State Department of Human Resources ex rel. Taudia Rochelle McCord v. Benjamin Leon Smith

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 11/04/2011 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 2100862 S t a t e Department o f Human Resources ex r e l . Taudia R o c h e l l e McCord v. Benjamin Leon Smith Appeal from J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t (DR-10-1785) MOORE, The Court Judge. S t a t e D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s from t h e J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t Court's ("DHR") d e n i a l o f DHR's m o t i o n t o i n t e r v e n e i n a d i v o r c e a c t i o n p e n d i n g between Taudia McCord ("the wife") appeals and Benjamin Leon Smith Rochelle ("the h u s b a n d " ) . 2100862 The record reveals the f o l l o w i n g . the husband f i l e d a complaint In h i s complaint, On November 2 9 , 2 0 1 0 , s e e k i n g a d i v o r c e from t h e w i f e . t h e h u s b a n d a s s e r t e d , among o t h e r things: "3. T h a t t h e r e were t h r e e c h i l d r e n b o r n d u r i n g t h i s m a r r i a g e , n a m e l y [ B . L . S . ] b o r n on December 3 0 , 2002, [ D . R . S . ] b o r n on November 8, 2004 a n d [ J . W . S . ] b o r n on May 8, 2008. THE [WIFE] IS NOT PREGNANT. "4. [ T h e h u s b a n d ] s t a t e s t h a t i t h a s b e e n a l l e g e d he i s n o t t h e f a t h e r o f any o f t h e m i n o r c h i l d r e n born during the marriage." ( C a p i t a l i z a t i o n and b o l d t y p e f a c e requested, a DNA among o t h e r Test on i n original.) things, that the t r i a l a l l the minor children The h u s b a n d court born "order[] during the marriage." On December requesting children that 2010, the t r i a l t o take appointed 6, a DNA the husband court test, that order filed a the wife a guardian motion and t h e ad l i t e m be t o p r o t e c t t h e i n t e r e s t s o f t h e c h i l d r e n , and t h a t t h e w i f e be o r d e r e d t o "pay f o r any a n d a l l c o s t [ s ] a n d f e e s associated with t h i s matter i f the r e s u l t s are negative." On J a n u a r y requesting that 2 1 , 2 0 1 1 , DHR filed i t be a l l o w e d i n open to intervene court i n the divorce a c t i o n , p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 24, A l a . R. C i v . P. t h a t m o t i o n , DHR a s s e r t e d , among o t h e r 2 a motion things: I n support of 2100862 "3. T h a t [DHR] i s t h e S t a t e a g e n c y d e s i g n a t e d to prosecute c h i l d support claims pursuant to T i t l e IV-D o f t h e S o c i a l S e c u r i t y A c t . "4. That acquired such assignment: DHR i s a party i n i n t e r e s t having r i g h t s and i n t e r e s t pursuant to "(a) Statutes r i g h t to "(b) Claim of i n t e r e s t r e l a t e d to the p r o p e r t y and t r a n s a c t i o n w h i c h i s t h e subject of the a c t i o n and is so s i t u a t e d t h a t the d i s p o s i t i o n of the action will impair or impede the State's ability to protect that interest; "(c) The s t a t u t o r y t r a n s f e r o f i n t e r e s t by [ t h e w i f e ] t o [DHR]." Along with the conferring intervene; motion to intervene, intervention requesting that things, order husband (1) accordance Ala. with the R. J u d . A d m i n . ) , the the DHR trial to child-support a conditional filed a petition court, pay among child guidelines other support (see Rule in in 32, (2) o r d e r t h e h u s b a n d t o pay r e t r o a c t i v e c h i l d s u p p o r t f o r any p e r i o d i n w h i c h t h e h u s b a n d owed a l e g a l duty of require support the and husband failed to to provide children. 