D.E.F. v. L.M.D.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 07/29/2011 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 SPECIAL TERM, 2011 2100466 D.E.F. v. L.M.D. Appeal from Baldwin J u v e n i l e Court (JU-08-707.03) THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e . D.E.F. child"). ("the f a t h e r " ) i s the father o f L . L . F . ("the F o l l o w i n g h i s b i r t h i n J u n e 2008, t h e c h i l d resided 2100466 for a t i m e i n t h e home t h e f a t h e r s h a r e d w i t h h i s w i f e , R.F., and her three c h i l d r e n from a p r e v i o u s relationship. On O c t o b e r 3 1 , 2008, t h e c h i l d a n d R.F.'s t h r e e 1 children were t a k e n i n t o p r o t e c t i v e c u s t o d y f o l l o w i n g a l l e g a t i o n s t h a t the f a t h e r a n d R.F. h a d p h y s i c a l l y a b u s e d some o r a l l o f t h e c h i l d r e n i n t h e home. Resources The B a l d w i n C o u n t y D e p a r t m e n t o f Human ("DHR") t h e n f i l e d i n t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t a p e t i t i o n a l l e g i n g , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , t h a t t h e c h i l d was d e p e n d e n t . December 8, 2008, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t e n t e r e d it an o r d e r On i n which found t h e c h i l d dependent and awarded temporary l e g a l and p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d t o DHR. Following 2008, entered a hearing, a t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t , on December 17, judgment i n which i t found the child dependent, p l a c e d t h e c h i l d " i n t h e l e g a l and p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y of [ J . E . D . ] and [L.M.D.]," and s p e c i f i e d t h a t " [ t ] h i s case i s hereby case." closed a n d DHR i s relieved of supervision on this The f a t h e r d i d n o t a p p e a l t h a t j u d g m e n t . R.F. i s n o t t h e mother o f t h e c h i l d . The r e c o r d a n d b r i e f s b e f o r e t h i s c o u r t do n o t i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e c h i l d ' s mother, a l t h o u g h s e r v e d w i t h p r o c e s s , has been i n v o l v e d i n any of t h e l i t i g a t i o n concerning t h e c h i l d . 1 2 2100466 On F e b r u a r y court a Rule from 5, 2009, 60(b), t h e December the father i n the juvenile A l a . R. C i v . P., m o t i o n 17, 2008, judgment. g r a n t e d t h e m o t i o n on M a r c h 16, 2009. a petition filed seeking relief The j u v e n i l e court J.E.D. a n d L.M.D. f i l e d f o r a w r i t o f mandamus i n t h i s court challenging t h e M a r c h 16, 2009, o r d e r s e t t i n g a s i d e t h e December 17, 2008, judgment. writ The f a t h e r d i d n o t r e s p o n d t o t h e p e t i t i o n o f mandamus f i l e d court entered mandamus. an o r d e r i n this court. granting for a On May 7, 2009, the p e t i t i o n this f o ra w r i t of Ex p a r t e J.D., 51 So. 3 d 1134 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009) (table). Thereafter, on J u l y 8, 2009, juvenile court a p e t i t i o n 2008, judgment. "currently L.M.D. The i n the legal and t h a t a occurred warranting seeking father the father in the t o m o d i f y t h e December 17, alleged that and p h y s i c a l custody" material filed change an a w a r d o f c u s t o d y the c h i l d was o f J.E.D. a n d of circumstances had o f the c h i l d t o him. J.E.D. a n d L.M.D. a n s w e r e d a n d o p p o s e d t h e f a t h e r ' s custody- modification action. The j u v e n i l e c o u r t r e c e i v e d o r e t e n u s e v i d e n c e o v e r t h e course o f f o u r d a y s b e t w e e n J u l y 2010 a n d December 3 2010. A t 2100466 the conclusion of the father's presentation of evidence, J.E.D. a n d L.M.D. o r a l l y moved f o r a j u d g m e n t a s a m a t t e r o f law, arguing burden. a that the father The c h i l d ' s g u a r