Ex parte Mark D. Davis. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: Mark D. Davis v. Tonya S. Blackstock)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 10/07/2011 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 Reporter of Decisions, 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, 2011-2012 2100515 Ex p a r t e Mark D. Davis PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In r e : Mark D. Davis v. Tonya S. Blackstock) (Lauderdale C i r c u i t Court, MOORE, Judge. This this DR-06-86.01) i s the second court. See D a v i s time these v. B l a c k s t o c k , p a r t i e s have been before 47 S o . 3 d 7 9 6 ( A l a . C i v . 2100515 App. 2007) ("Davis f a t h e r " ) appealed from Court ("the Alabama child born of mother") we I") . In Davis a judgment trial modifying to Tonya and o r d e r i n g him t o pay child set forth the h i s t o r y of t h i s D. Davis of the Lauderdale court") h i s marriage I , Mark case S. custody Circuit of Blackstock support. as ("the "The f a t h e r a n d t h e m o t h e r m a r r i e d o n N o v e m b e r 11, 2000. Four months later, while they were r e s i d i n g i n Tennessee, the f a t h e r and the mother s e p a r a t e d . The m o t h e r was p r e g n a n t w i t h t h e c h i l d a t the time of the s e p a r a t i o n . Subsequently, a p e t i t i o n f o r d i v o r c e was filed i n the Chancery Court f o r Lawrence County, Tennessee ('the T e n n e s s e e trial c o u r t ' ) . B e f o r e t h e T e n n e s s e e t r i a l c o u r t r u l e d on the d i v o r c e p e t i t i o n f i l e d with that court, the f a t h e r and t h e m o t h e r moved t o A l a b a m a , where t h e m o t h e r g a v e b i r t h t o t h e c h i l d on December 27, 2 0 0 1 . "On F e b r u a r y 1 5 , 2 0 0 2 , t h e T e n n e s s e e t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d a judgment d i v o r c i n g t h e f a t h e r and t h e mother. In essence, the Tennessee judgment g r a n t e d the f a t h e r and t h e mother j o i n t custody, w i t h t h e mother r e c e i v i n g p r i m a r y p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y and c h i l d s u p p o r t . I n June 2002, w h i l e t h e f a t h e r , t h e mother, and t h e c h i l d c o n t i n u e d t o r e s i d e i n Alabama, the f a t h e r p e t i t i o n e d the Tennessee t r i a l c o u r t f o r a m o d i f i c a t i o n o f i t s F e b r u a r y 15, 2002, judgment w i t h regard to custody. On September 3, 2003, the Tennessee t r i a l c o u r t m o d i f i e d i t s d i v o r c e judgment b y g r a n t i n g t h e f a t h e r e q u a l p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y on a f o u r - d a y r o t a t i n g b a s i s and t e r m i n a t i n g t h e f a t h e r ' s child-support obligation. "The m o t h e r a p p e a l e d t h e S e p t e m b e r 3, 2003, judgment t o the Tennessee Court of Appeals. On O c t o b e r 12, 2004, t h e T e n n e s s e e C o u r t o f A p p e a l s 2 ("the In Davis follows: the I, 2100515 issued an o p i n i o n and an o r d e r affirming that p o r t i o n o f t h e S e p t e m b e r 3, 2 0 0 3 , j u d g m e n t that m o d i f i e d custody and v a c a t i n g t h a t p o r t i o n o f t h e judgment t h a t m o d i f i e d the father's child-support o b l i g a t i o n . The T e n n e s s e e C o u r t o f A p p e a l s r e m a n d e d the case f o r a h e a r i n g to determine which parent should be t h e ' p r i m a r y residential parent' and w h e t h e r c h i l d s u p p o r t s h o u l d be a w a r d e d . See D a v i s v. Davis, (No. M 2 0 0 3 - 0 2 3 1 2 - C O A - R 3 - C V ) (Tenn. C t . A p p . 