Joseph P. LaRose III, Ann LaRose, and Kelly Hill v. Royce LaRose

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 4/08/2011 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 2100045 Joseph P. LaRose I I I , Ann LaRose, and K e l l y Hill v. Royce LaRose Appeal from Cullman C i r c u i t Court (DR-10-243, DR-10-243.01, and DR-10-481) THOMAS, J u d g e . On April grandmother") Alabama to 18, 2010, and K e l l y exercise Hill Ann LaRose ("the ("the p a t e r n a l visitation with Vanessa aunt") paternal came t o LaRose c h i l d " ) pursuant t o a South C a r o l i n a consent judgment ("the awarding 2100045 the paternal I I I ("the p a t e r n a l g r a n d f a t h e r " ) u n s u p e r v i s e d v i s i t a t i o n w i t h the child every grandmother and Joseph third weekend and each summer. Royce LaRose periods for two P. LaRose nonconsecutive ("the mother") two-week refused to p e r m i t t h e p a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r and t h e p a t e r n a l aunt t o with 2010, the child. In fact, the mother f i l e d the a petition seeking a protection-from-abuse Code 1975, § 30-5-1 g r a n d m o t h e r and et day, on April i n the Cullman C i r c u i t 19, Court ("PFA") o r d e r p u r s u a n t t o A l a . seq., the p a t e r n a l number following visit against aunt. the paternal mother's p e t i t i o n case two ex p a r t e PFA orders r e s t r a i n i n g both the p a t e r n a l grandmother and aunt by 1975, A l a . Code On paternal May 25, Child 2010, the and entered grandmother 30-3B-101 e t seq. at filed a "Notice of Registration ("UCCJEA"), c o d i f i e d That the collectively Determination" pursuant Act and to a c t i o n was 2 times t o A l a . Code 1975, 30-3B-305, a p o r t i o n o f the U n i f o r m C h i l d Custody and E n f o r c e m e n t as p e r m i t t e d (b)(1)-(3). paternal (referred grandparents") Custody court c o n t a c t w i t h the mother, § 30-5-7(a)(1) grandfather "the p a t e r n a l of from The was assigned the p a t e r n a l DR-10-243. The both as § Jurisdiction a t A l a . Code 1975, § a s s i g n e d c a s e number DR-10- 2100045 243.01. The enforcement § paternal 30-3B-308(b)(3), t h e PFA with the requested petition, the p a t e r n a l grandparents mother. enforcement set the objected enforcement r e s t r i c t i n g the p a t e r n a l the hearing also expedited o f t h e c u s t o d y d e t e r m i n a t i o n u n d e r A l a . Code 30-3B-308; i n t h e i r of grandparents The petition paternal on to on June grandparents' August the m o t h e r was 4, setting 2010. of the required 15, grandmother 2010. enforcement The from § on the contact notice trial petition paternal hearing by a p p r i s e d the c o u r t served w i t h the The 1 as 1975, and court for a grandparents enforcement We n o t e t h a t § 30-3B-308 g o v e r n s e x p e d i t e d e n f o r c e m e n t of a c u s t o d y judgment o f a n o t h e r s t a t e . The h e a r i n g on t h e p a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s ' e n f o r c e m e n t p e t i t i o n was s e t f o r a d a t e w e l l a f t e r t h e " n e x t j u d i c i a l day a f t e r s e r v i c e o f t h e o r d e r " d i r e c t i n g the respondent t o appear, which o r d e r , a c c o r d i n g t o § 30-3B-308(c), s h o u l d have b e e n i s s u e d a t t h e t i m e t h e e n f o r c e m e n t p e t i t i o n was f i l e d . The p a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s a r g u e t h a t t h e f a i l u r e o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o s e t an e x p e d i t e d hearing violated their due-process rights. Although the p a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s have c i t e d t h e Due P r o c e s s C l a u s e o f t h e United States Constitution, A r t . 1, § 13, t h e y have n o t d e v e l o p e d an a r g u m e n t on t h e i s s u e b y p r o v i d i n g a u t h o r i t y a p p l y i n g t h e Due P r o c e s s C l a u s e i n s i m i l a r c i r c u m s t a n c e s . T h e r e f o r e , we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e y have f a i l e d t o make an argument s u f f i c i e n t f o r our r e v i e w under R u l e 2 8 ( a ) ( 1 0 ) , A l a . R. App. P. As o u r supreme c o u r t has e x p l a i n e d , " R u l e 28(a)(10) requires that arguments in briefs contain d i s c u s s i o n s o f f a c t s and r e l e v a n t l e g a l a u t h o r i t i e s that s u p p o r t t h e p a r t y ' s p o s i t i o n . I f t h e y do n o t , t h e a r g u m e n t s are waived." W h i t e Sands Group, L.L.C. v. PRS I I , LLC, 998 So. 2d 1042, 1058 ( A l a . 