J.W. and S.W. v. C.B.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 2/25/11 Notice: This 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 2100108 J.W. and S.W. v. C.B. Appeal from C o f f e e J u v e n i l e Court (JU-06-361.07) BRYAN, J u d g e . J.W. ("the p a t e r n a l g r a n d f a t h e r " ) a n d S.W. ("the p a t e r n a l grandmother") (hereinafter collectively r e f e r r e d t o as " t h e p a t e r n a l grandparents") appeal from a judgment e n t e r e d Coffee Juvenile Court ("the j u v e n i l e court") by the following the 2100108 issuance o f an o p i n i o n f r o m t h i s 2090397, September 10, 2010] c o u r t i n J.W. So. 3d v. C.B., [Ms. ( A l a . C i v . App. 2010). Procedural On History J u l y 21, 2008, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t a d j u d i c a t e d F.C.W. ("the c h i l d " ) t o be d e p e n d e n t , a w a r d e d p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y child to the p a t e r n a l grandparents, custody the legal S.B., maternal grandfather, maternal grandmother. mother") filed award, and a w a r d e d j o i n t t o t h e p a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s and of the c h i l d child's 2009, g r a n t e d 1 I d . at a petition and, a f t e r the child, this . and J.B., the child's . I n June 2009, C.B. to modify a trial, the J u l y the j u v e n i l e 2008 court, ("the custody i n December the mother's c u s t o d y - m o d i f i c a t i o n p e t i t i o n awarded t h e mother l e g a l Id. at of the and p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y The p a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s and L.W., appealed court concluded the c u s t o d y - m o d i f i c a t i o n t h a t t h e r e was of the and child. the f a t h e r of judgment, and i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence to s u p p o r t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s c o n c l u s i o n t h a t a m a t e r i a l change T h e r e i s an i n d i c a t i o n i n t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t a c t u a l l y a d j u d i c a t e d t h e c h i l d d e p e n d e n t on June 21, 2008. R e g a r d l e s s , i t i s u n d i s p u t e d t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t a d j u d i c a t e d t h e c h i l d d e p e n d e n t i n 2008. 1 2 2100108 in circumstances custody had judgment. occurred I d . at since . We the entry of remanded t h e c o u r t ' s o p i n i o n r e v e r s i n g the judgment. I d . a t After this court juvenile issued certificate [Ms. entered a of i n w h i c h i t s t a t e d t h a t , b a s e d on t h i s i n Ex p a r t e T.C., court a 2010, never obtained consistent . the C i v . App. the custody-modification J.W., (Ala. last case to j u v e n i l e c o u r t w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n s t o e n t e r an o r d e r with this the judgment 2090433, June 18, 2 0 1 0 ) , i t was judgment in October 7, on court's decision 2010] So. 3d r e q u i r e d t o c o n c l u d e t h a t i t had subject-matter jurisdiction custody-modification action. The over the mother's j u v e n i l e court then vacated i t s December 2009 c u s t o d y - m o d i f i c a t i o n j u d g m e n t , and i t s t a t e d that any custody paternal that petition to modify j u d g m e n t must be grandparents the filed filed a juvenile i n the court's circuit timely notice of July 2008 court. The appeal from judgment. Issue On juvenile appeal, the court erred jurisdiction to paternal in consider grandparents concluding the that mother's 3 argue i t did that not the have custody-modification 2100108 action. Standard of Review The question Accordingly, judgment presented this de court novo, on appeal i s a question of will review the court's giving any without juvenile law. presumption of c o r r e c t n e s s t o t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s l e g a l c o n c l u s i o n s . See p a r t e Byrom, 47 So. 3d 791, 794 ( A l a . 2010) I n c . v. A m e r i c a n C o a l T r a d e , I n c . , 2001)) 821 So. (citing 2d 197, ("Because t h e i s s u e b e f o r e us p r e s e n t s o f l a w , we r e v i e w t h e m a t t e r de novo, w i t h o u t Simcala, 200 a pure Ex (Ala. question any presumption judgment effectively of c o r r e c t n e s s . " ) . Discussion The juvenile court's October 2010 d i s m i s s e d the mother's c u s t o d y - m o d i f i c a t i o n a c t i o n f o r l a c k of subject-matter jurisdiction. R a i n b o w D r i v e , 740 c o u r t has trial The no court So. 2d 1025, subject-matter has no See State 1029 v. ( A l a . 1999) jurisdiction a l t e r n a t i v e but Property to at 2018 (when a trial o v e r an a c t i o n , dismiss the action). p a t e r n a l grandparents argue t h a t the j u v e n i l e c o u r t by r e l y i n g on Ex p a r t e T.C., present case the erred supra, because, they a l l e g e , the i s d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f r o m Ex 4 parte T.C. because 2100108 t h e r e i s no i n d i c a t i o n t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n i n Ex p a r t e T.C. ever been Juvenile previously adjudicated dependent by the had Baldwin Court. We a c k n o w l e d g e t h a t t h e p r o c e d u r a l h i s t o r y r e g a r d i n g t h e Baldwin J u v e n i l e Court's abundantly c l e a r . jurisdiction I n Ex p a r t e T.C., i n Ex p a r t e T.C. this t h a t t h e f a t h e r had been awarded p r i m a r y the c h i l d r e n by t h e B a l d w i n 3d a t ___ . not We concluded jurisdiction custody-modification