E.W. v. Jefferson County Department of Human Resources

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 11/18/2011 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, 2011-2012 2100742 E.W. v. J e f f e r s o n County Department o f Human Resources Appeal from J e f f e r s o n J u v e n i l e Court (JU-09-52215) PER CURIAM. E.W. Jefferson ("the f a t h e r " ) J u v e n i l e Court appeals from ("the j u v e n i l e a judgment court") of the determining t h a t a p r e v i o u s d i s p o s i t i o n a l o r d e r s h o u l d be made p e r m a n e n t 2100742 and c l o s i n g t h e dependency case r e g a r d i n g J.W. the father's s o n , ("the c h i l d " ) . On appeal, the father's sole argument j u v e n i l e c o u r t e r r e d i n c l o s i n g t h e case w i t h o u t evidentiary 12-15-311. Human hearing, i n violation of i s that conducting A l a . Code ("DHR"), p o i n t s out i n i t s b r i e f c o u r t , however, t h a t t h e f a t h e r f a i l e d t o r a i s e t h i s to the j u v e n i l e court. neither objected the a hearing, c l o s i n g the case. that hearing. 1 1975, § this argument the father evidence nor requested to s e e R u l e 5 9 ( g ) , A l a . R. C i v . P.; h o w e v e r , that the j u v e n i l e court had e r r e d i n The f a t h e r f a i l e d t o a p p r i s e the j u v e n i l e i t had The o n l y At the hearing, to The f a t h e r f i l e d a p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n a n d f a t h e r argued only court We a g r e e . to not presenting evidence. requested an The a p p e l l e e , t h e J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y D e p a r t m e n t o f Resources present the erred by not holding an evidentiary i s s u e t h e f a t h e r h a s r a i s e d on a p p e a l i s The f a t h e r ' s " M o t i o n t o A l t e r , Amend, o r V a c a t e Request f o r Immediate Hearing" s t a t e d , i n i t s e n t i r e t y : 1 "COMES NOW, t h e F a t h e r o f t h e a b o v e - r e f e r e n c e d c h i l d , ... by and t h r o u g h h i s a t t o r n e y o f r e c o r d , ... and requests that t h i s Honorable Court A l t e r , Amend, o r V a c a t e t h e C o u r t ' s O r d e r o f A p r i l 4, 2 0 1 1 , in the above-referenced matter, and Request f o r I m m e d i a t e H e a r i n g . As g r o u n d s t h e r e o f , [ t h e f a t h e r ] s t a t e s as f o l l o w s : 2 and 2100742 whether the j u v e n i l e evidentiary hearing. court erred He does i n not n o t , as t h e d i s s e n t argue g e n e r a l l y t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t the case." This first court ___ S o . 3 d a t ___ has r e p e a t e d l y presented held June 10, 2011] that arguments father's closed that arenot S e e , e . g . , M.H. v . B.F., [Ms. 2100116, So. 3d C i v . App. 2 0 0 8 ) . states, are not preserved f o r , ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 1 ) ; a n d S.K. v . M a d i s o n C n t y . Dep't o f Human Res., (Ala. "prematurely an (Thompson, P . J . , d i s s e n t i n g ) . to the juvenile court review by t h i s c o u r t . conducting Accordingly, 990 So. 2d 887, 895 we do n o t a d d r e s s t h e argument. "1. That t h e c l o s i n g premature. of this matter "2. That t h e a b o v e - r e f e r e n c e d c h i l d has not been r e u n i f i e d w i t h h i s p a r e n t s . "3. That t h e F a t h e r has been p r e s e n t a l l b u t one c o u r t h e a r i n g . "4. That i t i s n o t i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t o f the c h i l d t o c l o s e t h i s matter t o t h e court. "WHEREFORE, ... the Father above-referenced c h i l d , prays that this C o u r t g r a n t h i s M o t i o n t o A l t e r , Amend, that p a r t i c u l a r order and Request for Hearing." 