2 0 0 8 ) . 1 3 2100045 petition set at an such a l a t e earlier reconsider not On July entitled hearing; i t s order considered a requested however, setting 15, the Order" trial court to court did not the p e t i t i o n was filed she trial and grandmother Emergency i n case the 2010. paternal for the the h e a r i n g , u n t i l A u g u s t 4, "Motion Protection d a t e and Order what D i s s o l v i n g Ex number DR-10-243. The trial set the p a t e r n a l grandmother's motion f o r a h e a r i n g 4, court on August 2010. On or a b o u t J u l y 16, was not the time, The mother the exercise a Parte subject of the attempted to refused to seeking grandfather; trial August case that court 4, numbers despite exercise allow the retain[ed] a J u l y 21, 2010, PFA order and consolidation their on separate the case the the mother the number m o t h e r ' s PFA petition DR-10-243.01. We identity 4 actions, and the filed DR-10-481. number DR-10-481 the to paternal case of at child. grandfather against assigned who in existence v i s i t a t i o n with On consolidated DR-10-243 orders paternal a c t i o n was and paternal grandfather, the set a hearing 2010, the e x p a r t e PFA his v i s i t a t i o n . petition The 2010, note "the on with that, actions parties and 2100045 p l e a d i n g s i n one a c t i o n d [ i d ] n o t a u t o m a t i c a l l y become and pleadings i n the other action[s]." Comments on 1 9 7 3 A d o p t i o n ; Co., 915 So. 2d 34, rel. M.S.M., 34 S o . 3 d 1 2 7 6 , 1278 After court In the t r i a l entered those the her child." v. ( A l a . C i v . App. i n each the t r i a l Committee action court aunt that State ex 2009). the on A u g u s t found Prods. trial 10, 2010. the paternal had "engaged in a pattern d e s i g n e d t o h a r a s s , i n t i m i d a t e and t h r e a t e n and t h a t As and H.J.T. the c o n s o l i d a t e d actions, and t h e p a t e r n a l [mother] 42, Ex p a r t e F l e x i b l e ( A l a .2005); a judgment abusive conduct paternal on judgments, grandparents of 50 see a l s o Rule parties a she i s f e a r f u l result, grandparents the f o r her l i f e trial and t h e p a t e r n a l court and t h a t o f prohibited the aunt "from c o n t a c t i n g the [mother], her c h i l d r e n , husband or anyone i n t h e i r e x t e n d e d f a m i l i e s , i n any manner whatsoever, i n person, through a t h i r d (3rd) p a r t y , d i r e c t l y or i n d i r e c t l y , by m a i l , phone, o r any o t h e r e l e c t r o n i c means a n d s h a l l m a i n t a i n a d i s t a n c e away f r o m t h e a f o r e m e n t i o n e d p e r s o n s o f a t l e a s t t w o t h o u s a n d (2,000) f e e t a t a l l t i m e s . " In addition, paternal visitation the trial grandparents' rights court specifically request awarded i n the stating: 5 for South addressed enforcement Carolina of the the judgment, 2100045 "Further, the [paternal grandparents'] rights of v i s i t a t i o n w i t h the [mother's] minor daughter are hereby suspended i n the State of Alabama u n t i l the same c a n be r e v i e w e d b y t h e S o u t h C a r o l i n a court, with a view toward m o d i f i c a t i o n thereof a l l o w i n g f o r s t r i c t s u p e r v i s i o n o f same f o r t h e s a f e t y a n d s a f e r e t u r n of the c h i l d t o her mother." The motion paternal grandmother to c e r t i f y judgment the August pursuant to Rule number DR-10-243. motion as moot, certifications already final grandmother that styled toward DR-10-243.01. argued, void the DR-10-243 On 9, In that that court denying 10, 2010, final in an case identical denied both judgments were paternal of appeal i n grandfather filed a DR-10-481. to Vacate grandparents and M o t i o n 10, 2010, j u d g m e n t the court filed f o r Stay" i n case paternal that the August 6 a a the requested a notice the paternal the t r i a l as 12, 2010, t h e filed filed C i v . P., The t r i a l the paternal motion, among