2 0 0 4 ) ( n o t r e p o r t e d i n S.W.3d). T h e T e n n e s s e e t r i a l c o u r t n e v e r a c t e d on t h i s mandate. "On February 6, 2006, t h e mother filed a petition for modification of custody and child support i n the Lauderdale Circuit Court ('the A l a b a m a t r i a l c o u r t ' ) . I n r e s p o n s e , on F e b r u a r y 23, 2006, t h e f a t h e r f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r a custody hearing i n t h e Tennessee t r i a l court. Both p a r t i e s f i l e d m o t i o n s t o d i s m i s s t h e o t h e r ' s p e t i t i o n on t h e ground of l a c k of subject-matter j u r i s d i c t i o n . The mother argued t h a t t h e Tennessee t r i a l court no longer had j u r i s d i c t i o n over the custody issue because t h e f a t h e r , t h e mother, and t h e c h i l d had r e s i d e d i n A l a b a m a f o r t h e p r e c e d i n g f o u r y e a r s . The f a t h e r argued t h a t t h e Alabama t r i a l c o u r t c o u l d not e x e r c i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n because t h e Tennessee court was c o n t i n u i n g to exercise i t sjurisdiction. The Alabama t r i a l c o u r t g r a n t e d t h e f a t h e r ' s motion t o dismiss, but i t s e t aside i t sd i s m i s s a l order after the mother a l l e g e d t h a t the Tennessee t r i a l court had yielded jurisdiction t o Alabama as a more convenient forum and had d i s m i s s e d the father's custody-hearing petition. "The p a r t i e s p r o c e e d e d t o a c u s t o d y h e a r i n g i n the Alabama t r i a l c o u r t . A t t h e h e a r i n g , t h e f a t h e r r e q u e s t e d t h a t t h e mother be h e l d i n contempt f o r failing t o abide by the Tennessee t r i a l court's S e p t e m b e r 3, 2 0 0 3 , j u d g m e n t ; h e a l s o r e q u e s t e d t h a t he be a w a r d e d p r i m a r y 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 . The m o t h e r d e n i e d t h a t s h e was i n c o n t e m p t a n d requested that she be awarded primary physical 3 2100515 custody of the child. Following ore tenus proceedings, the Alabama trial court entered a j u d g m e n t o n S e p t e m b e r 1, 2 0 0 6 . The A l a b a m a trial c o u r t ' s judgment maintained j o i n t l e g a l custody, but i t awarded the mother p r i m a r y p h y s i c a l custody o f the c h i l d and awarded t h e f a t h e r v i s i t a t i o n . The Alabama t r i a l c o u r t f u r t h e r o r d e r e d the f a t h e r t o pay child support and t o pay one-half of the uninsured-medical expenses of the child. The judgment also provided the father a credit of $1,338.93 t o be a p p l i e d t o h i s s h a r e o f t h e c h i l d ' s uninsured-medical expenses." 47 S o . 3d a t 797-98 On trial appeal (footnote i n Davis c o u r t had l a c k e d custody of the c h i l d omitted). I, the father argued that the Alabama subject-matter j u r i s d i c t i o n to modify because: "1) ... t h e T e n n e s s e e t r i a l court s t i l l had j u r i s d i c t i o n over the custody d i s p u t e because i t had not y e t a c t e d on t h e m a n d a t e f r o m t h e T e n n e s s e e Court of A p p e a l s and 2) ... under Tennessee's version of the Uniform C h i l d Custody Jurisdiction a n d E n f o r c e m e n t A c t ('the T e n n e s s e e U C C J E A ' ) , t h e Tennessee trial court had continuing exclusive j u r i s d i c t i o n over the custody i s s u e . " 47 S o . 3d a t This 798. court rejected those t h a t , because the September Court f o r Lawrence court"), had been County, arguments, however, holding 3, 2 0 0 3 , j u d g m e n t o f t h e C h a n c e r y Tennessee ("the Tennessee a f f i r m e d by t h e Tennessee C o u r t on t h e i s s u e o f c u s t o d y , t h a t i s s u e h a d b e e n f i n a l l y 4 trial of Appeals resolved. 2100515 Davis I , 47 S o . trial court no jurisdiction filed 3d a t 798. We longer over the also held retained custody court." 