3 pay said health support, and (3) insurance for the 2100862 On F e b r u a r y 1, 2 0 1 1 , t h e h u s b a n d filed a response in o p p o s i t i o n t o DHR's m o t i o n t o i n t e r v e n e and i t s p e t i t i o n f o r support. t h e h u s b a n d a s s e r t e d , among o t h e r I n h i s response, t h i n g s , t h a t " [ a ] P e t i t i o n f o r S u p p o r t was f i l e d b y t h e [ w i f e ] i n t h e J e f f e r s o n County F a m i l y C o u r t , and t h e Honorable Court e n t e r e d an o r d e r on December 17, 2010 c l o s i n g c a s e # CS-2010000812.00, t h e r e f o r e d e n y i n g [the w i f e ' s ] P e t i t i o n , " and t h a t "[DHR] i s n o t a p a r t y t o a n y a c t i o n i n v o l v i n g t h e p a r t i e s o r t h e i r m i n o r c h i l d r e n , t h e r e f o r e , h a v i n g no v e s t e d i n t e r e s t i n the matter." The h u s b a n d a t t a c h e d t o h i s r e s p o n s e the o r d e r e n t e r e d by t h e J e f f e r s o n F a m i l y Court CS-2010-000812. On M a r c h 3, 2 0 1 1 , t h e t r i a l a copy o f i n c a s e no. 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 i n t e r v e n e , d i r e c t i n g t h e p a r t i e s to schedule a time and p l a c e f o r b l o o d t e s t s t o determine t h e parentage costs of the children, of the blood ordering the wife testing o r d e r i n g t h e husband t o pay t h e f o r himself t o pay the costs and t h e c h i l d r e n , of her blood testing, a p p o i n t i n g a g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m f o r the c h i l d r e n , and d i r e c t i n g t h e p a r t i e s t o e a c h d e p o s i t w i t h t h e c l e r k o f t h e c o u r t $450 as s e c u r i t y f o r t h e g u a r d i a n a d l i t e m ' s f e e . 4 2100862 On M a r c h 9, 2 0 1 1 , t h e w i f e , answer t o t h e husband's c o m p l a i n t 2011, c o u n s e l or f o r the wife filed i n the a l t e r n a t i v e motion motion, the financial ordered the the wife f o r divorce. means an On M a r c h 14, a " m o t i o n t o a l t e r o r amend to set aside t o p a y t h e $450 ad l i t e m ' s Guardian order." the t r i a l f e e ; she r e q u e s t e d 3, 2 0 1 1 , o r d e r ad L i t e m fee to the retaxing the fee at the conclusion same d a t e , which, filed I n that s t a t e d t h a t she was u n e m p l o y e d a n d amend i t s M a r c h $900 counsel, without court had h e r t o p a y t o t h e c l e r k o f t h e c o u r t as s e c u r i t y f o r guardian court through the wife among o t h e r filed that the trial "by t a x i n g t h e e n t i r e [husband], of t h i s a counterclaim t h i n g s , she a s s e r t e d subject cause." On to that f o r a divorce i n that three children h a d been b o r n o f t h e p a r t i e s ' m a r r i a g e a n d r e q u e s t e d t h a t she be a w a r d e d t h e c a r e , c u s t o d y , t h a t t h e h u s b a n d be o r d e r e d court entered an o r d e r and c o n t r o l o f t h e c h i l d r e n and t o pay c h i l d support. The trial on M a r c h 15, 2 0 1 1 , d e n y i n g t h e w i f e ' s m o t i o n t o a l t e r , amend, o r s e t a s i d e t h e M a r c h 3, 2 0 1 1 , o r d e r . On M a r c h 15, 2 0 1 1 , t h e h u s b a n d wife's counterclaim. alter, filed an a n s w e r to the On M a r c h 22, 2 0 1 1 , DHR f i l e d a m o t i o n t o amend, o r v a c a t e t h e M a r c h 3, 2 0 1 1 , o r d e