o t h e r t h i n g s , because aunt as a " M o t i o n the August "order" A l a . R. October number 2010, aunt grandfather f i l e d August and i n case 2010, i n i t sorder judgments. September they directed was The p a t e r n a l stating of appeal On what 54(b), and t h e p a t e r n a l number notice 10, i n c a s e number DR-10-481. motions case and t h e p a t e r n a l number grandparents 10, 2010, j u d g m e n t lacked subject-matter 2100045 jurisdiction South u n d e r t h e U C C J E A t o amend, m o d i f y , Carolina failed South to a f f o r d Carolina grandparents on full motion filed October Although no court 751 The trial actions. 2010. that court's to the d u l y judgment registered c o u r t denied the 10, 2010, appeal and i n case paternal the paternal number DR-10- 2 c h a l l e n g e d our recognize 42, the the lack R.J.G. v. As jurisdiction of over So. 3d noted above, the t h r e e Committee Comments entered of subject-matter S.S.W., 42 maintained properly in a below, examination judgments determine to 2009). paternal grandparents the of ex mero motu . court credit trial a notice trial the appeal from the t h r e e c o n s o l i d a t e d a c t i o n s , Rule An The the September consolidated identities. and p a r t y has ( A l a . C i v . App. although on i s bound jurisdiction that faith 8, any a s p e c t o f t h i s this and judgment. grandparents' 243.01 judgment or suspend the a 747, actions, their separate 1973 Adoption. in a l l three on judgment postjudgment filings by the and t h e p a t e r n a l aunt a f t e r t h e e n t r y o f three appeal, cases, insofar however, as requires i t i s taken us from to the T h e t h r e e n o t i c e s o f a p p e a l were a s s i g n e d one c a s e number on a p p e a l ( 2 1 0 0 0 4 5 ) . 2 7 2100045 judgments i n c a s e number DR-10-243 a n d c a s e number DR-10-481, m u s t be dismissed. The appeal, insofar as i t i s t a k e n from 1 0 - 2 4 3 a n d c a s e n u m b e r D R - 1 0 - 4 8 1 , was f i l e d after two entry of the August actions 4(a)(1), a n d was A l a . R. filed within case 42 d a y s despite more t h a n P. not timely (stating that filed. an of judgment). fact a l l three that that a p p e a l i n one o f two c o n s o l i d a t e d untimely light but that h i s appeal i n the other of the timing of the entry separate yet consolidated in each 2010, were case). The judgments 10-481 motions See R u l e post-judgment as seeking judgments would 4(a)(3), toll i s the were actions was a c t i o n was t i m e l y i n t o have i n t h e two time A l a . R. A p p . P. practice the August and case pursuant the be (determining of the judgments number DR-10-243 final that shall cases and t h e postjudgment motions i n case certified not appeal. So. 3d a t 752-53 days Rule actions See R.J.G., DR- of those This consolidated. a father's 42 42 See appeal of the entry the number 10, 2010, j u d g m e n t i n e a c h therefore App. case number to Rule DR- 54(b) f o r taking ("The 10, filing an of a m o t i o n p u r s u a n t t o R u l e s 5 0 , 5 2 , 55 o r 59 o f t h e Alabama Rules of C i v i l Procedure 8 ... s h a l l suspend the running 2100045 of the time for filing judgment motions were f i l e d 10-481. case number September is of appeal."). DR-10-243 21, 2010. jurisdictional appeal, insofar No post- t h e t i m e f o r an a p p e a l c a s e number DR-10-243 o r c a s e number the time a judgments notice t h a t would have t o l l e d i n either Thus, a f o r appeal of the judgments and case number DR-10-481 The t i m e l y filing of a notice act. as R.J.G., i t is taken 42 So. from 3d the DR- i n both expired on of appeal at 753. trial The court's i n c a s e number DR-10-243 a n d c a s e number DR-10-481, w h i c h i n v o l v e d t h e PFA o r d e r s r e s t r a i n i n g e a c h o f t h e p a t e r n a l grandparents and T h e r e f o r e , we w i l l relating entry the paternal not discuss to the propriety o f t h e PFA orders aunt, i s hereby dismissed. any arguments r a i s e d of or the procedure i n case number on a p p e a l concerning the DR-10-243 and case from the number DR-10-481. However, the appeal, insofar as i t i s taken j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d i n c a s e number DR-10-243.01, i s t i m e l y . paternal vacate That the grandparents the August motion, judgment filed a postjudgment 10, 2010, j u d g m e n t h a v i n g been f i l e d and p u r s u a n t within to Rule 9 on motion seeking to September 30 d a y s The 9, 2010. of the entry of 5 9 , A l a . R. C i v . P., d i d 2100045 serve to t o l l the time f o r f i l i n g number DR-10-243.01. 