47 So. 2d at 799 the Alabama jurisdiction address over trial petition (relying the court custody whether the Alabama on determine the child-support judgment w i t h After regard we issue; Tenn. Code T h u s , we mother we This Ann. however, jurisdiction court § exercised d i d not, had trial concluded properly court issue. the i n the Alabama had trial continuing at the time 36-6-217 a n d A l a . Code 1975, § 3 0 - 3 B - 2 0 2 ) . that "the Tennessee exclusive, issue her custody-modification that reversed to the to the custody m o d i f i c a t i o n . issued our decision in Davis I, the mother p e t i t i o n e d t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t f o r a w r i t o f c e r t i o r a r i . The trial supreme court court's agreed "assumption with parte A c t , A l a . Code Blackstock, however, determined Alabama trial reversed this 47 So. 3d that this court's court's court of j u r i s d i c t i o n the p r o v i s i o n s of the Uniform Enforcement this Child was Custody 1975, § 801, 803 that Alabama consistent with Jurisdiction and 30-3B-101 n.1 the et seq." ( A l a . 2009). Ex It, c o u r t had e r r e d i n r e v e r s i n g the determination judgment 5 of and remanded custody, the case and to i t this 2100515 court at f o r proceedings consistent with 813-14. affirmed Davis On remand court's Blackstock, 47 3d I I " ) . however, we remanded the case father's This court's 21, So. regard to court, of the custody. child-support trial court's f o r the Alabama trial court obligation. 47 3d court ( A l a . C i v . App. the Alabama child-support this modification 816 47 S o . 2010) issue, judgment and to recalculate So. 3d at 817. c e r t i f i c a t e o f j u d g m e n t i n D a v i s I I was i s s u e d on 2010. November court 2006 With reversed the trial supreme trial ("Davis On the the Alabama v. April from i t so p i n i o n . 10, 2010, the father a motion f o r a hearing judgment e n t e r e d filed i n the and f o r m o d i f i c a t i o n by t h e Alabama trial court. 1 He Alabama of the argued t h a t t h e 2006 judgment v i o l a t e d h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s , and he had also occurred alleged since a modification that a material the entry of custody. change o f t h e 2006 i n circumstances judgment that justified The f a t h e r a l s o r e q u e s t e d t h a t t h e T h e f a t h e r ' s m o t i o n was f i l e d i n c a s e no. DR-06-86.01, w h i c h i s t h e same c a s e n u m b e r t h a t was assigned to the m o t h e r ' s o r i g i n a l a c t i o n . S u b s e q u e n t l y , on M a r c h 3, 2 0 1 1 , t h e father filed a document e n t i t l e d " N o t i c e to Supplement the R e c o r d " i n w h i c h he s t a t e d t h a t he h a d a t t e m p t e d t o p a y a f i l i n g fee i n the c l e r k ' s o f f i c e of the Alabama t r i a l court b u t h a d b e e n i n f o r m e d t h a t no f i l i n g f e e was r e q u i r e d . 1 6 2100515 Alabama t r i a l court from i n a p p r o p r i a t e house. After j u d g m e n t on arrears amount The steps hearing, regard $14,246, Alabama n e c e s s a r y to p r o t e c t the conduct a l l e g e d l y o c c u r r i n g at the the N o v e m b e r 18, with of a take trial to 2010, his plus court o b l i g a t i o n at $435 per Alabama trial finding that child-support $2,314.14 in court the mother's entered f a t h e r was obligation accumulated also set the father's month. The Alabama t r i a l child in a in the interest. child-support court finally noted: " I t f u r t h e r appears to the court t h a t p u r s u a n t to the a p p e l l a t e d e c i s i o n s h e r e t o f o r e i s s u e d t h a t there r e m a i n s an i s s u e r e g a r d i n g t h e i m p u t a t i o n o f h e a l t h insurance c o s t i n the c a l c u l a t i o n of c h i l d s u p p o r t p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 3 2 [ , A l a . R. Jud. Admin.,] that m u s t be applied. The court hereby sets further hearing on this matter. ... The court w i l l hear argument i n r e g a r d t o s a i d i s s u e as w e l l as any other pending motions." On November 23, seeking to December On ab 2010, modify 27, the The father father's motion amended h i s m o t i o n on 2010. 