r 5 entered by 2100862 the trial intervene. court DHR t o the extent i t denied DHR's m o t i o n t o asserted: "1. That t h e [wife] a p p l i e d f o r c h i l d s u p p o r t s e r v i c e s under t i t l e IV-D o f t h e S o c i a l S e c u r i t y A c t , 1975 w i t h 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 Human R e s o u r c e s . Reso "2. T h a t s a i d s e r v i c e s were opened t o t h e [ w i f e ] and r e m a i n a c t i v e t o d a y , i n c l u d i n g b u t n o t l i m i t e d t o monetary a i d p a i d by t h e Department f o r t h e purposes o f a s s i s t i n g h e r i n s u p p o r t i n g h e r minor children. "3. T h a t ' t h e payment o f a i d c r e a t e s a d e b t due and o w i n g t o t h e D e p a r t m e n t b y t h e p a r e n t o r parents ' ( A l a . Code 1975, § 3 8 - 1 0 - 6 . ) T h e r e f o r e DHR h a s an i n t e r e s t i n t h i s a c t i o n -- t h a t o f c o l l e c t i n g a d e b t owed t o t h e S t a t e o f A l a b a m a . "4. When I V - D s e r v i c e s a n d / o r m o n e t a r y a i d a r e accepted by a c u s t o d i a l p a r t y , that party's r i g h t s t o a n y s u p p o r t owed up t o t h e amount p a i d b y t h e D e p a r t m e n t a r e a s s i g n e d t o DHR. F u r t h e r m o r e , a c t i v e c h i l d support s e r v i c e s also create a subrogation of r i g h t s t o DHR ' t o c o l l e c t a n d r e c e i v e a l l c h i l d s u p p o r t payments a n d t o i n i t i a t e a n y s u p p o r t a c t i o n e x i s t i n g now o r i n t h e f u t u r e u n d e r t h e l a w s o f A l a b a m a . ' ( A l a . Code 1975, § 3 8 - 1 0 - 4 . ) As t h e [ w i f e ] has a s s i g n e d h e r r i g h t s t o c o l l e c t c h i l d s u p p o r t t o t h e D e p a r t m e n t , DHR h a s s t a n d i n g t o i n t e r v e n e i n t h i s matter. "5. Where an a s s i g n m e n t o f r i g h t s h a s b e e n made t o DHR, c h i l d s u p p o r t payments o r d e r e d b y a c o u r t must be p a i d t o t h e D e p a r t m e n t a n d t h e D e p a r t m e n t must t h e n d i s t r i b u t e them u n d e r t h e t e r m s o f t h e S o c i a l S e c u r i t y A c t . ( A l a . Code 1975, § 38-10-8, -33.) T h e r e f o r e DHR i s a n e c e s s a r y p a r t y t o t h i s a c t i o n , b e i n g t h e s t a t e a g e n c y mandated b y s t a t u t e t o c o l l e c t a n d d i s t r i b u t e c h i l d s u p p o r t payments 6 2100862 when t h e a c t i v a t i o n o f IV-D s e r v i c e s causes a c u s t o d i a l p a r t y ' s r i g h t s to r e c e i v e c h i l d support to be s u b r o g a t e d t o DHR. " 6 . DHR's r i g h t t o i n t e r v e n e i n s u c h c a s e s c o n f i r m e d i n S t a t e ex r e l . W i l s o n v. W i l s o n , 475 2d 194 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 5 ) , s t a t i n g [ : ] was So. "'We must a d o p t an a p p r o a c h t o R u l e 2 4 ( a ) ( 2 ) [ , A l a . R. C i v . P.,] w h i c h m e a s u r e s t h e r i g h t t o i n t e r v e n e "by a p r a c t i c a l r a t h e r than a t e c h n i c a l y a r d s t i c k . " Perry C o u n t y B o a r d o f E d u c a t i o n , 567 F.2d [277] a t 279 [ ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 7 8 ) ] ( q u o t i n g U n i t e d States v. Allegheny-Ludlum Industries, I n c . , 517 F.2d 826, 841 ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 7 5 ) , c e r t , d e n i e d , 425 U.S. 944, 96 S.Ct. 1684, 48 L.Ed.2d 187 ( 1 9 7 6 ) ) . Under such an approach, the r i g h t of [the Department of P e n s