d i a n a d l i t e m j o i n e d t h e m o t i o n f o r judgment as a m a t t e r of law. granted the motion during 2011, h a d n o t met h i s e v i d e n t i a r y the juvenile court The j u v e n i l e c o u r t thehearing. entered father's modification petition a orally L a t e r , on J a n u a r y 12, judgment on t h e b a s i s denying the that the father h a d n o t met h i s b u r d e n o f p r o o f i n s u p p o r t o f h i s p e t i t i o n t o modify custody. the The f a t h e r t i m e l y judgment e n t e r e d i n favor o f L.M.D.; t h e f a t h e r d i d n o t a p p e a l t h e judgment as i t p e r t a i n e d A recitation appealed that p o r t i o n of t o J.E.D. 2 of t h e evidence presented a t t h e ore tenus hearing i s not necessary to resolve the issues r a i s e d on appeal. The two a r g u m e n t s a s s e r t e d b y t h e f a t h e r i n h i s b r i e f submitted t o t h i s court each i n v o l v e only l e g a l i s s u e s . "When The f a t h e r f i l e d h i s n o t i c e o f a p p e a l a f t e r t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s o r a l r u l i n g b u t b e f o r e t h e e n t r y o f t h e J a n u a r y 12, 2011, f i n a l j u d g m e n t . The f a t h e r ' s n o t i c e o f a p p e a l i s deemed timely f i l e d . See Hood v . Hood, 23 So. 3 d 1160, 1162 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009) ("The ... n o t i c e o f a p p e a l i s deemed t o have been h e l d i n a b e y a n c e u n t i l t h e e n t r y o f t h a t f i n a l j u d g m e n t , see R u l e 4 ( a ) ( 4 ) , A l a . R. App. P., a n d t h e a p p e a l i s timely."). 2 4 2100466 this court is child-custody presented c a s e , we with r e v i e w the a question of v. B.B. , 998 So. 2d ( c i t i n g P a t r i c k v. W i l l i a m s , App. 2 0 0 6 ) , and C i v . App. The an 952 491 So. B a r b e r v. Moore, 897 (Ala. 2d 1131, So. 2d incorrect So. court correctness." Civ. App. 1138 2008) (Ala. Civ. 1150, 1153 that first legal the argues t h a t the standard. Specifically, juvenile court j u v e n i l e court (Ala. erred 2d 863 ( A l a . 1984). This applied the father i n r e q u i r i n g him meet t h e e v i d e n t i a r y b u r d e n e s t a b l i s h e d i n Ex p a r t e 455 a 2004)). father contends 489, in judgment of the t r i a l de n o v o , w i t h o u t a f f o r d i n g i t any p r e s u m p t i o n o f C.B. law court has to McLendon, explained: " I n Ex p a r t e McLendon, . .. o u r supreme c o u r t h e l d t h a t t h e p r o p e r s t a n d a r d t o be a p p l i e d i n child-custody c a s e s w h e r e i n a p a r e n t has either v o l u n t a r i l y f o r f e i t e d c u s t o d y o r has l o s t c u s t o d y due t o a p r i o r j u d g m e n t i s w h e t h e r t h e r e has b e e n a m a t e r i a l change i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s s i n c e t h e p r i o r judgment; whether a change in custody will m a t e r i a l l y promote the b e s t i n t e r e s t s of the c h i l d ; and w h e t h e r t h e b e n e f i t s o f t h e change i n c u s t o d y w i l l more t h a n o f f s e t t h e i n h e r e n t l y d i s r u p t i v e e f f e c t c a u s e d by u p r o o t i n g t h e c h i l d . 455 So. 2d [ 8 6 3 , ] 865 [ ( A l a . 1 9 8 4 ) ] . " B a r b e r v. Moore, 897 So. 2d a t 1153. The rather t h a n t h e McLendon s t a n d a r d , t h e have applied the f a t h e r argues j u v e n i l e court best-interests-of-the-child 5 that, should standard 2100466 a p p l i c a b l e i n dependency a c t i o n s . 