Ex parte K.S. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: K.S. v. Lee County Department of Human Resources)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 4/15/2011 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 R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a 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 2091140 Ex p a r t e K.S. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In r e : K.S. v. Lee County Department o f Human Resources) (Lee J u v e n i l e Court, JU-10-166.01) THOMAS, K.S. Lee Judge. ("the mother") a p p e a l s Juvenile Court following f r o m an o r d e r a entered dependency-review by t h e hearing 2091140 insofar as i t ordered voluntary, residential The Lee County became i n v o l v e d w i t h At that time, court medical needs child's medical 2010, that Department juvenile o f Human and awarding After holding entered custody ordered o n h e r GED, t o r e m a i n certain medical On releases, ("DHR") t o care a hearing an o r d e r alcohol that could on A p r i l t h e names f o rthe child. court held a At the hearing, testified explained support, that help a DHR s o c i a l review t h a t DHR h a d a s s i s t e d t h e m o t h e r i n e n t e r i n g ("the s h e l t e r " ) , Dirck, continue free, to sign DHR w i t h care worker, a r e s i d e n t i a l women's s h e l t e r . the shelter her to obtain would provide t h e mother h e r GED, a n d h e l p 2 The employment, hearing. Shelter Keitha 7, t o DHR. classes, to and drug 17, 2010, t h e j u v e n i l e f o r the finding the child of the child and t o provide of relatives August a the child's t h e mother t o o b t a i n working addresses at i n March 2010. had neglected to prepare a budget, t o attend parenting and program Resources t h e m o t h e r was u n a b l e needs. also a a dependency p e t i t i o n i n t h e j u v e n i l e t h e mother and t h a t court complete t h e mother and h e r c h i l d the j u v e n i l e court dependent to women's s h e l t e r . DHR f i l e d alleging her Mary's Dirck with her to obtain 2091140 stability. shelter Dirck testified on A u g u s t 2, that 2010. was allow willing her child. its to The that that she of mother, be was had Dirck did not mother that she for food classes. The prenatal-care she intended to at a transitional-living l i v e on her own. transitional-living The question at The and with to the regarding shelter. the o b t a i n i n g her GED, that that she had further she attended According shelter, program to begun testified had to the stating that help mother s t a t e d t h a t mother's counsel that mother DHR the to entered program at the 3 continue the recently mother the and for appointments. remain mental-health visitation had and the further testified remain stamps, s i x months' pregnant born. classes, s t a r t e d w o r k i n g on her b e g i n the b a b y was the testified parenting to recommended supervised counsel applied s h e l t e r had able DHR transportation weekly, t h a t she had attending the have mother she entered s h e l t e r , undergo a GED. provide mother's s h e l t e r and all to her recommendation that The had participate i n parenting work towards o b t a i n i n g DHR mother stated that Dirck t h a t the mother remain at the evaluation, the she her would s h e l t e r once p r e s e n t e d to the to her juvenile 2091140 court pictures services At and i n f o r m a t i o n the close of the hearing, his intention r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s nor her counsel to the j u v e n i l e court judge the mother, among other order of the shelter. Neither court's an o r d e r on A u g u s t 18, 2 0 1 0 , f i n d i n g t h a t dependent complete the program and r e g u l a t i o n s August she with the at the shelter filed obtain t h e same entered remained things, to the rules a motion order, services seeking alleging offered programs o f f a m i l y members t h a n that by the The m o t h e r f u r t h e r a l l e g e d complete the DHR-requested that more quickly she c o u l d through The m o t h e r a d d i t i o n a l l y a r g u e d t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e order equivalent other and t o f o l l o w of the j u v e n i l e court's could shelter. the c h i l d among 24, 2010, t h e m o t h e r the assistance court's t h e mother, f r o m f a m i l y members. could The j u v e n i l e c o u r t of the shelter. reconsideration shelter proposed order. and o r d e r i n g mother t h e mother e x p r e s s e d any d i s a g r e e m e n t o r o b j e c t i o n