i o n s and S e c u r i t y ] t o i n t e r v e n e i n a c a s e s u c h as t h i s i s r e a d i l y a p p a r e n t . The Alabama l e g i s l a t u r e i n t e n d e d t h a t the A c t be c o n s t r u e d b r o a d l y t o e f f e c t u a t e i t s purpose of having p a r e n t s , r a t h e r than the s t a t e , s u p p o r t t h e i r c h i l d r e n . A l a . Code ( 1 9 7 5 ) , § 3 8 - 1 0 - 1 1 . To t h i s end, [the D e p a r t m e n t o f P e n s i o n s and S e c u r i t y ] may i n i t i a t e an a c t i o n t o e n f o r c e and c o l l e c t s u p p o r t o r , where a p p r o p r i a t e , i n t e r v e n e i n an e x i s t i n g a c t i o n f o r t h e c o l l e c t i o n o f support.' "Wilson[, 475 So. 2d] at 197. "7. The C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s f u r t h e r t h i s i s s u e i n a more r e c e n t c a s e . addresses " ' I n a d d i t i o n t o f i n d i n g t h a t DHR has a direct, substantial, and legally protectable interest in the divorce p r o c e e d i n g , we a l s o f i n d t h a t s a i d i n t e r e s t c a n n o t be a d e q u a t e l y r e p r e s e n t e d by t h e 7 2100862 e x i s t i n g p a r t i e s . DHR's i n t e r e s t i n t h i s divorce proceeding is to determine p a t e r n i t y a n d t o e n f o r c e any c o u r t o r d e r e d support. This i n t e r e s t i s separate and a p a r t from t h e w i f e ' s i n t e r e s t i n o b t a i n i n g a d i v o r c e , and t h e husband's i n t e r e s t i n denying p a t e r n i t y . II I "'Based upon the unique facts regarding DHR's application for i n t e r v e n t i o n , we h o l d t h a t DHR h a s t h e right to intervene i n this divorce action. To h o l d o t h e r w i s e w o u l d r e q u i r e DHR t o f i l e a separate a c t i o n i n order t o determine p a t e r n i t y a n d t o c o l l e c t t h e ADC [ A i d t o Dependent C h i l d r e n ] c h i l d s u p p o r t payments a l r e a d y p a i d b y DHR t o t h e w i f e . Such an outcome n o t o n l y r e q u i r e s a m u l t i p l i c i t y o f actions, but also creates a risk for inconsistent verdicts regarding paternity and/or c h i l d support.' " S t a t e ex r e l . T e n n e r v . T e n n e r , 668 So. 2d 838, 840 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1995) . "8. When T i t l e IV-D s e r v i c e s a r e a c t i v e , DHR's r i g h t s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s i n o b t a i n i n g orders f o r c h i l d support and c o n t i n u i n g e f f o r t s t o c o l l e c t c h i l d s u p p o r t once s u c h an o r d e r i s i n p l a c e a r e s e t f o r t h v i a s t a t u t e , and r e i n f o r c e d w i t h i n caselaw. "'DHR i s c o r r e c t t h a t , " p u r s u a n t t o § 38-10-5, [ A l a . Code 1975,] DHR [ h a s ] t h e r i g h t t o c o l l e c t and r e c e i v e a l l support payments and t o i n i t i a t e any s u p p o r t action." S t a t e ex r e l . T e n n e r v. T e n n e r , 668 So. 2d 838, 839 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1995) . " [ 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 i s t h e p r o p e r c o l l e c t i o n a g e n t when t h e r e h a s b e e n an a s s i g n m e n t o f r i g h t s o r a p p l i c a t i o n f o r 8 2100862 T i t l e IV-D s e r v i c e s . § 3 8 - 1 0 - 3 ( b ) , Code o f A l a b a m a 1975." B l a c k s t o n v. S t a t e e x r e l . B l a c k s t o n , 585 So. 2d 58, 59 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 1 ) . S e c t i o n 38-10-8[, A l a . Code 