753. See A c c o r d i n g l y , we appeal from Rule will the n o t i c e of appeal i n case 4(a)(3); address R.J.G., the p a t e r n a l 42 So. t h e j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d i n D R - 1 0 - 2 4 3 . 0 1 , a n d we insofar enforcement to court 1975, paternal lacked visitation Credit Const., addresses §§ 30-3B-305, grandparents jurisdiction rights judgment and, and i t granted thus, that Clause Art. I, of § to to Alabama 371 court a Ashwood, UCCJEA also t o r e c o g n i z e and sister jurisdiction state, States law the So. 2d the enforce a custody provided that the Carolina the F u l l Faith 928 and of judgment state an the credit. (Ala. Civ. duty that U.S. accorded faith i n c o n f o r m i t y w i t h t h e UCCJEA. 10 trial South long full 924, acknowledges the Constitution. has states pursuant "suspend" or in and -310. appeal that modify United See Ashwood v. and on them sister The registration i t s judgment v i o l a t e s the 1. -308, argue c u s t o d y judgments of our 1979). the will court's of the South C a r o l i n a v i s i t a t i o n judgment A l a . Code The as at grandparents' c o n s i d e r t h e a r g u m e n t s on a p p e a l r e l a t i n g t o t h e t r i a l judgment 3d App. Alabama entered by exercised A l a . Code 1975, 2100045 § 30-3B-303; (Ala. see also C i v . App. The G.P. v. argues in jurisdiction over the c h i l d portion trial petitions, pursuant of the not 2d has been had based parent of the abandoned child, mistreatment or argues, trial the abuse." court paternal grandparents' temporary emergency To 2010, fully 1255 t o A l a . Code 1975, § That 3 state section does "or i t the power to e n t e r is jurisdiction visitation rights to necessary or or a in to the with mother "suspend" pursuant an sibling threatened Thus, and the to i t s c o u r t ' s August 10, jurisdiction. analyze judgment 30- i s present i n the s t a t e 30-3B-204(a). had the emergency i s subjected to § upon temporary emergency to p r o t e c t the c h i l d because the c h i l d , or 1252, o t h e r w i s e have j u r i s d i c t i o n judgment i f the c h i l d child So. court, UCCJEA. a custody judgment of another a temporary the PFA the a c o u r t that would provide modify the that allegations a 841 2002). mother 3B-204(c), A.A.K., whether the "suspending" the trial paternal grandparents' The mother does not a s s e r t t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t w o u l d have had j u r i s d i c t i o n t o m o d i f y t h e S o u t h C a r o l i n a j u d g m e n t u n d e r A l a . Code 1975, § 3 0 - 3 B - 2 0 3 , so we assume, f o r p u r p o s e s o f t h i s o p i n i o n , t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t w o u l d not have had s u c h jurisdiction. 3 11 2100045 visitation we rights must d e l v e was into entered i n accordance with the procedures governing the and e n f o r c e m e n t o f c h i l d - c u s t o d y an Alabama court. As grandparents initiated seeking the pursuant to § 30-3B-305. 30 this the r e g i s t r a t i o n days enforce of being the South C a r o l i n a See § action of the Because registration of another s t a t e i n above, by the filing paternal petition Carolina South a judgment the mother d i d not seek with the petition see § 3 0-3B-305(d), judgment was to to within register and the r e g i s t r a t i o n c o n f i r m e d as a m a t t e r o f of law. 30-3B-305(e). The paternal enforcement grandparents of the South Carolina 3B-308; t h e i r e n f o r c e m e n t p e t i t i o n expedited hearing a hearing on to enforcement avoid should UCCJEA, of the South C a r o l i n a judgment served t h a t judgment, judgments explained registration contest the an establish judgment; the jurisdiction also sought judgment should pursuant to § a of petition, another defense available to defenses i n the i s s u i n g court, 12 Generally, the respondent state's the 30- h a v e b e e n s e t f o