2d 890, 892-93 See B.S.L. v . S.E., 826 So. ( A l a . C i v . App. 2002) (the b e s t - i n t e r e s t s - o f - t h e - c h i l d s t a n d a r d a p p l i e s i n a d e p e n d e n c y a c t i o n ) ; a n d O.L.D. v. J . C . , 769 So. 2d 299, 302 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1999) (same). T h i s c o u r t h a s h e l d , h o w e v e r , t h a t when a j u v e n i l e c o u r t has e n t e r e d a j u d g m e n t a w a r d i n g to a r e l a t i v e , standard i n order t o regain custody of J.W. v . C.B., 56 So. 3d 693, 699 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 0 ) ; M.B. v . S.B., 12 So. 3 d 1217, 1219-20 2009). forfeited L.M.D. a r g u e s custody that o r has the father lost j u d g m e n t , " i . e . , t h e December v. M o o r e , child a parent seeking t o modify that custody order must meet t h e McLendon the c h i l d . custody o f a dependent ( A l a . C i v . App. "either custody due voluntarily to a 17, 2008, j u d g m e n t . prior See B a r b e r 897 So. 2d a t 1153. T h e r e f o r e , she c o n t e n d s , t h e f a t h e r was r e q u i r e d t o meet t h e McLendon standard. The f a t h e r does n o t d i s p u t e t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e December 17, 2008, j u d g m e n t o r t h a t i t a w a r d e d J.E.D. a n d L.M.D. l e g a l and physical disputes custody the v a l i d i t y of the c h i l d . of that p r i o r Rather, judgment. on a p p e a l , he However, as a l r e a d y i n d i c a t e d , t h e f a t h e r d i d n o t a p p e a l t h e December 17, 2008, j u d g m e n t , a n d , i n h i s F e b r u a r y 2009 R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n , 6 2100466 the father judgment asserted that he t h e same currently Although the j u v e n i l e court arguments asserts concerning before this granted the father's court. R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n , J.E.D. a n d L.M.D. s u c c e s s f u l l y p e t i t i o n e d t h i s for a writ petition court the mandamus this Accordingly, of court's f o ra writ with regard to May 7, 2009, order o f mandamus a n d d i r e c t i n g t o v a c a t e i t s M a r c h 16, 2009, o r d e r case. Even Ex p a r t e assuming again that challenged King, that the v a l i d i t y court ruling. granting the the juvenile became t h e l a w o f 821 So. 2 d 2 0 5 , 209 ( A l a . the father that had, i n t h e c u r r e n t o f t h e December 2001). action, 17, 2008, j u d g m e n t , t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t w o u l d have b e e n w i t h o u t a u t h o r i t y to ignore t h e e f f e c t o f t h a t judgment. The 3 Ex p a r t e K i n g , supra. j u v e n i l e c o u r t p r o p e r l y c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e f a t h e r was r e q u i r e d t o meet t h e McLendon s t a n d a r d i n order t o modify the December 17, 2008, j u d g m e n t a w a r d i n g c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d t o J.E.D. a n d L.M.D. Accordingly, we c a n n o t s a y t h a t t h e f a t h e r In the current modification action, the father d i d not file a claim seeking t o v a c a t e t h e December 17, 2008, judgment. A l t h o u g h t h e f a t h e r a r g u a b l y a t t e m p t e d t o t r y t h a t i s s u e by t h e i m p l i e d consent o f t h e p a r t i e s pursuant t o Rule 1 5 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., g i v e n o u r c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e c l a i m was b a r r e d b y t h e d o c t r i n e o f l a w o f t h e c a s e , t h i s c o u r t n e e d n o t d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r he p r o p e r l y d i d s o . 3 7 2100466 has demonstrated e r r o r with that the f a t h e r has not a r g u e d on court erred i n determining burden under Ex parte argument i s w a i v e d . (Ala. 1994) regard this appeal issue. that t h a t he had n o t met McLendon, P a r d u e v. ("Issues not to supra. Potter, the We note juvenile his evidentiary Accordingly, 632 So. 2d that 470, 473 argued i n the a p p e l l a n t ' s b r i e f are waived."). The f a t h e r a l s o a r g u e s on a p p e a l t h a t he r e q u i r e d t o meet t h e McLendon s t a n d a r d should b e c a u s e , he not says, be the s t r i n g e n c y o f t h a t s t a n d a r d v i o l a t e s p u b l i c p