1975,] does p r o v i d e t h a t " [ s ] u p p o r t collections ... s h a l l be p a i d d i r e c t l y t o the s t a t e department and d i s t r i b u t i o n s h a l l be made b y s a i d s t a t e d e p a r t m e n t . " We a c k n o w l e d g e DHR's s t a t u t o r y d u t y t o c o l l e c t a l l c h i l d s u p p o r t p a y m e n t s i n ADC [ A i d t o Dependent C h i l d r e n ] c a s e s a n d t o r e m i t t o t h e c u s t o d i a n o f c h i l d r e n t h e amounts o v e r and above t h e sum n e c e s s a r y t o r e p a y DHR for the benefits i t has p r o v i d e d t h e recipient.' " S t a t e Dep't o f Human R e s o u r c e s v . M.A.J., 703 So. 2d 405, 407-408 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 7 ) . " DHR r e q u e s t e d o r a l entered vacate this a r g u m e n t on i t s m o t i o n . an o r d e r d e n y i n g on May 1 1 , 2 0 1 1 . c o u r t on June 10, DHR's m o t i o n DHR f i l e d The t r i a l to alter, i t s notice court amend, o r of appeal t o 2011. Discussion On a p p e a l , DHR a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r i a l discretion by d e n y i n g i t s motion the of i t s motion denial hearing. discretion c o u r t exceeded i t s to alter, to intervene amend, o r v a c a t e without conducting a DHR a l s o a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t exceeded i t s by d e n y i n g i t s motion t o i n t e r v e n e . "'[A] d e n i a l o f a m o t i o n t o i n t e r v e n e i s a l w a y s an a p p e a l a b l e o r d e r . ' " J i m P a r k e r B l d g . Co. v. G & S G l a s s & S u p p l y Co., 69 So. 3d 124, 9 2100862 130 ( A l a . 2011) ( q u o t i n g F a r m e r s I n s . E x c h . v. R a i n e , 2d 832, 833 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 4 ) ) . 905 So. See a l s o K i d s ' K l u b I I , I n c . v. S t a t e Dep't o f Human R e s . , 763 So. 2d 259, 260 (Ala. C i v . App. 2 0 0 0 ) ; a n d A l a b a m a F e d . Sav. & L o a n A s s ' n v . Howard, 534 So. 2d 609 ( A l a . 1 9 8 8 ) ) . " R u l e 5 9 ( g ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., provides: " ' P r e s e n t a t i o n o f any p o s t - t r i a l m o t i o n t o a judge i s not r e q u i r e d i n order t o p e r f e c t i t s m a k i n g , n o r i s i t r e q u i r e d t h a t an o r d e r c o n t i n u i n g any s u c h m o t i o n s t o a d a t e c e r t a i n be e n t e r e d . A l l s u c h m o t i o n s r e m a i n pending u n t i l r u l e d upon b y t h e c o u r t (subject t o the p r o v i s i o n s of Rule 59.1), b u t s h a l l n o t be r u l e d upon u n t i l t h e p a r t i e s h a v e h a d o p p o r t u n i t y t o be h e a r d thereon.' " ( E m p h a s i s added.) D e s c r i b i n g t h e e f f e c t o f t h e e m p h a s i z e d p a r t o f t h a t r u l e , o u r supreme c o u r t h a s h e l d t h a t when a p a r t y r e q u e s t s a h e a r i n g on i t s postjudgment motion, ' t h e c o u r t must g r a n t t h e r e q u e s t . ' F l a g s t a r E n t e r s . , I n c . v . F o s t e r , 779 So. 2d 1220, 1221 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) . However, a l t h o u g h a t r i a l c o u r t e r r s when i t f a i l s t o h o l d a r e q u e s t e d h e a r i n g on a R u l e 59 p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n , t h e supreme c o u r t has e x p l a i n e d t h a t s u c h e r r o r does n o t a l w a y s require reversal: "'Harmless e r r o r o c c u r s , w i t h i n t h e c o n t e x t o f a R u l e 5 9 ( g ) m o t i o n , where