t o t h e juvenile the the t o complete t h e program a t t h e s h e l t e r and t o f o l l o w the On regarding o f f e r e d by t h e s h e l t e r . announced things, of the shelter of r e q u i r i n g h e r t o r e m a i n a t t h e s h e l t e r was " t h e a civil commitment 4 and a violation of the 2091140 m o t h e r ' s due process mother's motion, rights." The juvenile court denied the and t h e mother s u b s e q u e n t l y a p p e a l e d t o this court. Although neither court's j u r i s d i c t i o n are of such See R u z i c v. party has over t h i s importance S t a t e ex that raised we may raise r e l . Thornton, C i v . App. 2003), a b r o g a t e d on State Dep't Human Res., 2007). to an appeal lies o n l y from Code Ala. 1975; Bean v. 1990). "'[A] final court of competent been complete between the Dabbs v. 2007) So. litigants Four Tees, 2d 623, 625 rights of the So. 555 which of I n c . , 984 So. relevant 2d Jackson cognizance 456 & Whitsitt "'[T]he i t sufficiently test 1249, 568-69 F.G. in in this 12-22-2, 1253 (Ala. by there a has controversy of that court.'" (Ala. Civ. Cotton of v. App. decision ascertains p a r t i e s . C o o s a Valley 5 § demonstrates 2d 454, motu. (Ala. Civ. a l l matters the by judgment. So. this matters 564, o t h e r grounds final 557 2d i s a terminative (Ala. 1976)). i s whether a within v. of them ex mero exceptions not jurisdiction adjudication 866 So.2d Craig, judgment (quoting Jewell finality the 988 Subject case, certain issue appeal, j u r i s d i c t i o n a l (Ala. of the a Co., App. 331 judgment's and Health declares Care v. 2091140 J o h n s o n , 961 S o . 2 d 9 0 3 , 905 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ) parte DCH Reg'l App. 1990)). This Med. C t r . , ( q u o t i n g Ex court juvenile court of custody has h e l d of a child's final Civ. App. 2008). Civ. App. grandmother, E.D. when awarded remain with custody of a custody though by a an award w i l l g i v e r i s e t o an custody award i s of the the Madison the c h i l d County County DHR a that 6 to the maternal review ( A l a . C i v . App. judgment legal was custody b u t changed the Madison mother). when t h e o f Human R e s . , [Ms. So. 3 d ___ , ___ that (Ala. final had s e t a f u t u r e , Dep't ordered from was of the c h i l d opinion)(holding court 916 S o . 2 d 622 judgment the court v. M a d i s o n the juvenile with award and f u r t h e r review that A u g . 27, 2 0 1 0 ] ___ 2010)(plurality determination i f the S e e a l s o C.L. v . D.H., even (Ala. C i v . J . J . v . J.H.W., 27 S o . 3 d 5 1 9 , 522 ( A l a . 2005)(holding court even 'temporary' case i s e n v i s i o n e d . " 2090415, a "formal dependency coupled judgment d e n o m i n a t e d as a hearing); that incident to that determination appealable juvenile 571 So. 2 d 1 1 6 2 , 1164 County final would the p h y s i c a l DHR to the 2091140 In this case, child remained child remain any request the child, the juvenile dependent with DHR. court determined and i t ordered Neither that t h e mother to the juvenile court to alter that the custody of the n o r DHR h a d made the disposition of a n d t h e m o t h e r made n o c h a l l e n g e w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e dependency o f t h e c h i l d . Because a change i n t h e d i s p o s i t i o n o f t h e c h i l d was n o t a t i s s u e , t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s o r d e r not a final, Although appealable we h a v e from a nonfinal treat an a p p e a l a writ Human judgment. concluded judgment, this that t h e mother's court appeal has t h e d i s c r e t i o n f r o m an i n t e r l o c u t o r y order Therefore, So. 2d 1 0 2 1 , 1024 (Ala. exercising that discretion, appeal as a p e t i t i o n merits of t h e mother's was to as a p e t i t i o n f o r o f mandamus. See E.E.K. v . J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y R e s . , 976 was Dep't o f C i v . App. we t r e a t 2007). t h e mother's f o r t h e w r i t o f mandamus a n d c o n s i d e r t h e arguments. "Mandamus i s an e x t r a o r d i n a r y remedy. An appellate court w i l l grant a p e t i t i o n f o ra writ of mandamus o n l y w h e n ' ( 1 ) t h e p e t i t i o n e r h a s a c l e a r l e g a l r i g h t t o t h e r e l i e f s o u g h t ; (2) t h e r e s p o n d e n t has an i m p e r a t i v e d u t y t o p e r f o r m a n d h a s r e f u s e d t o do s o ; (3) t h e p e t i t i o n e r h a s n o o t h e r adequate remedy; and (4) t h i s Court's jurisdiction i s p r o p e r l y i n v o k e d . ' E x p a r t e F l i n t C o n s t r . Co., 775 So. 2 d 8 0 5 , 808 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) ( c i t i n g E x p a r t e M e r c u r y F i n . C o r p . , 7 1 5 S o . 