R.W. v. D.S.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 10/21/2011 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, 2011-2012 2100536 R.W. v. D.S. Appeal from Henry J u v e n i l e Court (JU-07-04.02) MOORE, J u d g e . R.W. ("the f a t h e r " ) a p p e a l s Juvenile Court gain custody from a judgment o f t h e Henry ("the j u v e n i l e c o u r t " ) d e n y i n g h i s p e t i t i o n t o o f h i s n a t u r a l d a u g h t e r , Z.C. ("the c h i l d " ) . 2100536 The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t adjudicated t h e c h i l d t o be d e p e n d e n t i n 2007 s h o r t l y a f t e r h e r b i r t h a n d awarded legal maternal 2007 and p h y s i c a l custody relative. dependency identified February Henry County juvenile court proceeding D.S. because Department entered t h e mother to the had not the c h i l d ' s f a t h e r a t t h a t time. i n a child-support paternity of the c h i l d to t o D.S., a The f a t h e r was n o t made a p a r t y h i m as b e i n g 2009, of the c h i l d action o f Human initiated Resources In by t h e ("DHR"), t h e a judgment e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e f a t h e r ' s and o r d e r i n g him t o pay c h i l d f o r the benefit of the c h i l d . 1 The f a t h e r support almost i m m e d i a t e l y sought v i s i t a t i o n w i t h and custody o f t h e c h i l d i n petitions f i l e d with the juvenile court. The j u v e n i l e c o u r t a w a r d e d t h e f a t h e r v i s i t a t i o n w i t h t h e c h i l d , t o be s u p e r v i s e d b y DHR, a n d e v e n t u a l l y s e t t h e h e a r i n g on t h e c u s t o d y p e t i t i o n f o r F e b r u a r y 2011. F o l l o w i n g t h a t h e a r i n g , t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t entered a judgment a w a r d i n g t h e f a t h e r s p e c i f i e d v i s i t a t i o n rights, but denying h i s p e t i t i o n finding that the father f o r custody "has f a i l e d t o meet of the c h i l d , the [custody- T h e r e c o r d does n o t i n c l u d e t h e r e c o r d f r o m e i t h e r t h e dependency p r o c e e d i n g o r t h e c h i l d - s u p p o r t p r o c e e d i n g . 1 2 2100536 m o d i f i c a t i o n ] s t a n d a r d as s e t f o r t h i n Ex p a r t e McLendon, So. 2d 863 The 455 ( A l a . 1984)." father argues on appeal that the j u v e n i l e court e r r e d i n t r e a t i n g h i s p e t i t i o n as one t o m o d i f y t h e c u s t o d y o f the child the 455 McLendon, subject to 863 So. 2d standard set forth ( A l a . 1984), i n Ex rather than parte as a petition t o d e c i d e a c u s t o d y d i s p u t e b e t w e e n a p a r e n t and a nonparent s u b j e c t t o t h e s t a n d a r d s e t f o r t h i n Ex p a r t e T e r r y , 494 So. 2d 628 we a f f i r m ( A l a . 1986). the j u v e n i l e For the reasons s e t f o r t h below, c o u r t ' s judgment. Ex p a r t e T e r r y c o n f i r m s l o n g - s t a n d i n g A l a b a m a l a w t h a t a fit n a t u r a l p a r e n t has a p r e s u m p t i v e his o r h e r c h i l d as a g a i n s t a n o n p a r e n t . According until child either or nonparent. regain t o Ex p a r t e McLendon, a awards custody merely by that right persists f o r f e i t s custody of the custody 455 So. 2d a t 865. 494 So. 2d a t 632. supra, the parent v o l u n t a r i l y judgment r i g h t to the custody of of the child In such cases, a p a r e n t proving his or her to a cannot biological c o n n e c t i o n t o , and f i t n e s s t o r a i s e , t h e c h i l d , b u t a l s o must show t h a t t h e change i n c u s t o d y w o u l d so m a t e r i a l l y promote 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 t h a t t h e p o s i t i v e good b r o u g h t 3 2100536 about from t h e change o f c u s t o d y w o u l d more t h a n o f f s e t t h e d i s r u p t i v e e f f e c t s c a u s e d by u p r o o t i n g the c h i l d . I