3 i s at of the Honorable or Vacate Immediate 2100742 In h i s r e p l y b r i e f , v. the f a t h e r p o i n t s out that, in J e f f e r s o 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 , 37 836 (Ala. Civ. entered by App. the 2009), juvenile this court court in reversed that case a Y.N. So. 3d judgment because the j u v e n i l e c o u r t had f a i l e d t o h o l d an e v i d e n t i a r y d i s p o s i t i o n a l hearing. The attorney case, attorney of r e c o r d the failure f o r the i n Y.N. to and hold an f a t h e r n o t e s t h a t he t h a t , j u s t as i n the evidentiary hearing r a i s e d a t t h e j u v e n i l e - c o u r t l e v e l i n Y.N.. was We present was not have e x a m i n e d t h e r e c o r d and t h e b r i e f s s u b m i t t e d by t h e p a r t i e s i n Y.N. have d e t e r m i n e d t h a t , i n t h a t c a s e , t h e a p p e l l e e d i d n o t to t h i s failed our c o u r t t h a t the t o h o l d an review. i s s u e whether the evidentiary hearing Further, the appellee i n Y.N. a p p l i c a t i o n f o r r e h e a r i n g on t h a t b a s i s . h o w e v e r , DHR raised that by DHR argue not preserved d i d not had for file an In the present case, argues i n i t s b r i e f to t h i s c o u r t t h a t the issue the is and j u v e n i l e court was an f a t h e r was correct, argument t h a t the we not preserved. conclude that, f a t h e r a s s e r t s on a p p e a l 4 Having determined because the was preserved not only 2100742 for our review, we must a f f i r m t h e j u d g m e n t of the j u v e n i l e court. AFFIRMED. Pittman, Bryan, Thomas, and Moore, J J . , c o n c u r . J . , concurs i n the result, Thompson, P . J . , d i s s e n t s , with 5 without writing. writing. 2100742 THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e , d i s s e n t i n g . I E.W. disagree ("the with father") the main opinion's f a i l e d to r a i s e before determination that the j u v e n i l e court the i s s u e of whether the j u v e n i l e c o u r t e r r e d i n c l o s i n g t h i s case without hearing. first A f t e r the conducting an evidentiary dispositional j u v e n i l e court entered i t s order closing the matter to f u r t h e r c o u r t review, the father timely f i l e d postjudgment motion a s s e r t i n g t h a t the c l o s i n g of the was premature. not been m a t t e r was r e u n i f i e d with the parents and that not i n the c h i l d ' s b e s t i n t e r e s t . i t was Juv. The j u v e n i l e c o u r t d i d not closing In the issue I believe of whether that the the father juvenile court had the one-page "immediate r u l e on t h e m o t i o n , deemed d e n i e d as a m a t t e r o f l a w . P. pointed at i s s u e i n t h i s case p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n , t h e f a t h e r t w i c e r e q u e s t e d an hearing." matter In h i s postjudgment motion, the f a t h e r o u t t h a t t h e c h i l d whose c u s t o d y was a Rule 1(B), Ala. and R. sufficiently raised the prematurely closed the case. Moreover, the for a r u l e s o f a p p e l l a t e p r o c e d u r e do "reconsideration" of the 6 denial of a not allow postjudgment 2100742 motion. Because challenge the hearing father to father's raise failure 1975, matter juvenile failure b e l i e v e t h a t the in to hold the his § does request a hearing. below. not lead a The Ala. me regarding Accordingly, t o be I respectfully dissent. 7 to for 12-15-311, issue father's appeal i s e n t i t l e d Therefore, mechanism court mention to preserve a be p e n a l i z e d f o r h i s the postjudgment motion failed have d e n i a l of specifically c o n c l u d e t h a t he court's not s h o u l d n o t now the to in his on t h e m e r i t s . did juvenile court's on t h a t i s s u e , he "failure" Code the to the I addressed

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.