2 d 1 9 6 , 198 ( A l a . 1 9 9 7 ) ) . " 7 2091140 Ex p a r t e The mother her t o remain civil that court's the shelter order was at the shelter at the shelter. and complete mother merely memorialized DHR's recommendation. also t h e mother's t h e mother t o remain that recommended the portion that of the remain i t offered to the s t a t e d i n t e n t i o n s and t h e mother d i d not object i t sintention to at the shelter. "The l a w i s w e l l s e t t l e d t h a t a p a r t y may n o t i n d u c e an e r r o r b y t h e t r i a l c o u r t a n d t h e n a t t e m p t t o w i n a r e v e r s a l b a s e d on t h a t e r r o r . 'A p a r t y may n o t p r e d i c a t e an a r g u m e n t f o r r e v e r s a l on " i n v i t e d e r r o r , " t h a t i s , " e r r o r i n t o w h i c h he h a s l e d o r l u l l e d t h e t r i a l c o u r t . " ' A t k i n s v . L e e , 603 S o . 2 d 9 3 7 , 945 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) ( q u o t i n g D i x i e H i g h w a y E x p r e s s , I n c . v . S o u t h e r n R y . , 2 8 6 A l a . 6 4 6 , 6 5 1 , 244 S o . 2 d 591, 595 ( 1 9 7 1 ) ) . 'That d o c t r i n e [ o f i n v i t e d e r r o r ] p r o v i d e s t h a t a p a r t y may n o t c o m p l a i n o f e r r o r i n t o w h i c h h e h a s l e d t h e c o u r t . ' E x p a r t e K i n g , 643 S o . 2d 1364, 1366 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) . 'A p a r t y c a n n o t w i n a 8 the should when t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t s t a t e d a t t h e h e a r i n g require to a testified t h e mother t h e programs Moreover, tantamount and t o complete Thus, stating that the at the shelter t h e mother DHR denied r i g h t s when i t o r d e r e d the order by t h e s h e l t e r . remain court t h e program At the hearing, t o remain offered mother argues, ( A l a . C i v .App. 2003). the juvenile i n and t o complete t h e mother intended juvenile at argues commitment. programs the mother 855 So. 2 d 5 4 4 , 546 her c o n s t i t u t i o n a l due-process because, she Amerigas, 2091140 r e v e r s a l on an e r r o r t h a t p a r t y h a s i n v i t e d t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o commit.' N e a l v. N e a l , 856 So. 2 d 7 6 6 , 784 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) . " Mobile (Ala. Infirmary 2003). Med. Because C t r . v. Hodgen, 884 t h e mother t e s t i f i e d So. that 2d 8 0 1 , 808 she intended t o r e m a i n a t t h e s h e l t e r a n d d i d n o t o b j e c t when t h e j u v e n i l e court announced t h a t i t intended in i t s order, the mother a r g u e s was e r r o r . demonstrate that that t o i n c l u d e such a requirement l e d the court Therefore, into the mother's she has a c l e a r legal what right now fails argument she to to the relief she seeks. Moreover, the mother's reconsideration part, on argument i n her motion of the j u v e n i l e court's factual allegations that order she c o u l d seeking was b a s e d , i n obtain through f a m i l y m e m b e r s t h e same s e r v i c e s t h a t s h e w o u l d r e c e i v e a t t h e shelter evidence the Thus, -- factual constitute relief 503 2d being not presented the cannot which i n serve the juvenile court's 8 5 6 , 858 postjudgment into was allegations new e v i d e n c e , from So. that "relief (Ala. order. C i v . App. i s granted when following the conclusion 9 at the hearing. mother's motion as t h e b a s i s f o r See B a t e s v. 1987)(stating t h e new State, that evidence of the t r i a l " ) . no comes 2091140 Because the mother i n v i t e d the a c t i o n error, and because motion seeking the factual reconsideration r e p r e s e n t new e v i d e n c e not shown t h a t petition for a writ allegations of at t r i a l , legal right mandamus she argues court's order t h e mother has t o r e l i e f , and h e r i s ,therefore, due to denied. PETITION Thompson, Moore, DENIED. P . J . , and Pittman J . , dissents, with and Bryan, writing. 10 was i n the mother's of the juvenile not presented she has a c l e a r that J J . , concur. be 2091140 MOORE, J u d g e , d i s s e n t i n g . Although treat we appeals should Our I agree that this as p e t i t i o n s not do so for a in this supreme c o u r t has court has the discretion to w r i t o f mandamus, I b e l i e v e case. explained: "'"A court has a duty to avoid constitutional questions unless e s s e n t i a l to the proper d i s p o s i t i o n o f t h e c a s e . " ' L o w e v . F u l f o r d , 442 So. 2 d 2 9 , 33 (Ala. 1983) (quoting t r i a l court's order citing D o u g h t y v . T a r w a t e r , 261 A l a . 