o l i c y by c r e a t i n g a b a r r i e r to the r e u n i f i c a t i o n o f a p a r e n t and a child. f a t h e r a s k s t h i s c o u r t t o " r e v i s i t c u r r e n t l a w s and relating to precedent custody the as they violate f a t h e r w o u l d have t h i s public court confined to the h o l d i n g s opinions f r o m t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t . McLendon, 455 has So. 2d a t 865 a prima f a c i e r i g h t However, this [judgment] of t h i s c o u r t , but removing standards policy." overrule The is not a l s o encompasses See, e.g., Ex parte ( s t a t i n g t h a t "[a] n a t u r a l p a r e n t to the presumption The custody of h i s or her does n o t custody from awarding i t to a non-parent."). 8 apply the This after natural court ... child. a prior parent and i s b o u n d by the 2100466 p r e c e d e n t e s t a b l i s h e d by o u r supreme c o u r t . Code 1975 the ("The holdings Farmers App. of the courts I n s . E x c h . v. R a i n e , revisit ("Although this even the issue, this i f we McLendon s t a n d a r d with o f t h e Supreme C o u r t s h a l l and d e c i s i o n s 2004) Thus, decisions agreed o u r supreme 905 So. supreme 2d 832, court 835 might "); (Ala. Civ. choose i s b o u n d by p r e c e d e n t with the father with that his the to "). Ex parte reunification not o v e r r u l e precedent e s t a b l i s h e d court. AFFIRMED. Pittman, govern of appeals court somehow i n t e r f e r e s t h e c h i l d , we may § 12-3-16, A l a . B r y a n , and Thomas, J J . , c o n c u r . Moore, J . , c o n c u r s i n t h e r e s u l t , 9 with writing. by 2100466 MOORE, J u d g e , c o n c u r r i n g I why, concur in i n the r e s u l t . i n the r e s u l t . this case, I write the specially to explain custody-modification standard e s t a b l i s h e d i n Ex p a r t e McLendon, 455 So. 2d 863 ( A l a . 1 9 8 4 ) , does not conflict reunification parents. seq., the public o f a dependent c h i l d with policy favoring h i s or her n a t u r a l See § 12-15-312, A l a . Code 1975. Section Alabama with 1 2 - 1 5 - 1 0 1 ( b ) ( 3 ) , A l a . Code 1975, a p a r t Juvenile Justice Act ("the A J J A " ) , A l a . Code 1975, e s t a b l i s h e s a goal of the § 12-15-101 for juvenile et courts to " r e u n i t e a c h i l d with h i s or her parent or parents as q u i c k l y a n d as s a f e l y as p o s s i b l e when t h e c h i l d has been removed f r o m t h e c u s t o d y o f h i s o r h e r parent or parents unless r e u n i f i c a t i o n i s j u d i c i a l l y d e t e r m i n e d n o t t o be i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f t h e child." In pursuit of that goal, i s removed from t h e f a m i l y home f o r p r o t e c t i v e p u r p o s e s , j u v e n i l e c o u r t s commonly order state child-welfare once a c h i l d agencies t o use r e a s o n a b l e e f f o r t s to a s s i s t the f a m i l y i n c o r r e c t i n g the conduct, c o n d i t i o n s , or circumstances that endangered the c h i l d family reunification. See g e n e r a l l y 10 s o as t o a l l o w f o r R.T.B. v . C a l h o u n C n t y . 2100466 Dep't o f Human R e s . , 19 So. 3d 198, 204 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009). To safeguard reunification some v. process, alternative placement the c h i l d during that the j u v e n i l e custodial Cnty. Civ. arrangement involving "temporary rehabilitation temporary See g e n e r a l l y J.B. Dep't o f Human R e s . , 992 So. 2d 34 ( A l a . App. 2 0 0 8 ) . such and c o u r t s must p r o v i d e f o r of the c h i l d w i t h a nonparent. Cleburne rehabilitation However, a j u d g m e n t a w a r d i n g protective and custody" during family-reunification a nonparent the parental- process does not c o n s t i t u t e a f i n a l d i s p o s i t i o n o f t h e custody o f t h e dependent child. App. See S.P. v. E.T., 957 So. 2d 1127, 1131-32 ( A l a . C i v . 