S.D. v. J.S.F.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 06/30/2011 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 2100440 S.D. v. J.S.F. Appeal from Calhoun J u v e n i l e Court (JU-10-251.01) THOMAS, J u d g e . S.D. ("the m o t h e r " ) appeals from a judgment of the Calhoun J u v e n i l e Court determining t h a t J.S.F. i s t h e f a t h e r of custody J.T. ("the c h i l d " ) , awarding of the c h i l d to 2100440 J.S.F., and o r d e r i n g t h e c h i l d ' s J.S.F. We surname c h a n g e d t o t h a t o f affirm. A t t h e t i m e o f t h e c h i l d ' s b i r t h , t h e m o t h e r was i n v o l v e d i n a r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h E.C.T.; t h e m o t h e r a n d E.C.T. were n o t married. E.C.T. c h i l d was b o r n , April signed an a f f i d a v i t o f p a t e r n i t y when t h e a s s e r t i n g t h a t he was t h e c h i l d ' s f a t h e r . 15, 2010, 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 On ("DHR") f i l e d a p e t i t i o n i nthe j u v e n i l e court a l l e g i n g that the c h i l d was d e p e n d e n t . J.S.F. i n t e r v e n e d i n t h e dependency a c t i o n , a l l e g i n g t h a t he was t h e b i o l o g i c a l father of the c h i l d . July held 12, 2 0 1 0 , t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t p e t i t i o n a n d , on t h e same d a t e , e n t e r e d the c h i l d dependent and awarding custody At the hearing on i t s p e t i t i o n , a hearing on DHR's an o r d e r a d j u d i c a t i n g o f t h e c h i l d t o DHR. DHR moved t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t t o d i s m i s s J.S.F. as a p a r t y t o t h e a c t i o n , a r g u i n g t h e a f f i d a v i t o f p a t e r n i t y s i g n e d b y E.C.T. p r e c l u d e d f r o m c h a l l e n g i n g E.C.T.'s p a t e r n i t y o f t h e c h i l d . hearing, J.S.F. moved t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t that J.S.F. A t t h e same t o order t e s t i n g t o determine the p a t e r n i t y of the c h i l d . genetic The j u v e n i l e c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r d e n y i n g DHR's m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s 2 On J.S.F. 2100440 as a p a r t y a n d g r a n t i n g J . S . F ' s m o t i o n f o r g e n e t i c t e s t i n g on J u l y 13, 2 0 1 0 . On J u l y 19, 2010, DHR f i l e d judgment, again paternity, arguing E.C.T. child. appointed The c h i l d ' s g u a r d i a n by the j u v e n i l e court filed a motion partial summary j u d g m e n t . ad l i t e m father and t h a t f r o m c h a l l e n g i n g E.C.T.'s p a t e r n i t y o f action, guardian summary t h a t , b a s e d on E.C.T.'s a f f i d a v i t o f was t h e c h i l d ' s p r e s u m e d J . S . F . was p r e c l u d e d the a motion f o r p a r t i a l a d l i t e m , who as p a r t i n opposition argued of the had been dependency t o DHR's m o t i o n fora I n h i s motion i n o p p o s i t i o n , the that the r e s u l t s of the genetic t e s t i n g h a d shown t h a t J . S . F . , n o t E.C.T., was t h e b i o l o g i c a l father of the c h i l d . the testimony The g u a r d i a n a t t h e J u l y 12, 2010, h e a r i n g mother a n d E.C.T. knew t h a t untrue a t t h e t i m e i t was s i g n e d should be s e t a s i d e . for a partial ad l i t e m a l s o argued summary On September the a f f i d a v i t and t h a t , that showed t h a t t h e o f p a t e r n i t y was accordingly, i t The j u v e n i l e c o u r t d e n i e d DHR's m o t i o n judgment. 10, 2010, J . S . F . moved t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t t o a d j u d i c a t e h i m as t h e c h i l d ' s f a t h e r , t o award h i m c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d , a n d t o o r d e r t h e c h i l d ' s surname c h a n g e d t o t h a t o f 3 2100440 J.S.F. On November 1, 2010, E.C.T. e x e c u t e d an affidavit a c k n o w l e d g i n g t h a t he i s n o t t h e c h i l d ' s b i o l o g i c a l f a t h e r and repudiating held a h i s p a t e r n i t y of the c h i l d . hearing, judgment of J.S.F. the surname c h a n g e d The child mother filed that jurisdiction as to order December E.C.T.'s the to to that of things, other on acknowledging adjudicating custody and, J.S.F., of and 2010, the court i t entered of paternity, child, ordering a awarding the child's J.S.F. a postjudgment the juvenile repudiation father juvenile motion, arguing, court did among not a change i n t h e c h i l d ' s s u r n a m e . m o t h e r ' s p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n was and t h e m o t h e r 28, The d e n i e d by o p e r a t i o n timely appealed to t h i s have 1 The of law, court. R u l e 1 ( B ) , A l a . R. J u v . P., p r o v i d e s t h a t a p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n i n a j u v e n i l e c a s e must be f i l e d w i t h i n 14 d a y s o f t h e e n t r y o f t h e judgment. The m o t h e r ' s p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n i n t h i s c a s e was f i l e d on J a n u a r y 12, 2011 -- 15 d a y s a f t e r t h e e n t r y o f t h e judgment o f