Montgomery County Department of Human Resources v. Mickey McDermott, as guardian ad litem for M.J.M., a minor

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 06/24/2011 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 2100290 Montgomery County Department o f Human Resources v. Mickey McDermott, as guardian ad l i t e m f o r M.J.M., a minor Appeal from Montgomery J u v e n i l e Court (JU-05-1173.08, JU-05-1173.09, and JU-05-1173.10) MOORE, J u d g e . The Montgomery ("DHR") a p p e a l s from County Department o f Human a j u d g m e n t o f t h e Montgomery Resources Juvenile C o u r t ( " t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t " ) a w a r d i n g c u s t o d y o f M.J.M. ( " t h e child") t o DHR. We r e v e r s e . 2100290 On A u g u s t 6, 2 0 1 0 , two d e l i n q u e n c y in the juvenile charged w i t h court, p e t i t i o n s were filed the c h i l d was being and t h e f t o f p r o p e r t y . Also a l l e g i n g that counts of b u r g l a r y on A u g u s t 6, 2010, upon a r e c o m m e n d a t i o n made b y t h e c h i l d ' s juvenile probation detention, officer the j u v e n i l e that court the child entered a be held detention in order r e q u i r i n g t h e c h i l d t o remain i n d e t e n t i o n because " [ r ] e l e a s e of t h e c h i l d would present a serious nature On November judgment finding a c l e a r and s u b s t a n t i a l t h r e a t o f t o the person or property 23, 2010, t h e j u v e n i l e the c h i l d custody of the c h i l d of another." dependent t o DHR. court entered and awarding DHR f i l e d a legal a motion t o a l t e r , amend, o r v a c a t e t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t on December 7, 2010, a s s e r t i n g , among o t h e r lacked jurisdiction things, that the j u v e n i l e court t o award custody of the c h i l d t o DHR b e c a u s e no d e p e n d e n c y p e t i t i o n h a d b e e n f i l e d a n d b e c a u s e t h e p r o c e d u r e o u t l i n e d i n § 1 2 - 1 5 - 2 1 5 ( a ) ( 3 ) b . , A l a . Code 1975, h a d n o t b e e n f o l l o w e d , t h e r e b y v i o l a t i n g DHR's d u e - p r o c e s s r i g h t s . M i c k e y McDermott, t h e c h i l d ' s g u a r d i a n a d l i t e m , f i l e d an o b j e c t i o n t o DHR's m o t i o n on December 9, 2010. c o u r t s e t DHR's m o t i o n f o r a h e a r i n g 2 The j u v e n i l e on J a n u a r y 1 1 , 2 0 1 1 . On 2100290 January 4, scheduled that 2 0 1 1 , DHR filed an objection to the hearing by t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t f o r J a n u a r y 11, 2011, n o t i n g DHR's m o t i o n December 2 1 , 2010. 59.1(dc), had been by o p e r a t i o n o f l a w on See R u l e 1 ( b ) , A l a . R. J u v . P.; a n d R u l e A l a . R. C i v . P. a petition denied A l s o on J a n u a r y 4, 2 0 1 1 , DHR f o r a w r i t o f mandamus i n t h i s court; this filed court e l e c t s t o t r e a t t h a t p e t i t i o n a s an a p p e a l . DHR a s s e r t s on a p p e a l placing the c h i l d that the j u v e n i l e court i n i t s custody because, j u v e n i l e c o u r t d i d n o t have j u r i s d i c t i o n i t s custody. to place the c h i l d i n limited jurisdiction." So. 3 d 969, 972 ( A l a . C i v . explicit i t argues, the "Juvenile courts arepurely creatures of statute t h a t have e x t r e m e l y jurisdiction App. 2 0 1 0 ) . L.B. v. R.L.B., 53 A juvenile court's t o a c t e x t e n d s o n l y so f a r a s a u t h o r i z e d b y t h e terms o f t h e empowering statute. See Ex K.L.P. , 868 So. 2d 454, 456 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 3 ) . the erred i n question whether a j u v e n i l e court has a c t e d parte Therefore, within i t s p r o p e r bounds depends on t h e m e a n i n g o f t h e s t a t u t e b e s t o w i n g jurisdiction. jurisdictional this See id. Discerning t h e meaning of a s t a t u t e i n v o l v e s a pure q u e s t i o n o f law, which court reviews de n o v o . See J.W. v . C.B., [Ms. 2100108, 3 2100290 Feb. 25, 2011] Accordingly, So. 3 d , i n determining within i t s jurisdiction, ( A l a . C i v . App. whether the j u v e n i l e c o u r t whether See i d . the language acted we do n o t presume