petition 15-117(a), A l a . Code 1975, 1975, jurisdiction adjudicated provides p h y s i c a l custody a of So. T.C. the mother's b e c a u s e § 12- a p r o v i s i o n i n t h e new that only J u v e n i l e Court d i d to decide i n Ex p a r t e J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e A c t ("the A J J A " ) , Code court divulged J u v e n i l e C o u r t i n 2006. that the Baldwin have s u b j e c t - m a t t e r i s not Alabama § 12-15-101 e t s e q . , A l a . juvenile court's retained i s l i m i t e d " ' t o c a s e s i n w h i c h "a c h i l d has b e e n dependent, supervision."'" Id. at delinquent, or in need of ( q u o t i n g W.B.G.M. v. P.S.T., 999 So. 2d 971, 975 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008) (Pittman, J . , concurring specially), q u o t i n g i n t u r n § 12-15-117(a)) (emphasis added i n W.B.G.M.). Therefore, we must presume that the Baldwin J u v e n i l e C o u r t had not p r e v i o u s l y a d j u d i c a t e d the c h i l d r e n i n 5 2100108 Ex parte T.C. t o be dependent, delinquent, or i n need of supervision. In Ex substantive parte T.C., we also stated that, changes t o t h e former J u v e n i l e by J u s t i c e A c t , see f o r m e r § 12-15-1 e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1975, r e g a r d i n g court's retained and original making jurisdiction, a juvenile see § 12-15- 1 1 4 ( a ) , A l a . Code 1975, " [ t ] h e 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 to provide that the j u v e n i l e courts 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 resolution i s directly of t h i s state should e x c e p t i n s o f a r as t h e i r incidental to core juvenile-court jurisdiction ( 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 § Apparently, the j u v e n i l e - c o u r t judge i n the p r e s e n t case i n t e r p r e t e d t h a t part of 1975, 26-17-104)." our d e c i s i o n court does not i n Ex p a r t e have custody-modification petition core also basis opportunity Id. T.C. at as h o l d i n g subject-matter p e t i t i o n unless contains an a l l e g a t i o n for juvenile-court to c l a r i f y . that jurisdiction the of dependency, i n Ex p a r t e We a c h i l d t o be d e p e n d e n t , d e l i n q u e n t , 6 a i.e.,a take this T.C. P u r s u a n t t o t h e A J J A , i f a j u v e n i l e c o u r t has adjudicated over custody-modification jurisdiction. our d e c i s i o n a juvenile previously o r i n need o f 2100108 supervision, the j u v e n i l e court has continuing o v e r t h a t c h i l d u n t i l t h e c h i l d a t t a i n s t h e age the j u v e n i l e c o u r t terminates See § 12-15-117(a); December 3, 2010] ("By o f 21 o r i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n over the and Ex parte So. 3d , L.N.K., [Ms. until child. 2090965, ( A l a . C i v . App. 2010) 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 j u v e n i l e courts continuing j u r i s d i c t i o n been jurisdiction 'adjudicated supervision.'") . o v e r c h i l d r e n u n l e s s t h e y have dependent, Nothing delinquent, in the AJJA or limits in need a of juvenile c o u r t ' s c o n t i n u i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n t t o § 12-15-117(a) t o proceedings in which the child is again d e p e n d e n t , and n o t h i n g i n Ex p a r t T.C. limiting a juvenile court's alleged s h o u l d be continuing to be construed jurisdiction in as that manner. Because the c h i l d i n the p r e s e n t adjudicated d e p e n d e n t by 12-15-117(a) jurisdiction afforded over the the c a s e had b e e n p r e v i o u s l y j u v e n i l e court the juvenile child until the court child o f 21 o r u n t i l 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 over the attainment case involving o f t h e age o f 21. the The 7 child i n J u l y 2008, § continuing a t t a i n e d the age i t s jurisdiction before the child's record demonstrates t h a t , at 2100108 the time t h e mother f i l e d h e r c u s t o d y - m o d i f i c a t i o n p e t i t i o n i n June 2009, t h e c h i l d h a d n o t y e t a t t a i n e d t h e age o f 21 a n d the juvenile c o u r t had n o t t e r m i n a t e d the case i n v o l v i n g t h e c h i l d . i t s jurisdiction over A c c o r d i n g l y , we c o n c l u d e that the j u v e n i l e c o u r t had c o n t i n u i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h e c h i l d , and, thus, i t had c o n t i n u i n g jurisdiction to consider the m o t h e r ' s c u s t o d y - m o d i f i c a t i o n p e t i t i o n . T h e r e f o r e , we c o n c l u d e that the juvenile court erred i n determining have subject-matter modification Because juvenile jurisdiction that i t d i dnot over t h e mother's custody- petition. we have court found could no b a s i s not exercise f o r holding jurisdiction that the over the m o t h e r ' s c u s t o d y - m o d i f i c a t i o n a c t i o n , we r e v e r s e t h e j u d g m e n t of the juvenile court custody-modification jurisdiction. We insofar as i t d i s m i s s e d action remand j u v e n i l e court t o vacate f o r lack t h e case with of t h e mother's subject-matter instructions to the i t s O c t o b e r 7, 2 0 1 0 , j u d g m e n t a n d t o e n t e r a j u d g m e n t c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h i s c o u r t ' s o p i n i o n i n J.W., supra. REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, concur. P . J . , and P i t t m a n , 8 Thomas, a n d 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.