2006 2 0 0 6 j u d g m e n t was 2011, the judgment. father filed The father 2 a motion to alleged v o i d f o r l a c k of s u b j e c t - m a t t e r The motion to v a c a t e 86.01. See s u p r a n o t e 1. 2 mother answered the custody. F e b r u a r y 25, initio the was also 7 filed in vacate that the jurisdiction case no. DR-06- 2100515 because of the mother's noncompliance with v a r i o u s of the Uniform 30-3A-101 Custody et I n t e r s t a t e Family S u p p o r t A c t ("the U I F S A " ) , § s e q . , A l a . Code Jurisdiction 1975, and and Enforcement 30-3B-101 e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 . that the Alabama evidence. vacate response was petition 2011. The m o t h e r f o ra writ On M a r c h father's on of moved t h e A l a b a m a 4, a l lissues petition. trial that On M a r c h that father 2011. The this entered On M a r c h the mandamus motion t o s e t aside a reply to the motion to father filed a on M a r c h 8, court stayed outcome court's i n a separate petition 8 its of the i t s November 18, responded t o the On M a r c h 2 2 , 2 0 1 1 , t h i s trial to 16, 2 0 1 1 , t h e f a t h e r November action (seesupra notes 1 and 2 ) , entered the father's discovered court 18, 2 0 1 1 , t h e mother t h e Alabama judgment had been the newly filed § requested The f a t h e r ' s pending court also to the father's o f mandamus w i t h father's motion t o s e t aside. believing The f a t h e r The f a t h e r Child ("the UCCJEA"), 14, 2 0 1 1 , t h e A l a b a m a t r i a l mandamus order. Act 3, 2 0 1 1 . March the Uniform consider responded on M a r c h denied consideration 2010, court on F e b r u a r y 2 8 , 2 0 1 1 . mother's vacate trial provisions would court, 18, 2010, initiated an o r d e r be t r e a t e d by stating as an 2100515 appeal from motion. On order the denial M a r c h 25, stating that held in abeyance proceeding we did not us. Now this motion court's initiated by to Ala. set t h a t we of do, having we the Civ. P., entered court an aside father. court would be of the 3 e l e c t e d to f o r a w r i t o f mandamus a s benefit R. determination the n o t e t h a t , when t h i s father's petition before father's court 60(b)(4), the Alabama t r i a l pending the have the a Rule 2011, the in this Initially, of an appeal, entire clerk's conclude that there record final thus, father could have a p p e a l e d and, that we the petition See, e.g., not treat Smith C i v . App. 1999) judgment. ... v. ("An An father's Pendergrass, 741 appeal o r d i n a r i l y order is generally So. lies not 2d as an 423, only we i s no judgment from which the may treat appeal. 424 from a final 4 (Ala. final unless i t We note that a t r a n s c r i p t contained i n the materials b e f o r e us i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e A l a b a m a t r i a l c o u r t s u b s e q u e n t l y held a hearing on the limited issue of h e a l t h insurance b e c a u s e t h a t i s s u e i m p a c t s t h e amount o f t h e f a t h e r ' s c h i l d support o b l i g a t i o n . The A l a b a m a t r i a l c o u r t s t a t e d a t t h a t hearing that i t would continue to stay i t s c o n s i d e r a t i o n of a l l other matters. 3 We a l s o n o t e t h a t , b e c a u s e t h e r e was no f i n a l j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d a f t e r o u r c e r t i f i c a t e o f j u d g m e n t was i s s u e d i n D a v i s I I , t h e f a t h e r ' s m o t i o n t o v a c a t e c a n n o t be c o n s i d e r e d t o be a R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n . See, e.g., E d w a r d s v . E d w a r d s , 951 So. 2d 699, 702 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2006). 