t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t a c t e d c o r r e c t l y i n a s s u m i n g t h e power t o a w a r d o f t h e c h i l d t o DHR. 2011). custody I n s t e a d , we must d e t e r m i n e anew of the relevant J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e A c t ("the A J J A " ) , s t a t u t e , t h e Alabama § 12-15-101 e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1975, i n v e s t s t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t w i t h t h e power t o make such a c u s t o d i a l d i s p o s i t i o n The record jurisdiction indicates i n t h e manner i n w h i c h i t d i d . that court o r i g i n a l l y property placed and of another, continuances, a of the c h i l d . The j u v e n i l e and i t o r d e r e d that the c h i l d i n t h e Montgomery C o u n t y Y o u t h subsequently sought w i t h i n the f o u n d t h e c h i l d t o be a d a n g e r t o t h e p e r s o n i n detention The c h i l d came of the j u v e n i l e court pursuant t o the f i l i n g of p e t i t i o n s a l l e g i n g the delinquency or the c h i l d trial denied on the a l l e g a t i o n s of the the j u v e n i l e court matters. determined Facility. delinquency After that be several the c h i l d s h o u l d be r e l e a s e d f r o m d e t e n t i o n p e n d i n g t h e f i n a l h e a r i n g on the d e l i n q u e n c y p e t i t i o n s ; however, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ordered t h a t , due t o t h e p o o r home e n v i r o n m e n t a w a i t i n g t h e c h i l d , t h e 4 2100290 c h i l d s h o u l d not r e t u r n t o the p h y s i c a l custody but, rather, that h i s custody should be of h i s mother awarded t o the j u v e n i l e court declared the child t o be for In doing placement w i t h a s u i t a b l e p h y s i c a l custodian. DHR so, dependent. The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s , without d i s p u t e , t h a t the j u v e n i l e c o u r t d i d n o t n o t i f y DHR its custody of the proceedings j u d g m e n t on not otherwise November 23, d i s p o s i t i o n of h i s court instances, First, has to 2010, s t a t u s of the place only a two child in the of which are a j u v e n i l e c o u r t may b e e n a d j u d i c a t e d t o be custody t h a t DHR child or the did be proper t r a n s f e r custody authorize a juvenile of DHR in pertinent to t h i s t r a n s f e r custody a dependent c h i l d § 1 2 - 1 5 - 3 1 4 ( a ) ( 3 ) a . , A l a . Code 1975. c o u r t may and entering custody. terms of the AJJA s p e c i f i c a l l y to time before have n o t i c e o f t h e c a s e o r an o p p o r t u n i t y t o h e a r d on t h e m a t t e r o f t h e The a t any o f a c h i l d who several appeal. of a c h i l d t o DHR 1 who pursuant Second, a j u v e n i l e has b e e n a d j u d i c a t e d The r e c o r d d o e s n o t i n d i c a t e any o t h e r s t a t u t o r y b a s e s t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t p o s s i b l y c o u l d have r e l i e d upon i n m a k i n g i t s c u s t o d y d i s p o s i t i o n , so we see no n e e d t o d i s c u s s t h e a u t h o r i t y o f t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t t o commit a c h i l d t o t h e c u s t o d y o f DHR f o r t e m p o r a r y o r e m e r g e n c y p u r p o s e s . See § 12¬ 15-141, A l a . Code 1975. 1 5 2100290 t o be a c h i l d i n n e e d o f s u p e r v i s i o n t o DHR p u r s u a n t t o § 1215-215(a)(3)b., A l a . Code 1975. By t h e e x p l i c i t t e r m s o f i t s j u d g m e n t , t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t apparently attempted t o invoke order t o t r a n s f e r custody court declared the c h i l d i t s dependency j u r i s d i c t i o n i n of the c h i l d t o DHR. The j u v e n i l e t o be d e p e n d e n t b e c a u s e o f h i s home e n v i r o n m e n t , and i t o r d e r e d DHR t o assume c u s t o d y in order However, to find the AJJA the child does not a proper authorize physical a The AJJA jurisdiction specifically with facts sufficient 12-15-114(a), an e v i d e n t i a r y process. provides that the dependency a juvenile-court intake officer alleging t o p r o v e the dependency of the c h i l d . A l