2005) (explaining that dependency i n v o l v e a s e r i e s o f appealable temporary a final proceedings often custody orders before "permanent" d i s p o s i t i o n a l judgment i s e n t e r e d ) . "[W]hen a j u v e n i l e c o u r t p l a c e s a c h i l d i n t h e custody o f a nonparent d u r i n g the r e h a b i l i t a t i o n period, the t r a n s f e r of custody i s not intended t o be s o l o n g - l a s t i n g t h a t t h e c h i l d i s e x p e c t e d t o l a y down r o o t s a n d s t a b i l i z e i n t h e c u s t o d y o f t h e n o n p a r e n t ; r a t h e r , i t i s d e s i g n e d t o be a t e m p o r a r y p r o t e c t i v e measure t o s a f e g u a r d t h e c h i l d until e i t h e r t h e p a r e n t c a n s a f e l y resume c u s t o d y o r , r e u n i f i c a t i o n e f f o r t s having f a i l e d , some o t h e r permanent d i s p o s i t i o n o f t h e [custody o f t h e ] c h i l d may be made." 11 2100466 J.B., 992 So. 2d a t 48 (Moore, J . , d i s s e n t i n g ) . V i e w i n g t h i s p r o c e s s p r o p e r l y , i . e . , as an a i d t o f a m i l y reunification, a nonparent i t n a t u r a l l y f o l l o w s t h a t a judgment temporary p r o t e c t i v e custody o f a dependent s h o u l d be m o d i f i a b l e when t h e n e e d f o r f a m i l y longer e x i s t s . in a child s e p a r a t i o n no Hence, as I e x p l a i n e d a t l e n g t h i n my d i s s e n t J . B . , 992 So. 2d a t 47-50, reclaim awarding child from temporary a parent s h o u l d be a b l e t o protective custody in a d e p e n d e n c y p r o c e e d i n g upon p r o o f t h a t t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f t h e c h i l d w o u l d be t h e r e b y s e r v e d u n l e s s t h e p a r t y the resumption of parental custody proves by resisting clear and c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e c h i l d remains dependent and t h a t r e a s o n a b l e e f f o r t s t o r e h a b i l i t a t e t h e p a r e n t and r e u n i t e t h e f a m i l y have n o t s u c c e e d e d . J., dissenting). 4 J . B . , 992 So. 2d a t 50 Once a p a r e n t has e s t a b l i s h e d (Moore, h i s or her f i t n e s s t o resume c u s t o d y , t h a t p a r e n t s h o u l d n o t have t o b e a r In J.B., t h e C l e b u r n e C o u n t y D e p a r t m e n t o f Human Resources h e l d l e g a l custody o f the c h i l d a t the time the parents p e t i t i o n e d t o regain custody of the c h i l d . Hence, I wrote t h a t " t h e s t a t e " bears the burden of p r o v i n g c o n t i n u i n g dependency and t h e f a i l u r e o f r e a s o n a b l e e f f o r t s t o r e u n i t e the f a m i l y . 992 So. 2d a t 50 (Moore, J . , d i s s e n t i n g ) . I b e l i e v e t h e same s t a n d a r d s h o u l d a p p l y when an i n d i v i d u a l nonparent holds temporary p r o t e c t i v e custody of a c h i l d i n the same c o n t e x t . 4 12 2100466 the burden of further custody would welfare of the c h i l d about by proving materially the that promote so t h a t modification return the best "'[t]he ... a more to parental interests and p o s i t i v e good b r o u g h t than o f f s e t [ s ] the i n h e r e n t l y d i s r u p t i v e e f f e c t caused by u p r o o t i n g the c h i l d . ' " McLendon, 455 So. 2d a t 865 ( q u o t i n g Wood v . Wood, 333 So. 2d 826, 828 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 7 6 ) ) . On t h e o t h e r h a n d , when a j u v e n i l e c o u r t enters a final d i s p o s i t i o n a l judgment e n d i n g t h e dependency o f t h e c h i l d , see S.P., 992 So. 2d a t 1131 ( n o t i n g t h a t d e p e n d e n c y ends when a juvenile court awards custody to a proper custodian in a " f i n a l " d i s p o s i t i o n a l j u d g m e n t and t h e c h i l d i s no l o n g e r i n need o f t h e care or supervision implies a j u d i c i a l determination longer serves effectively the best ending interests of t h e dependent App. 2011) that point, dissolves, child, family- Y.N. v . J e f f e r s o n C n t y . Dep't o f Human [Ms. 2090832, J a n . 