d . a t 865¬ 66. The have father maintains that the j u v e n i l e court applied t h e McLendon standard should not to h i s custody petition b e c a u s e , he s a y s , he has n e v e r v o l u n t a r i l y f o r f e i t e d of the c h i l d or l o s t custody of the c h i l d through a 2 determination. As t o t h e l a t t e r p o i n t , the f a t h e r custody judicial maintains t h a t , b e c a u s e he was n o t a p a r t y t o t h e d e p e n d e n c y p r o c e e d i n g , t h e d e p e n d e n c y j u d g m e n t does n o t amount t o an a d v e r s e determination as t o h i s c u s t o d y c l a i m . decide the binding judicial However, we n e e d n o t e f f e c t of the dependency judgment on t h e c u s t o d y c l a i m o f t h e f a t h e r b e c a u s e we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e p r i o r child-support judgment e f f e c t i v e l y a d j u d i c a t e d c u s t o d y r i g h t s o f t h e f a t h e r and the r e s p e c t i v e D.S. I n T.B. v. C.D.L., 910 So. 2d 794, 795-96 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2005), child this court support to held a that a paternity particular judgment individual awarding constitutes i m p l i e d award o f c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d t o t h a t r e c i p i e n t . an See B a s e d on o u r d i s p o s i t i o n , we f i n d no n e e d t o a d d r e s s t h e f a t h e r ' s a s s e r t i o n t h a t he d i d n o t v o l u n t a r i l y f o r f e i t c u s t o d y of the c h i l d . 2 4 2100536 a l s o Ex p a r t e L.N.K., 64 So. 3d 656, 656 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2010) (recognizing decided So. that c u s t o d y and c h i l d - s u p p o r t Before ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009) the j u v e n i l e court, (accord). i t was undisputed f a t h e r ' s p a t e r n i t y had been a d j u d i c a t e d in connection with that support F e b r u a r y 2009 determination, father, father to D.S. February binding i s the proper i s simply on the filed his petition was nonparent. the father, custodian child-support the paternity t h e f a t h e r t o pay i n this case, that D.S., of the c h i l d . 3 not the Hence, t h e t h a t no p r i o r j u d g m e n t , when the judicial binding him custody of the c h i l d i n favor of the D.S. father f o r c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d i n M a r c h 2009, he i n the p o s i t i o n determination, on 2009 judgment c o n s t i t u t e s a incorrect i n stating judgment has d e n i e d Based Accordingly, child-support that i n F e b r u a r y 2009 and a d j u d i c a t i o n , the j u v e n i l e c o u r t had o r d e r e d child had been i n a p a t e r n i t y a d j u d i c a t i o n ) ; and M.R.J. v. D.R.B., 17 3d 683, 686 that, issues of a parent had p r e v i o u s l y lost who, through custody a judicial of a c h i l d to a As s u c h , t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t c o r r e c t l y a p p l i e d t h e We do n o t make any comment on t h e c o r r e c t n e s s judgment. 3 5 of that 2100536 McLendon petition, apply standard on therefore adjudicating and t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t the Terry issues when presumption. appeal. The father's custody d i d not e r r i n f a i l i n g The 4 the father raises judgment o f t h e j u v e n i l e no to other court is affirmed. AFFIRMED. Thompson, P . J . , and Pittman, Bryan, and Thomas, J J . , concur. Our holding necessarily disposes of the father's r e m a i n i n g argument t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t e r r e d i n d e n y i n g him c u s t o d y w i t h o u t e x p r e s s l y f i n d i n g him u n f i t , w h i c h i s r e q u i r e d when T e r r y a p p l i e s . See, e.g., L.A.C. v. T.S.C, 8 So. 3d 322, 325 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008) . 4 6

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.