t h e r e i s e i t h e r no p r o b a b l e m e r i t i n t h e g r o u n d s asserted i n the motion, o r where t h e appellate court resolves the issues presented t h e r e i n , as a m a t t e r o f l a w , a d v e r s e l y t o t h e movant, b y a p p l i c a t i o n o f 10 2100862 t h e same o b j e c t i v e s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w t h a t a p p l i e d i n the t r i a l c o u r t . ' "Greene v. Thompson, 554 So. 2d 376, I s b e l l v. R o g e r s A u t o S a l e s , [Ms. 2100186, May So. 3d , Because hearing on ( A l a . C i v . App. the trial DHR's court r e l . Tenner v. Tenner, 668 in motion, w h e t h e r t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s e r r o r was ex ( A l a . 1989)." 27, 2011] 2011). erred postjudgment 381 as failing we harmless. So. 2d 838 to must DHR hold a determine cites (Ala. Civ. State App. 1995), i n support of i t s p o s i t i o n t h a t i t s postjudgment motion had probable merit. In Tenner, t h i s court reasoned: " R u l e 2 4 ( a ) ( 2 ) [ , A l a . R. C i v . P.,] provides anyone may i n t e r v e n e as a m a t t e r o f r i g h t that "'when t h e a p p l i c a n t c l a i m s an interest r e l a t i n g t o the p r o p e r t y or t r a n s a c t i o n w h i c h i s t h e s u b j e c t o f t h e a c t i o n and he i s so s i t u a t e d t h a t t h e d i s p o s i t i o n o f t h e a c t i o n may as a p r a c t i c a l m a t t e r i m p a i r o r impede his ability to protect that i n t e r e s t , u n l e s s the a p p l i c a n t ' s i n t e r e s t is adequately represented by existing parties.' "Therefore, '[t]o intervene i n a proceeding under Rule 24(a)(2), [DHR] must have a direct, s u b s t a n t i a l , and l e g a l l y p r o t e c t a b l e i n t e r e s t i n t h e p r o c e e d i n g . ' S t a t e ex r e l . W i l s o n v. W i l s o n , 475 So. 2d 194, 196 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 5 ) . B e c a u s e t h e r e i s no ' c l e a r c u t t e s t ' f o r d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r s u c h an interest exists, ' c o u r t s s h o u l d use a flexible a p p r o a c h w h i c h f o c u s e s on t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f e a c h 11 2100862 a p p l i c a t i o n f o r i n t e r v e n t i o n . ' W i l s o n , 475 So. 2d a t 196. "Section 38-10-3(a)[, A l a . Code 1975,] authorizes DHR to locate absent parents, to e s t a b l i s h p a t e r n i t y , t o e s t a b l i s h or modify support o r d e r s , and t o e n f o r c e s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n s . S e c t i o n 38-10-5, A l a . Code 1975, p r o v i d e s [ : ] "'as a c o n d i t i o n o f e l i g i b i l i t y f o r a i d , each r e c i p i e n t o f a i d t o f a m i l i e s w i t h d e p e n d e n t c h i l d r e n s h a l l have a s s i g n e d t o the department by o p e r a t i o n o f l a w any r i g h t s t o s u p p o r t from any o t h e r p e r s o n w h i c h s u c h r e c i p i e n t may have i n h i s own b e h a l f o r i n b e h a l f o f any o t h e r f a m i l y member f o r whom t h e r e c i p i e n t i s r e c e i v i n g aid.... Such a s s i g n m e n t s h a l l make t h e department a s s i g n e e o f and t o t h e r i g h t o f such c h i l d o r r e c i p i e n t o r t h e person h a v i n g custody t o c o l l e c t and r e c e i v e a l l support payments and t o i n i t i a t e any s u p p o r t a c t i o n e x i s t i n g now o r i n t h e f u t u r e under t h e laws o f Alabama ' "Under § 38-10-7, [ A l a . Code 1975,] DHR h a s t h e right t o b r i n g a separate action i n order to e s t a b l i s h p a t e r n i t y o r t o e n f o r c e any c h i l d s u p p o r t o r d e r e d t o be p a i d b y t h e h u s b a n d . "We f i n d t h a t DHR h a s a d i r e c t a n d s u b s t a n t i a l i n t e r e s t i n t h i s d i v o r c e p r o c e e d i n g b e c a u s e DHR h a s p a i d t h e w i f e a p p r o x i m a t e l y $1, 064 i n ADC [ A i d t o D e p e n d e n t C h i l d r e n ] . We a l s o f i n d t h a t DHR h a s a l e g a l l y p r o t e c t a b l e i n t e r e s t because, pursuant t o § 38-10-5, DHR was a s s i g n e d t h e r i g h t t o c o l l e c t a n d r e c e i v e a l l s u p p o r t payments and t o i n i t i a t e any support a c t i o n . " I n a d d i t i o n t o f i n d i n g t h a t DHR h a s a d i r e c t , s u b s t a n t i a l , and l e g a l l y p r o t e c t a b l e i n t e r e s t i n t h e d i v o r c e p r o c e e d i n g , we a l s o f i n d t h a t s a i d i n t e r e s t 12 2100862 c a n n o t be a d e q u a t e l y r e p r e s e n t e d by t h e e x i s t i n g p a r t i e s . DHR's i n t e r e s t i n t h i s d i v o r c e p r o c e e d i n g i s t o determine p a t e r n i t y and t o e n f o r c e any c o u r t ordered support. This i n t e r e s t i s separate and apart from t h e w i f e ' s i n t e r e s t i n o b t a i n i n g a d i v o r c e , and the husband's i n t e r e s t i n d e n y i n g p a t e r n i t y . " " B a s e d upon t h e u n i q u e f a c t s r e g a r d i n g DHR's a p p l i c a t i o n f o r i n t e r v e n t i o n , we h o l d t h a t DHR h a s t h e r i g h t t o i n t e r v e n e i n t h i s d i v o r c e a c t i o n . To h o l d o t h e r w i s e w o u l d r e q u i r e DHR t o f i l e a s e p a r a t e a c t i o n i n order t o determine p a t e r n i t y and t o c o l l e c t t h e ADC c h i l d s u p p o r t p a y m e n t s a l r e a d y p a i d by DHR t o t h e w i f e . Such an outcome n o t o n l y requires a m u l t i p l i c i t y of actions, but also creates a r i s k for inconsistent verdicts regarding paternity and/or c h i l d support." 668 So. 2d a t 839-40 (footnote omitted). DHR's a l l e g a t i o n s i n t h e p r e s e n t those wife a s s e r t e d i n Tenner. had r e c e i v e d case a r e analogous t o In t h i s case, monetary a i d from DHR a l l e g e d t h a t t h e DHR and t h a t assigned her r i g h t s t o c o l l e c t c h i l d support to Ala. proved, Code 1975, § the t r i a l protectable 38-10-5. court interest could that i n the proceeding. c o u r t c o u l d f i n d , b a s e d on T e n n e r , s u p r a , cannot be a d e q u a t e l y t o DHR, p u r s u a n t I f those find represented she had allegations are DHR h a d a Further, legally the t r i a l t h a t DHR's i n t e r e s t by t h e e x i s t i n g parties. Thus, we c o n c l u d e t h a t DHR's p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n h a d p r o b a b l e 13 2100862 merit and discretion that the t r i a l court therefore i n declining to hold a hearing exceeded i t s on t h a t m o t i o n . Conclusion Based on t h e f o r e g o i n g , j u d g m e n t a n d remand t h i s hearing we reverse the t r i a l cause f o r t h e t r i a l on DHR's p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n . court's court to hold a Isbell, supra. REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, P . J . , and Pittman, concur. 14 Bryan, and Thomas, J J . ,

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.