14, 2011] Civ. judgment t h a t f a m i l y r e u n i f i c a t i o n no t h e p a r e n t a l - r e h a b i l i t a t i o n and r e u n i f i c a t i o n process. Res., of the S t a t e ) , that So. 3d (Moore, J . , c o n c u r r i n g any p r e s u m p t i o n i n favor (Ala. i n the r e s u l t ) . of parental s e e g e n e r a l l y M.A.J. v . S.B., 13 , At custody [Ms. 2100084, June 2100466 24, 2011] law So. 3d shifts securing i t s focus the safety custodial ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 1 ) , a n d t h e from preserving and s t a b i l i t y arrangement. necessarily her , intends A final family integrity of the c h i l d i n t h e new dispositional that the c h i l d w i l l stabilize judgment i n h i s or new home e n v i r o n m e n t a n d d e v e l o p " ' t h o s e r o o t s for the child's adulthood.'" healthy McLendon, dispositional parent favor of family cases have held, entry adolescence rely interests that on t h e g e n e r a l may and w e l f a r e demonstrate of the c h i l d would l i n e of then o n l y b y m e e t i n g t h e McLendon that a public policy i n However, as a l o n g c o r r e c t l y so, a parent judgment Wood v . a f t e r the entry of a b y p r o v i n g a m a t e r i a l change o f c i r c u m s t a n c e s of and i n a dependency p r o c e e d i n g , reunification. custody of the c h i l d i.e., Accordingly, judgment c a n no l o n g e r into necessary 455 So. 2d a t 863 ( q u o t i n g Wood, 333 So. 2d a t 8 2 8 ) . final growth to that be reclaim standard, since the the best materially promoted by r e t u r n i n g t h e c h i l d t o t h e custody o f t h e parent. See, e.g. , S.B.L. v. E.S., 865 So. 2d 1214 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 3 ) ; A.H. v . R.M., 793 So. 2d 799 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 1 ; a n d I n r e F.W., 681 So. 2d 208, 211 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 6 ) . 14 2100466 H a v i n g c a r e f u l l y c o n s i d e r e d t h e t e r m s o f t h e December 17, 2008, judgment e n t e r e d juvenile court"), rendition, J u v e n i l e C o u r t ("the and t h e circumstances surrounding i t s I c o n c l u d e t h a t t h a t judgment c o n s t i t u t e s a f i n a l disposition modified by the Baldwin o f the custody o f a dependent c h i l d o n l y b y s a t i s f y i n g t h e McLendon D.E.F. ("the f a t h e r " ) contends t h a t t h a t may be standard. t h e judgment arose f r o m an a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n h i m s e l f a n d L.M.D. a n d J.E.D. a t a time when t h e B a l d w i n C o u n t y D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s ("DHR") h a d e s t a b l i s h e d a p e r m a n e n c y p l a n t o r e u n i t e L.L.F. ("the t o t h e f a t h e r , he child") with the father. According d i d n o t want t h e c h i l d t o be i n a f o s t e r home w i t h strangers during the r e u n i f i c a t i o n process, s o he a g r e e d w i t h L.M.D. a n d J.E.D. custody that they would assume of the c h i l d only t e m p o r a r i l y and t h a t they would cooperate w i t h t h e f a t h e r i n his efforts child. 2008, 5 to rehabilitate However, judgment himself reflects the record resulted and r e u n i t e t h a t t h e December 17, from an a g r e e m e n t p a r t i e s i n open c o u r t on December agreement, 5 the father 15, 2008. with the recited Pursuant t o that s t i p u l a t e d t o t h e dependency L.M.D. a n d J.E.D. d i s p u t e t h a t 15 by t h e contention. of the 2100466 child, the w h i c h DHR h a d a l l e g e d r e s u l t e d f r o m p h y s i c a l abuse b y f a t h e r a n d R.F., t h e c h i l d ' s stepmother, and consented t o L.M.D. a n d J.E.D.'s a s s u m i n g