r an pursuant to § 30-3B-308(c). enforcement expedited custody of are l a c k of r e q u i r e d seeking judgment enforcement to enforcement at that lack of notice in 2100045 the issuing court, or t h a t the has been stayed, or court or vacated, a 308(d). court If established, state's issued See no the custody a Ala. with Because unless the Alabama emergency 30-3B-308(d), from jurisdiction under to § did enforcement arisen § the trial to 30-3B- action enforce pursuant issuing § is other court has 30-3B-204. § 3 0-3B-310(a). mother to order See enforcement judgment under have so. must the failure the do court to court's to enforced e i t h e r the trial defense § to by Alabama 1975, the modified jurisdiction defense temporary Code j u d g m e n t s o u g h t t o be the enforce its not of only present the South judgment assumption of As establish Carolina possible basis that § 30-3B-204. or for would explained judgment the have temporary trial had to emergency i n the comment 30-3B-310: " T h e r e a r e no ... defenses [ o t h e r than those e n u m e r a t e d i n § 3 0 - 3 B - 3 0 8 ( d ) ] t o an enforcement action. I f t h e c h i l d w o u l d be e n d a n g e r e d by the enforcement of a custody or v i s i t a t i o n order, there may be a basis f o r the assumption of emergency j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r S e c t i o n 204 of t h i s A c t . Upon t h e finding of an emergency, the court issues a t e m p o r a r y o r d e r and d i r e c t s t h e p a r t i e s t o p r o c e e d e i t h e r i n the c o u r t t h a t i s e x e r c i s i n g c o n t i n u i n g jurisdiction over the custody proceeding under Section 202, or the court that would have 13 any 2100045 jurisdiction to modify under S e c t i o n 203." § 30-3B-310, O f f i c i a l not present Carolina any Comment. defenses judgment, the we to agree with d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t PFA and child were w a r r a n t e d c o u r t ' s e x e r c i s e of temporary to § 30-3B-204(a) and decline enforcement This determination Thus, a l t h o u g h the mother d i d the court's the custody enforcement the mother orders served as of the South that the trial protecting the mother a b a s i s f o r the emergency j u r i s d i c t i o n trial pursuant t h e r e f o r e as a b a s i s f o r i t s d e c i s i o n of the South conclusion i s bolstered Carolina by the judgment. comment t o § 30-3B- 204: " R e l a t i o n s h i p to P r o t e c t i v e Order Proceedings. The [Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, a predecessor to the UCCJEA] and the [Parental K i d n a p p i n g P r e v e n t i o n A c t ] were e n a c t e d l o n g b e f o r e the advent of state procedures on the use of p r o t e c t i v e orders to a l l e v i a t e problems of domestic violence. I s s u e s o f c u s t o d y and v i s i t a t i o n often arise within the context of protective order proceedings s i n c e the p r o t e c t i v e order i s often i n v o k e d t o k e e p one parent away f r o m the other p a r e n t a n d t h e c h i l d r e n when t h e r e i s a t h r e a t o f violence. This Act recognizes that a protective order proceeding will often be the procedural v e h i c l e f o r i n v o k i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n by a u t h o r i z i n g a c o u r t t o assume t e m p o r a r y emergency jurisdiction when the child's parent or sibling has been subjected to or t h r e a t e n e d w i t h m i s t r e a t m e n t or abuse." 14 to 2100045 § 30-3B-204, Official Comment However, d e s p i t e temporary analysis provide the emergency i s not for our in a t an end. that Because the t r i a l court the of another trial state, court's § an Subsection (c) of the court had 30-3B-204(a), § trial our 30-3B-204 does not jurisdiction, jurisdiction i n the present existing 30-3B-204(c) temporary added). that under Section emergency which enforcement conclusion jurisdiction temporary manner (emphasis must c a s e was custody governed emergency merely i t prescribes be exercised. concerned determination the exercise of with of the jurisdiction. § 30-3B-204 provides: " I f there i s a previous c h i l d custody determination t h a t i s e n t i t l e d t o be e n f o r c e d u n d e r t h i s chapter, o r a c h