4 9 2100515 disposes of a l l claims parties."). Thus, shown t h a t a petition The father we m u s t d e t e r m i n e first lacked subject-matter "[S]ubject-matter f o rw r i t argues or l i a b i l i t i e s whether that jurisdiction t h e Alabama be i s s u e d . trial court t o e n t e r t h e 2006 j u d g m e n t . may n o t b e w a i v e d ; jurisdiction of a l l t h e f a t h e r has o f mandamus s h o u l d jurisdiction lack of subject-matter by or the rights a court's may b e r a i s e d a t a n y t i m e a n y p a r t y a n d may e v e n b e r a i s e d b y a c o u r t e x m e r o m o t u . " C . J . L . v . M.W.B., 868 S o . 2 d 4 5 1 , 4 5 3 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 2 0 0 3 ) . 5 "'"A writ of mandamus i s an extraordinary remedy, and i t ' w i l l be i s s u e d o n l y w h e n t h e r e i s : 1) a c l e a r l e g a l right i n the petitioner t o the order s o u g h t ; 2) a n i m p e r a t i v e duty upon t h e respondent t o perform, accompanied by a r e f u s a l t o d o s o ; 3) t h e l a c k o f a n o t h e r a d e q u a t e r e m e d y ; a n d 4) p r o p e r l y invoked j u r i s d i c t i o n of the court.'"' "Ex p a r t e M o n s a n t o C o . , 2003) ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e (Ala. 2000), quoting i n S t a t i o n s , I n c . , 628 S o . 862 S o . 2 d 5 9 5 , 604 ( A l a . B u t t s , 775 So. 2 d 1 7 3 , 176 t u r n Ex p a r t e U n i t e d Serv. 2 d 5 0 1 , 503 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) ) . The mother argues t h a t t h e f a t h e r ' s c l a i m s a r e b a r r e d by the d o c t r i n e of r e s j u d i c a t a . We n o t e , h o w e v e r , t h a t " r e s j u d i c a t a does n o t b a r c l a i m s over w h i c h t h e f i r s t c o u r t l a c k e d jurisdiction." L l o y d Noland Found., I n c . v. HealthSouth Corp., 979 S o . 2 d 784 , 795 n.2 ( A l a . 2007). Further, j u r i s d i c t i o n a l q u e s t i o n s a r e not b a r r e d by t h e law-of-the-case doctrine. B e s s e m e r B d . o f E d u c . v . T u c k e r , 999 S o . 2 d 9 5 7 , 960-61 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 8 ) . 5 10 2100515 '[T]he q u e s t i o n of s u b j e c t matter j u r i s d i c t i o n i s r e v i e w a b l e b y a p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus.' Ex parte J o h n s o n , 715 So. 2d 783, 785 (Ala. 1998). ' A l t h o u g h t h i s C o u r t r e v i e w s a mandamus p e t i t i o n t o determine whether the trial court exceeded i t s discretion, t h i s C o u r t r e v i e w s i s s u e s of law de n o v o . ' Ex p a r t e T e r r y , 957 So. 2d 455, 457 (Ala. 2006)." Ex parte Berry, The 999 So. 2d 883, 885 (Ala. f a t h e r s p e c i f i c a l l y argues that 2008). the mother f a i l e d to comply w i t h the r e g i s t r a t i o n r e q u i r e m e n t s of § 30-3A-602, A l a . Code 1975, 1975, sets a a part forth register part of the a the the UIFSA, UCCJEA. procedure foreign compliance with matter of a and Section litigant registration j u r i s d i c t i o n u p o n an 60 Owens, 65 that, So. So. when seeking 3d 3d the 887 953 mother filed she 2003, judgment of the trial court. father At the time the mother her d i d not register overlooks filed the 11 a salient Mattes Ex 2006, the point, the v. parte notes action September with 2006 a c t i o n , enforce father the court subject- and 6, to strict to See The February Tennessee t r i a l UIFSA confers 2010); 2010). the Only judgment. App. Code i n order c i r c u i t court ( A l a . C i v . App. c h i l d support, The Civ. Ala. of follow