r i n need o f supervision: We n o t e t h a t t h e p a r t i e s ' r e s p e c t i v e r e q u e s t s t h a t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t d e t e r m i n e t h e f a t h e r ' s p a t e r n i t y as t o t h e c h i l d were inconsequential because the issue had apparently p r e v i o u s l y b e e n d e c i d e d b y t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t i n i t s November 18, 2008, j u d g m e n t . A d d i t i o n a l l y , as s t a t e d a b o v e , b o t h p a r t i e s have a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t t h e f a t h e r i s t h e n a t u r a l father of the c h i l d . 1 6 2091107 "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 obtain[ed] jurisdiction i n any case i n v o l v i n g a c h i l d , ' ... ' t h a t c o u r t r e t a i n [ e d ] 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 [ d ] t h e age o f 21 years or u n t i l the court, 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. 2 d 971, 973 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 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 f o r m e r l a w , '[w]hen a j u v e n i l e court ha[d] j u r i s d i c t i o n t o 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 custody judgment t o t h e e x c l u s i o n o f any o t h e r s t a t e c o u r t u n t i l t h e c h i l d r e a c h e [ d ] 21 y e a r s o f age o r t h e j u v e n i l e court terminate[d] i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n . ' I d . a t 974. . "However, a s t h e s p e c i a l c o n c u r r e n c e i n W.B.G.M. n o t e d , t h e L e g i s l a t u r e has mandated 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: "'Act No. 2008-277, A l a . Acts 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, t h a t limits a juvenile court's retained j u r i s d i c t i o n t o c a s e s i n w h i c h "a c h i l d h a s 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 " (emphasis added [ i n W.B.G.M.]). "999 So. 2 d a t 975 ( P i t t m a n , J . , concurring specially). To l i k e e f f e c t i s § 1 2 - 1 5 - 1 1 4 ( a ) , w h i c h p r o v i d e s t h a t a l t h o u g h 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 n o t i n c l u d e a custody d i s p u t e b e t w e e n p a r e n t s . ' The c l e a r i n t e n t o f t h e L e g i s l a t u r e was t o p r o v i d e t h a t t h e 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 i n s o f a r a s 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 i n c i d e n t a l t o core j u v e n i l e court j u r i s d i c t i o n (such 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 , s e e A l a . Code 1975, § 2 6 - 1 7 - 1 0 4 ) . 7 2091107 "... 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 h a s p r o p e r l y made an i n i t i a l custody award, o r h a s properly modified a custody judgment under t h e s t a t u t o r y framework s e t f o r t h i n the main o p i n i o n i n W.B.G.M., those judgments remain valid and enforceable notwithstanding [ A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , §§ 12-15-114 a n d 1 2 - 1 5 - 1 1 7 ] . A n y 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 c o u r t s , w h i c h a r e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y constituted as 'trial court[s] of general j u r i s d i c t i o n . ' A l a . C o n s t . 1 9 0 1 , § 139(a) (Off. Recomp.)." Ex p a r t e In T.C., So. 3d a t the present case, modification petition As this court jurisdiction court circuit circuit properly court sua i n T.C., t h e c i r c u i t sponte, transferred to the juvenile court T.T.W., 899 So. court, of jurisdiction 2 d 1018, over had t r a n s f e r r e d The c i r c u i t thereby divesting the t h e case. 1020 ( A l a . C i v . App. i t to the c i r c u i t p u r s u a n t t o § 12-15-117, A l a . Code 1975, court had the modification t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t had l o s t j u r i s d i c t i o n it filed his on J u l y 9, 2009. over the m o d i f i c a t i o n proceedings. then, proceedings the father i n the explained . See I n r e 2004) (holding o v e r a c a s e once court). However, thej u v e n i l e court d i d n o t have j u r i s d i c t i o n t o c o n s i d e r t h e f a t h e r ' s p e t i t i o n t o modify the j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s November 18, 8 2008, j u d g m e n t . 2091107 I n H i l g e r s v. J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y , [Ms. 2090307, O c t o b e r 2010] So. dismissed an 3d appeal (Ala. Civ. because the App. 2010), this d i s t r i c t court that 15, court entered t h e judgment f r o m w h i c h t h e a p p e a l a r o s e d i d n o t have s u b j e c t matter jurisdiction over the case. This court held, p e r t i n e n t p a r t , as f o l l o w s : "Because the district court lacked 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 over [the] complaint, i t s j u d g m e n t i s v o i d . R i l e y v. P a t e , 3 So. 3d 835, 838 ( A l a . 2 0 0 8 ) . 'A v o i d judgment w i l l n o t s u p p o r t an a p p e a l , and "an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t must d i s m i s s an attempted appeal from such a v o i d judgment."' C o l b u r n v. C o l b u r n , 14 So. 3d 176, 179 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009) ( q u o t i n g Vann v. Cook, 989 So. 2d 556, 559 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008)). Consequently, the c i r c u i t c o u r t never a c q u i r e d j u r i s d i c t i o n over the ... a p p e a l , and t h a t c o u r t c o u l d t a k e no a c t i o n o t h e r t h a n t o d i s m i s s t h e ... a p p e a l . See Ex p a r t e S m i t h , 438 So. 2d 766, 768 ( A l a . 1 9 8 3 ) ( o p i n i n g t h a t 'on a p p e a l [ f o r a t r i a l de n o v o ] , t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t l a c k [ s ] 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 t o c o n s i d e r more than a f i n a l judgment over w h i c h the d i s t r i c t c o u r t had 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 ' ; c i t i n g S t a t e v. P o l l o c k , 251 A l a . 603, 38 So. 2d 870 (1948), and C r a i g v. R o o t , 247 A l a . 479, 25 So. 2d 147 (1946)). Therefore, t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s judgment i s a l s o v o i d . B e c a u s e t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s judgment i s v o i d , t h i s c o u r t l a c k s j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e ... a p p e a l . C o l b u r n , 14 So. 3d a t 179. Thus, we d i s m i s s t h e ... a p p e a l , and we i n s t r u c t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t and t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t t o v a c a t e t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e judgments i n t h i s case." Hilgers, So. 3d a t . 9 in 2091107 T h i s c a s e p r e s e n t s t h e same s i t u a t i o n as i n H i l g e r s . the present matter circuit case, jurisdiction over c o u r t d i d n o t have the f a t h e r ' s petition. subjectThus, the c o u r t d i d n o t have j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e a p p e a l f r o m the j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t , and, c o n s e q u e n t l y , t h i s does n o t have court's the j u v e n i l e In jurisdiction judgment. judgment w i l l As we over the appeal from the stated in Hilgers, court circuit "'[a] void n o t s u p p o r t an a p p e a l , and "an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t must d i s m i s s an a t t e m p t e d a p p e a l f r o m s u c h a v o i d j u d g m e n t . " ' " So. 3d a t ( q u o t i n g C o l b u r n v. C o l b u r n , 14 So. 3d 176, 179 ( A l a . C i v . App. So. 2d 556, 559 2009) ( q u o t i n g i n t u r n Vann v. Cook, ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008))). Therefore, 989 we d i s m i s s t h e m o t h e r ' s a p p e a l , and we i n s t r u c t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t and t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t t o v a c a t e t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e j u d g m e n t s i n this case. APPEAL DISMISSED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, P . J . , and P i t t m a n and B r y a n , J J . , c o n c u r . Moore, J . , concurs i n the r e s u l t , without 10 writing.

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.