t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t . However, t h e o f f i c e o f t h e c l e r k was c l o s e d on J a n u a r y 11, 2011, due t o i n c l e m e n t w e a t h e r . R u l e 6 ( a ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., p r o v i d e s t h a t when t h e l a s t day t o make a f i l i n g i n a c o u r t f a l l s on "a day on w h i c h w e a t h e r o r o t h e r c o n d i t i o n s have made t h e o f f i c e o f t h e c l e r k o f t h e c o u r t i n a c c e s s i b l e , ... t h e p e r i o d r u n s u n t i l t h e end o f t h e n e x t day t h a t i s n o t one o f t h e a f o r e m e n t i o n e d days." The m o t h e r f i l e d h e r p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n on t h e n e x t day t h a t t h e o f f i c e o f t h e c l e r k was a c c e s s i b l e ; t h e r e f o r e , h e r p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n was t i m e l y f i l e d . 1 4 2100440 The mother argues lacked subject-matter surname changed. on appeal that jurisdiction Specifically, the j u v e n i l e to order t h e mother the c h i l d ' s argues probate c o u r t has e x c l u s i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n t o order a c h i l d ' s name. court that the a change i n I n s u p p o r t o f h e r argument, t h e mother cites § 26-11-3, A l a . Code 1975, a n d t h i s c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n i n T.L.H. v. R.A.R., 977 So. 2d 482 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 7 ) . 11-3(a) p r o v i d e s S e c t i o n 26- that " [ t ] h e f a t h e r may p e t i t i o n a t t h e t i m e o f f i l i n g t h e declaration of legitimation or a t any time subsequent t o t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n of l e g i t i m a t i o n t o change t h e name o f s u c h c h i l d , stating i nhis d e c l a r a t i o n t h e name i t i s t h e n known b y a n d t h e name he w i s h e s i t a f t e r w a r d s t o h a v e . Such p e t i t i o n s h a l l be f i l e d i n t h e o f f i c e o f t h e j u d g e o f p r o b a t e of t h e f a t h e r ' s residence or t h e c h i l d ' s r e s i d e n c e . " (Emphasis court, added.) citing I n T.L.H., § 26-11-3, held 977 So. 2d a t 486-87, this that had the probate court e x c l u s i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n t o o r d e r a change t o a c h i l d ' s surname. I n d e c i d i n g T.L.H., we s t a t e d t h a t o u r r e v i e w and c a s e l a w r e v e a l e d none t h a t g r a n t e d of the statutes the j u v e n i l e court the a u t h o r i t y t o change a c h i l d ' s surname. I d . a t 487. On J a n u a r y 1, 2009, a f t e r o u r d e c i s i o n i n T.L.H., A c t No. 2008-376, A l a . A c t s 2008, became e f f e c t i v e . Among t h e c h a n g e s t o s t a t u t e s made b y A c t No. 2008-376, § 26-17-636, A l a . Code 5 2100440 1975, was a d d e d t o t h e A l a b a m a U n i f o r m P a r e n t a g e A c t . 26-17-636(e) paternity, the provides "[o]n request c o u r t may o r d e r Actions to jurisdiction Ala. that, i n an action to adjudicate o f a p a r t y a n d f o r good c a u s e shown, t h a t t h e name o f t h e c h i l d establish Section paternity are within of the j u v e n i l e court. See § be c h a n g e d . " the original 12-15-115(a)(6), Code 1975 ( s t a t i n g t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t h a s o r i g i n a l jurisdiction over "[p]roceedings to e s t a b l i s h paternity or m a t e r n i t y o f a c h i l d p u r s u a n t t o t h e Alabama U n i f o r m P a r e n t a g e A c t , C h a p t e r 17 o f T i t l e 2 6 " ) . S e c t i o n 2 6 - 1 7 - 6 3 6 ( e ) e x p r e s s l y g r a n t s t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t a u t h o r i t y t o o r d e r t h e c h i l d ' s name c h a n g e d w h i l e i t i s e x e r c i s i n g i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r an a c t i o n to adjudicate the p a t e r n i t y of that In this jurisdiction of the c h i l d ordered case, the j u v e n i l e child. court was jurisdiction i t s over J.S.F.'s motion t o e s t a b l i s h h i s p a t e r n i t y when i t entered i t s judgment a change i n t h e c h i l d ' s surname. 26-17-636(e), exercising the t o order juvenile court i n part, Thus, p u r s u a n t t o § had t h e c h i l d ' s surname 6 that, subject-matter changed t o t h a t o f 2100440 J.S.F. 2 We therefore affirm t h e judgment of the juvenile court. AFFIRMED. Thompson, P.J., and Pittman, Bryan, and Moore, J J . , concur. T h e m o t h e r does n o t p r e s e n t any argument on a p p e a l as t o w h e t h e r t h e e v i d e n c e b e f o r e t h e t r i a l c o u r t was s u f f i c i e n t t o s u p p o r t i t s f i n d i n g t h a t t h e c h i l d ' s surname s h o u l d be c h a n g e d t o t h a t o f J.S.F. T h e r e f o r e , t h e m o t h e r has w a i v e d any argument on a p p e a l c o n c e r n i n g t h a t i s s u e . See P a r d u e v. P o t t e r , 632 So. 2d 470, 473 ( A l a . 1 9 9 4 ) ( " I s s u e s n o t a r g u e d i n the a p p e l l a n t ' s b r i e f are w a i v e d . " ) . 2 7

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.