procedure Alabama (Ala. 30-3A-602 judgment. or to modify a f o r e i g n c h i l d - s u p p o r t Mattes, 30-3B-305, must child-support that § 3, Alabama however. Tennessee 2100515 trial court Although had the on entered Tennessee Tennessee t r i a l record not court Court of to consider mandate and had requiring either party c a n n o t be not Appeals t o pay c h i l d construed as considered a Alabama law. petition to Accordingly, a judgment. Section to register that as t o t h e i s s u e 30-3B-305 2011). have the had not any Hence, the to enforce child that i t can support. t o be followed "determination[s]." does jurisdiction However, under subject-matter court to enforce the foreign 2011] only and t h e Alabama 18, Until not 3d , gain child- C f . G a r r e t t v. W i l l i a m s , So. to s t a t u t e does not out the procedure at issue. 2006 or support assuming of c h i l d acted judgment an custody determination Feb. support, i s followed, subject-matter 2091172, sets from foreign child-custody procedure the § 30-3A-602 does n o t a p p l y , court jurisdiction judgment. ordered Rather, establish bar trial entered petition t o comply w i t h Alabama court support. mother's a l l e g e d f a i l u r e the had awarding c h i l d actually modify a foreign child-support be child-support i n d i c a t e s t h a t the Tennessee t r i a l that action any [Ms. ( A l a . C i v . App. i n h e r 2006 a c t i o n t h e m o t h e r d i d n o t s e e k t o the Tennessee child-custody 12 determination enforced; to 2100515 the so contrary, as t o g i v e its § she sought t o have t h a t d e t e r m i n a t i o n plain her primary terms, the r e g i s t r a t i o n 30-3B-305 actions. apply solely jurisdiction 1975, on Alabama trial determination first on As t h i s the does not of the short, modify the prior under a court Alabama § 30-3B- child- 30-3B-203, an child-custody containing trial court that d i d not lack of the child to modify the custody and o u r supreme over § foreign foreign judgment Alabama failure court by foreign r e g i s t e r e d i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h § 30- jurisdiction trial a condition modification of the mother to register judgment c o n t a i n i n g a c h i l d - c u s t o d y jurisdiction the the the a l l e g e d Tennessee may being Therefore, subject-matter based court to i s i n s t e a d governed In without determination 3B-305. modify registration determination. established i n jurisdiction which custody requirements By not m o d i f i c a t i o n , determination A l a . Code of the c h i l d . to enforcement, Subject-matter child-custody 203, p h y s i c a l custody modified c o u r t have properly determination. already exercised the determined, subject-matter the child-custody- m o d i f i c a t i o n p o r t i o n of a c t i o n pursuant to § 30-3B-203. 13 2100515 The failed father to comply also with argues that A l a . Code t h e Alabama 1975, § trial court 30-3B-206, which provides: "(a) E x c e p t as o t h e r w i s e provided i n Section 30-3B-204, [ A l a . Code 1975,] a c o u r t o f t h i s s t a t e may n o t e x e r c i s e i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r t h i s a r t i c l e if, at the time of t h e commencement of the proceeding, a proceeding concerning the custody of t h e c h i l d h a s b e e n commenced i n a c o u r t o f a n o t h e r state having jurisdiction substantially in conformity with this chapter, unless the proceeding has been t e r m i n a t e d o r i s s t a y e d by t h e c o u r t o f t h e o t h e r s t a t e b e c a u s e a c o u r t o f t h i s s t a t e i s a more c o n v e n i e n t f o r u m u n d e r S e c t i o n 3 0 - 3 B - 2 0 7 [ , A l a . Code 1975]. "(b) E x c e p t as o t h e r w i s e provided i n Section 30-3B-204, a c o u r t o f t h i s s t a t e , b e f o r e h e a r i n g a c h i l d custody proceeding, s h a l l examine t h e c o u r t documents and other information s u p p l i e d by the p a r t i e s p u r s u a n t t o S e c t i o n 3 0 - 3 B - 2 0 9 [ , A l a . Code 1975]. I f the court determines that a c h i l d custody p r o c e e d i n g h a s b e e n commenced i n a c o u r t i n a n o t h e r state having jurisdiction substantially in accordance with t h i s chapter, the court of this s t a t e s h a l l s t a y i t s p r o c e e d i n g and communicate w i t h the c o u r t of the other s t a t e . I f the court o f t h e state having jurisdiction substantially in accordance w i t h t h i s chapter does n o t determine t h a t t h e c o u r t o f t h i s s t a t e i s a more a p p r o p r i a t e f o r u m , the court of this state shall dismiss the proceeding. "(c) In a proceeding t o modify a c h i l d custody determination, a court of t h i s state s h a l l determine whether a proceeding to enforce the determination has b e e n commenced i n a n o t h e r s t a t e . I f a p r o c e e d i n g to e n f o r c e a c h i l d custody d e t e r m i n a t i o n has been c o m m e n c e d i n a n o t h e r s t a t e , t h e c o u r t may: 14 2100515 "(1) Stay the proceeding for m o d i f i c a t i o n p e n d i n g t h e e n t r y o f an order of a court of the other s t a t e e n f o r c i n g , staying, denying, or dismissing the proceeding f o r enforcement; "(2) Enjoin continuing with enforcement; or the the parties proceeding "(3) Proceed with the under c o n d i t i o n s i t considers As filed noted her court, the Tennessee petition issue lacked of action. requirements The previously, for however, c u s t o d y had Davis been 47 So. the in time the finally 3d at the mother Alabama resolved 798. of § 30-3B-206 were not father f u r t h e r contends that the trial in the Thus, the triggered. subject-matter jurisdiction mother d i d not comply w i t h 30-3B-209(a), Ala. 6 I, modification appropriate." at modification from for Section Code 30-3B-209(a) the Alabama t r i a l because, information 1975. 6 We he says, requirements note, however, provides: " E x c e p t as o t h e r w i s e p r o v i d e d i n s u b s e c t i o n (e), i n a c h i l d custody proceeding, each p a r t y , i n i t s f i r s t pleading o r i n an a t t a c h e d affidavit, shall give i n f o r m a t i o n , i f r e a s o n a b l y a s c e r t a i n a b l e , under oath as t o t h e c h i l d ' s p r e s e n t a d d r e s s o r w h e r e a b o u t s , t h e p l a c e s where t h e c h i l d has l i v e d d u r i n g t h e l a s t f i v e y e a r s , a n d t h e names a n d p r e s e n t a d d r e s s e s o f 15 court the of § that 2100515 subsection (b) information r e q u i r e d by court, to that Code until reading comply w i t h the section subsection upon m o t i o n of a p a r t y proceeding plain of or information (a) i t s own provides: i s not the furnished, the m o t i o n , may i s furnished." of § 30-3B-209(b), i t i s c l e a r § 30-3B-209(a) does not "If stay the B a s e d on the t h a t the deprive failure a trial t h e p e r s o n s w i t h whom t h e c h i l d h a s lived during t h a t p e r i o d . The p l e a d i n g or a f f i d a v i t must s t a t e whether the p a r t y : " ( 1 ) Has p a r t i c i p a t e d , as a p a r t y o r witness o r i n any o t h e r c a p a c i t y , i n any other p r o c e e d i n g concerning the custody of o r v i s i t a t i o n w i t h t h e c h i l d and, i f so, identify the c o u r t , the case number, and the date of the child custody determination, i f any; "(2) Knows of any proceeding that could affect the current proceeding, i n c l u d i n g proceedings f o r enforcement and proceedings r e l a t i n g to domestic v i o l e n c e , p r o t e c t i v e o r d e r s , t e r m i n a