a . Code 1975. The juvenile-court o f f i c e r must t h e n r e f e r t h e d e p e n d e n c y p e t i t i o n referral to o f t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t i s t r i g g e r e d by t h e f i l i n g of a p e t i t i o n 15-114(b), custodian. j u v e n i l e court d e c l a r e a c h i l d d e p e n d e n t ex mero motu w i t h o u t h e a r i n g h e l d i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h due of the c h i l d A l a . Code i s to notify 1975. DHR The obvious t o DHR. purpose See § intake § 12of the o f the dependency p r o c e e d i n g s so t h a t i t may be g i v e n an o p p o r t u n i t y t o p r o t e c t i t s i n t e r e s t i n a s s u r i n g the safe c u s t o d i a l d i s p o s i t i o n of the c h i l d . 6 Hence, 2100290 a j u v e n i l e c o u r t would v i o l a t e the due-process r i g h t s of DHR i f i t a d j u d i c a t e d a c h i l d d e p e n d e n t and t r a n s f e r r e d c u s t o d y of the an child to DHR without o p p o r t u n i t y t o be h e a r d . o f Human Res., that due custody 511 process So. providing See proceedings). The such notice and g e n e r a l l y V a l e r o v. S t a t e Dep't 2d 200 must be DHR ( A l a . C i v . App. observed 1987) (holding in juvenile-court AJJA f u r t h e r provides child- t h a t , i f no response i s f i l e d t o a dependency p e t i t i o n , the j u v e n i l e c o u r t may find a child evidence presented dependent record in the did not have See was case held. i t s dependency Section beyond a reasonable that no 1975. such Consequently, the j u v e n i l e to adjudicate o f t h e c h i l d t o DHR the child pursuant the provides that i f , upon proof doubt, a j u v e n i l e c o u r t f i n d s a c h i l d be i n n e e d o f s u p e r v i s i o n and p h y s i c a l custody convincing jurisdiction. 12-15-215(a)(3)b. rehabilitation, indicates jurisdiction dependent or to t r a n s f e r custody to and § 1 2 - 1 5 - 3 1 0 ( b ) , A l a . Code present e v i d e n t i a r y proceeding court i f clear i n an a d j u d i c a t o r y h e a r i n g e s t a b l i s h e s t h e dependency of the c h i l d . The only such c h i l d i s i n need of care j u v e n i l e court of the child to 7 DHR may transfer legal to or and 2100290 " p r o v i d e d however 1. t h a t p r i o r t o any t r a n s f e r o f c u s t o d y t o 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 , t h e case shall first be referred to the county c h i l d r e n ' s s e r v i c e s f a c i l i t a t i o n team, w h i c h must proceed according to A r t i c l e 5 " In t h i s case, hearing to t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t d i d n o t h o l d an find reasonable the doubt appropriate child and county i n need i t did not children's of adjudicatory s u p e r v i s i o n beyond refer services the child to facilitation a the team. Hence, e v e n i f t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t i n t e n d e d t o t r a n s f e r c u s t o d y of the child t o DHR as a c h i l d i n need of s u p e r v i s i o n , which i s doubtful, i t acted outside i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n by c o m p l y w i t h § 1 2 - 1 5 - 2 1 5 ( a ) ( 3 ) b . and to n o t i f y of the the custody j u v e n i l e court judgment f i n d i n g of the judgment, child and we So. 2d 476, 479 the statutes jurisdiction to was cause w i t h t h a t judgment. the the DHR child 8 awarding i n s t r u c t i o n s to the See K.L.B. v. W.M.F., 2000). above, to juvenile court's We note t h a t juvenile court, i f i t discussed the jurisdiction d e p e n d e n t and reverse ( A l a . C i v . App. find without child we remand t h e h o l d i n g does not p r e c l u d e with the t o DHR, j u v e n i l e court to vacate 757 failing to proceedings. Because the enter by failing from dependent complies exercising or in our need its of 2100290 supervision. are To t h e e x t e n t DHR's r e m a i n i n g i s s u e s not i n h e r e n t l y further discuss addressed i n this opinion, on a p p e a l we d e c l i n e t o them. R E V E R S E D AND REMANDED WITH Thompson, Pittman, P . J . , and concur. 9 INSTRUCTIONS. Bryan, a n d Thomas, 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.