c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d . specific questioning undisclosed intended rehabilitated custody t o be himself. On agreed child's three efforts to reunite and the juvenile court as t o any terms, t h e f a t h e r d i d not r e v e a l t h a t t h e p a r t i e s that explicitly by Despite that temporary the other DHR w o u l d stepsiblings, that while the father hand, the maintain DHR w o u l d those c h i l d r e n with custody father of the use reasonable t h e f a t h e r a n d R.F., t h a t t h e i r d e p e n d e n c y c a s e s w o u l d r e m a i n open a n d s u b j e c t to review i n three The intended December months. 17, 2008, to incorporate judgment, which was expressly t h e agreement o f the p a r t i e s , c l e a r l y does n o t i n d i c a t e i n a n y manner t h a t t h e a w a r d o f c u s t o d y t o L.M.D. a n d J.E.D. was i n t e n d e d only f o r temporary p r o t e c t i v e p u r p o s e s w h i l e t h e f a t h e r u n d e r w e n t r e h a b i l i t a t i o n o r DHR u s e d reasonable e f f o r t s t o reunite the c h i l d with its face, t h e judgment terminates the father. t h e dependency On a c t i o n by awarding u n c o n d i t i o n a l l e g a l and p h y s i c a l custody o f the child t o L.M.D. a n d J.E.D., c l o s i n g t h e c a s e , a n d r e l i e v i n g DHR o f 16 2100466 any further supervision [Ms. 2100273, J u l y 8, App. 2011) (holding over the 2011] that matter. So. judgment See 3d G.M. v. (Ala. , that T.W., Civ. indicated c l o s e d " and t h a t r e l i e v e d c o u n t y d e p a r t m e n t o f human of supervision father believed erroneously agreement should see terminated that failed to r e a c h e d by dependency the the parties have moved t o s e t a s i d e Rule 1(B), Ala. R. Juv. the P., resources proceeding). December incorporate "[f]ile the 17, If 2008, judgment e n t i r e t y of i n open c o u r t , he did the the judgment w i t h i n which the father 14 not. oral 6 days, As a I n F e b r u a r y 2009, t h e f a t h e r d i d f i l e a R u l e 6 0 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., m o t i o n s e e k i n g t o have t h e j u d g m e n t v a c a t e d , b u t t h a t m o t i o n was n o t b a s e d on any e r r o r c o m m i t t e d by the j u v e n i l e c o u r t i n d r a f t i n g the judgment. In h i s Rule 60(b) m o t i o n , t h e f a t h e r m a i n t a i n e d t h a t L.M.D. had d e f r a u d e d him i n t o a g r e e i n g t o t h e e n t r y o f t h e December 17, 2008, j u d g m e n t by f a l s e l y s t a t i n g t h a t she w o u l d c o o p e r a t e w i t h h i m i n h i s e f f o r t s t o r e u n i t e w i t h t h e c h i l d when she had no i n t e n t i o n o f d o i n g s o . A t t h e h e a r i n g on t h e m o t i o n , t h e f a t h e r p r e s e n t e d no e v i d e n c e t o p r o v e h i s f r a u d a l l e g a t i o n s ; n e v e r t h e l e s s , t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t g r a n t e d t h e m o t i o n b a s e d on i t s c o n c l u s i o n t h a t i t s d e c i s i o n to t r e a t the c h i l d d i f f e r e n t l y from h i s three s t e p s i b l i n g s had v i o l a t e d t h e d u e - p r o c e s s r i g h t s o f t h e c h i l d , a t h e o r y n o t a d v a n c e d by t h e f a t h e r i n h i s R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n and n o t p r o v e n by any e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d . This court i s s u e d a w r i t o f mandamus t o t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t t o v a c a t e i t s o r d e r g r a n t i n g t h e R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n , Ex p a r t e J.D., 51 So. 3d 1134 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009) ( t a b l e ) , t h u s r e i n s t a t i n g t h e December 17, 2008, j u d g m e n t . Our i s s u a n c e o f t h e w r i t o f mandamus does n o t i n any way p r e c l u d e t h e f