t i o n of p a r e n t a l r i g h t s , and a d o p t i o n s , and, i f so, identify t h e c o u r t , t h e c a s e number, and t h e nature of the p r o c e e d i n g ; and " ( 3 ) Knows t h e names a n d a d d r e s s e s o f any p e r s o n n o t a p a r t y t o t h e proceeding who has p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y of t h e c h i l d or c l a i m s r i g h t s of l e g a l custody or p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y o f , or v i s i t a t i o n w i t h , the child and, i f so, the names a n d addresses of those persons." 16 court 2100515 of subject-matter jurisdiction; rather, i t i s a defect may b e c u r e d upon m o t i o n o f any p a r t y o r on t h e t r i a l own m o t i o n . The f a t h e r a l s o m a i n t a i n s court failed 1 97 5 . We section makes 7 7 to note, Section comply with however, i t clear that 30-3B-112(a) "A c o u r t o f t h i s court of another "(1) "(2) evidence state; § that Hold court's t h a t t h e Alabama A l a . Code the that language of by s t a t i n g provides: request an e v i d e n t i a r y the appropriate hearing; Order a person to produce or give pursuant to procedures of that " ( 3 ) O r d e r t h a t an e v a l u a t i o n b e made with respect to the custody of a child involved i n a pending proceeding; "(4) Forward to the court of this s t a t e a c e r t i f i e d copy of the t r a n s c r i p t of the r e c o r d of the h e a r i n g , the evidence otherwise presented, and any e v a l u a t i o n prepared i n compliance with the request; and "(5) O r d e r a p a r t y t o a c h i l d custody proceeding o r any p e r s o n h a v i n g p h y s i c a l custody of the c h i l d t o appear i n the proceeding with or without the c h i l d . " 17 trial 30-3B-112(a)(4), i t i s permissive s t a t e may state t o : that Code that 2100515 "[a] court of t h i s added.) Thus, s t a t e may" we find take no certain actions. jurisdictional (Emphasis defect in that regard. The custody We father finally judgment note, is violated however, Alabama t r i a l argues t h a t the Alabama t r i a l that court's this e.g., (stating of Neal v. and court's Neal, that the appellant subject-matter noting: argument subject-matter an a t t a c k on t h e t r i a l See, h i s fundamental 856 simple 301 v. H a l s t e a d , (1974))). implicate 2d 766, that a court 53 A l a . A p p . Alabama 255, 256, trial because demonstrated the necessity conclude neither of the father's f i n a l proper basis Empire F i r e the f o r mandamus & M a r i n e I n s . Co., ( A l a . 2002) error with has of 299 court's and a 781 father has of law" erroneously So. not (quoting 2d 300, See, otherwise relief, we two a r g u m e n t s i s e.g., 720 S o . 2 d 8 9 3 , 894 18 want subject-matter extraordinary relief. law. t w o a r g u m e n t s do n o t jurisdiction that of custody i t sjudgment v o i d . ' " Because the f a t h e r ' s f i n a l the legal rather, i t o r w a n t o f due p r o c e s s fact rights. not i m p l i c a t e the application "confuse[d] a p p l i e d t h e law does n o t render Halstead parenting jurisdiction; So. jurisdiction "'The does court's Ex parte ( A l a . 1998) 2100515 ("A w r i t relief as o f mandamus w i l l i s s u e o n l y i n s i t u a t i o n s where i s u n a v a i l a b l e or i s inadequate, a substitute and i t cannot be other used f o r appeal."). B a s e d on t h e f o r e g o i n g , we d e n y t h e f a t h e r ' s p e t i t i o n f o r a writ of The of mandamus. requests attorney fees PETITION i n this and t h e f a t h e r appellate proceeding f o r t h e award are denied. DENIED. Thompson, Pittman by t h e mother P . J . , a n d Thomas, and B r y a n , J . , concur. J J . , concur writings. 19 i n the r e s u l t , without

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.