i l d c u s t o d y p r o c e e d i n g has b e e n commenced i n a court of a state having jurisdiction under Sections 30-3B-201 through 30-3B-203, any order i s s u e d by a c o u r t o f t h i s s t a t e u n d e r t h i s s e c t i o n must s p e c i f y i n the o r d e r a p e r i o d t h a t the court c o n s i d e r s adequate to a l l o w the person seeking an order t o o b t a i n an order from the state having jurisdiction under Sections 30-3B-201 through 3 0 - 3 B - 2 0 3 . The o r d e r i s s u e d i n t h i s s t a t e r e m a i n s i n e f f e c t u n t i l an o r d e r i s o b t a i n e d from the other s t a t e w i t h i n the p e r i o d s p e c i f i e d or the period expires." Further, the South the trial Carolina c o u r t was court as 15 r e q u i r e d to communicate i t exercised its with temporary 2100045 emergency jurisdiction. § 30-3B-204(d). Subsection (d) o f § 30-3B-204 p r o v i d e s : "A c o u r t o f t h i s s t a t e w h i c h h a s b e e n a s k e d t o make a c h i l d custody d e t e r m i n a t i o n under t h i s section, upon b e i n g i n f o r m e d t h a t a c h i l d c u s t o d y p r o c e e d i n g has been commenced i n , or a child custody d e t e r m i n a t i o n h a s b e e n made b y , a c o u r t o f a s t a t e h a v i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n under S e c t i o n s 30-3B-201 t h r o u g h 30-3B-203, s h a l l i m m e d i a t e l y communicate w i t h t h e other court. A court of this state which i s exercising jurisdiction pursuant to Sections 30-3B-201 t h r o u g h 30-3B-203, upon b e i n g informed t h a t a c h i l d c u s t o d y p r o c e e d i n g h a s b e e n commenced i n , o r a 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 h a s b e e n made by, a c o u r t o f a n o t h e r s t a t e under a s t a t u t e s i m i l a r to t h i s s e c t i o n s h a l l i m m e d i a t e l y communicate w i t h the c o u r t o f t h a t s t a t e t o r e s o l v e t h e emergency, p r o t e c t t h e s a f e t y o f t h e p a r t i e s and t h e c h i l d , and determine a p e r i o d f o rthe d u r a t i o n of the temporary order." We conclude temporary the that, emergency trial although jurisdiction court's judgment of § 30-3B-204(c) limit which the South Without Carolina such "suspending" terminating the South a to because court to § judgment from limitation, visitation, the comply which judgment trial no the time modifying Carolina court. court's judgment a permanent judgment would e f f e c t a modification of despite the fact 16 with i t contains t h e South i s potentially d i d have 30-3B-204(a), t h e m o t h e r must o b t a i n an o r d e r visitation Carolina pursuant fails requirements within the t r i a l that the t r i a l 2100045 c o u r t would have l a c k e d j u r i s d i c t i o n at the time of the August record i s devoid followed 1 0 , 2010, judgment. any indication that c o u r t communicate of the t r i a l court's Further, the the t r i a l t h e requirements of § 3 0-3B-204(d), that the t r i a l as p a r t of u n d e r t h e U C C J E A t o do s o which court mandated with the South C a r o l i n a exercise of temporary court emergency jurisdiction. Thus, in case with we c a n n o t c o n c l u d e t h a t number DR-10-243.01, § 30-3B-204 reverse number the t r i a l cause t h e UCCJEA. court's August court insofar visitation f o r the t r i a l Carolina as p r e s e n t l y or with DR-10-243.01 grandparents' the t r i a l as r e q u i r e d worded, We must, the child, therefore, by § 30-3B-204(d) i n case the paternal a n d we t o communicate judgment complies 10, 2010, judgment as i t " s u s p e n d e d " with court court's remand t h e with the South and t o c o r r e c t the wording o f t h e p r o v i s i o n e f f e c t i n g t h e " s u s p e n s i o n " o f t h e paternal grandparents' v i s i t a t i o n limitations rights t o comply with the r e q u i r e d by § 30-3B-204(b). A P P E A L AS TO CASE NUMBER D R - 1 0 - 2 4 3 AND CASE NUMBER DR-10481 D I S M I S S E D ; JUDGMENT I N CASE NUMBER D R - 1 0 - 2 4 3 . 0 1 R E V E R S E D ; AND REMANDED WITH I N S T R U C T I O N S . 17 2100045 Thompson, P . J . , and Pittman, concur. 18 Bryan, and Moore, J J . ,

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.