a t h e r f r o m a r g u i n g t h e n a t u r e o f t h e r e s t o r e d j u d g m e n t and i t s e f f e c t on h i s 6 17 2100466 r e s u l t , the unambiguous terms o f t h a t judgment b i n d the f a t h e r and to the c o u r t system L.M.D. and as t o t h e n a t u r e o f t h e c u s t o d y J.E.D. Because of the r a m i f i c a t i o n s i t has a f i n a l d i s p o s i t i o n a l judgment awarding on t h e f a m i l y u n i t , custody of a dependent c h i l d t o a n o n p a r e n t c a n n o t be e n t e r e d l i g h t l y . procedures A l l manner o f are i n s t i t u t e d i n dependency p r o c e e d i n g s to assure t h a t p a r e n t s are not d e p r i v e d of the custody of t h e i r without awarded notice and c o n t e s t the a c t i o n . a meaningful See, (requiring appointment of dependency proceedings). e.g., and fair children opportunity § 12-15-305, A l a . Code counsel for to 1975 indigent parents S u b s t a n t i v e l y , the law in requires c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e o f t h e c o n t i n u i n g d e p e n d e n c y o f the c h i l d . 871 So. See g e n e r a l l y D.M.P. v. S t a t e Dep't o f Human Res., 2d 77 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2003) w i t h Crawley, J . , c o n c u r r i n g , and and J J . , concurring Pittman, dependency right to observance proceeding, out family integrity, of those of ( a u t h o r e d by M u r d o c k , J . , Yates, in the procedural and and result). respect a parent P.J., for the is entitled substantive Thompson During a fundamental to strict safeguards. burden of proof i n h i s subsequent 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 . 18 2100466 See S a n t o s k y v. Kramer, fundamental l i b e r t y custody, U.S. 745, 753 (1982) ("The i n t e r e s t of n a t u r a l parents i n the care, and management because simply 455 they of t h e i r have not child been does model not evaporate parents "). A c c o r d i n g l y , s u c h a j u d g m e n t o r d i n a r i l y r e f l e c t s a c a r e f u l and c o n s i d e r e d d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t t h e f a m i l y r e l a t i o n s h i p must be d i s i n t e g r a t e d i n order to p r o t e c t the c h i l d In this case, the father, by f r o m harm. stipulating to the dependency of t h e c h i l d , b a s i c a l l y a g r e e d t h a t t h e c h i l d i n danger of p h y s i c a l By consenting was abuse i f r e t u r n e d t o t h e f a m i l y home. to the u n c o n d i t i o n a l award o f c u s t o d y of the c h i l d t o L.M.D. and J.E.D., t h e f a t h e r e s s e n t i a l l y a g r e e d t h a t i t was n o t i n t h e c h i l d ' s b e s t i n t e r e s t s t o r e u n i t e w i t h t h e family. In o t h e r words, the f a t h e r w a i v e d h i s r i g h t s under the A J J A and c o n s e n t e d t o a judgment a d v e r s e t o h i s r i g h t t o pursue f a m i l y r e u n i f i c a t i o n . weight as without any other final T h a t j u d g m e n t c a r r i e s t h e same dispositional the consent of a parent. First Bank o f G r o v e Hill, ("[A] c o n s e n t judgment 564 So. judgment See g e n e r a l l y 2d 869, i s generally 872 entitled c o n c l u s i v e e f f e c t as a j u d g m e n t on t h e m e r i t s . " ) . 19 entered S a n d e r s v. ( A l a . 1990) to the same Because i t 2100466 was j u d i c i a l l y e s t a b l i s h e d i n t h e d e p e n d e n c y p r o c e e d i n g s the goal father of f a m i l y cannot reunification juvenile court rely on any n o t be a c h i e v e d , principles i n h i s custody-modification favoring action. the family Thus, t h e d i d n o t v i o l a t e p u b l i c p o l i c y by a p p l y i n g McLendon s t a n d a r d due t o be r e u n i f i c a t i o n could that the i n t h i s c a s e , and i t s j u d g m e n t i s t h e r e f o r e affirmed. 20

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.