2 6 3 , 73 So. 2 d 540 ( 1 9 5 4 ) ; M o s e s v . T a r w a t e r , 257 A l a . 3 6 1 , 58 So. 2d 757 ( 1 9 5 2 ) ; and Lee v. Macon C o u n t y Bd. o f E d u c . , 231 F. S u p p . 743 (M.D. A l a . 1964)). '"Generally courts are reluctant to reach constitutional q u e s t i o n s , a n d s h o u l d n o t do s o , i f t h e m e r i t s o f the case can be settled on non-constitutional g r o u n d s . " ' L o w e , 442 So. 2 d a t 33 (quoting trial c o u r t ' s o r d e r c i t i n g W h i t e v . U.S. Pipe & Foundry Co., 646 F . 2 d 203 (5th C i r . 1981)). '"No m a t t e r how much the parties may desire adjudication of important questions of c o n s t i t u t i o n a l law, broad considerations of the appropriate exercise of j u d i c i a l power p r e v e n t [ ] such d e t e r m i n a t i o n s unless actually c o m p e l l e d by the litigation before the court."' L o w e , 442 So. 2 d a t 33 (quoting trial c o u r t ' s o r d e r c i t i n g T r o y S t a t e U n i v . v. D i c k e y , 402 F . 2 d 515 (5th C i r . 1968))." C h i s m v. This J e f f e r s o n County, case juvenile court facility while that parent presents can a order undergoing 954 So. 2d 1058, constitutional a parent to 11 The (Ala. 2006). question whether reside rehabilitation w i t h a dependent c h i l d . 1063 in a a certain aimed at r e u n i f y i n g main o p i n i o n disposes 2091140 of that invited live the by concluding j u v e n i l e court at Mary's S h e l t e r intended the question juvenile ("the court to stated certain place elsewhere. I also constitutional oral legal effect. ( A l a . C i v . App. 2d 1017, Hobbs, court's 1018 423 2009) So. oral constitutional the See 2d Hayes v. mother to the ruling juvenile at the end statements 120 ( q u o t i n g A r m s t r o n g v . A r m s t r o n g , 550 So. 878 (Ala. decree Finally, challenge Civ. I citing So. the 117, 1989), 16 at thereby waived t h a t such Hayes, any from r e s i d i n g object to she order with period the caselaw holds divorce restriction an disagree i t s intended ( A l a . C i v . App. ineffective'"). that failing because our I enter the parent whether pronouncement of of the h e a r i n g that to f a i l i n g t o o b j e c t when rehabilitation preventing by testifying s t a t e s an i n t e n t i o n t o r e s i d e question issue mother") r e q u i r i n g her i t s i n t e n t i o n to a order ("the order s h e l t e r " ) by who during consents to a court h a v e no an complete t h a t program. i m p l i c a t i o n that a parent court's to enter K.S. t o c o m p l e t e i t s p r o g r a m and by r e q u i r i n g her a that i n t u r n Hobbs be 12 v. App. 1982)) ("'a trial is unauthorized and believe the s u r v i v e s e v e n t h o u g h she should 3d lifted based on mother's also new argues evidence 2091140 that she cannot the as could concur obtain t h e same services i n t h e manner i n w h i c h elsewhere. avoids c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i s s u e and r e s o l v e s what t h e m a j o r i t y treats f o r a w r i t o f mandamus. That s a i d , because t h e i s s u e does r a i s e s e r i o u s regarding the residency of power of parents juvenile of courts dependent to those c o n c e r n s be p r e s e n t e d mother failed to file a petition w h i c h w o u l d have a l l o w e d presenting reason children a insist that The writ the j u v e n i l e court during vehicle. the proper for a the of mandamus, to f i l e an answer i t s j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r e n t e r i n g t h e judgment and i t s f o r denying same. through concerns restrict r e h a b i l i t a t i o n period, I believe this court should the I opinion the mother's p e t i t i o n the main Hence, This the mother's court has been constitutional objection deprived of that to information b e c a u s e o f t h e i n c o r r e c t manner i n w h i c h t h e mother e l e c t e d t o proceed. Those disinclination conclude consider Therefore, that this considerations, along with the general t o a d d r e s s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i s s u e s , c o m p e l me we should appeal as not exercise a petition I respectfully dissent. 13 our discretion for a writ of to to mandamus.

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.