A.E. and J.E. v. M.C. (Appeal from Marshall Juvenile Court: JU-10-300302.01)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 04/13/2012 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 2101154 A.E. and J.E. v. M.C. Appeal from M a r s h a l l C i r c u i t (DR-10-882) Court 2101173 A.E. and J.E. v. M.C. Appeal from M a r s h a l l J u v e n i l e Court (JU-10-300302.01) 2101154 a n d 2101173 PER CURIAM. A.E. uncle") aunt ("the m a t e r n a l (hereinafter and u n c l e " ) T.L.S. of and together referred appeal ("the c h i l d " ) , custody aunt") the c h i l d J.E. ("the t o as " t h e m a t e r n a l a determination that i s n o t dependent to the c h i l d ' s maternal their niece, and t h e award father, M.C. of ("the father"). The c h i l d ' s m o t h e r , J . L . S . never m a r r i e d . ("the m o t h e r " ) , a n d t h e f a t h e r A F e b r u a r y 5, 2005, judgment o f t h e M a r s h a l l J u v e n i l e C o u r t , i n c a s e number C S - 0 4 - 2 0 0 1 7 2 , a d j u d i c a t e d t h e f a t h e r ' s p a t e r n i t y and o r d e r e d him t o pay c h i l d support. On June 7, 2 0 0 6 , t h e m o t h e r d i e d ; t h e c h i l d was two y e a r s old at that shortly time. after grandmother") petition child t h e mother's a n d R.S. i n t h e Etowah declared Juvenile According to allegations death, S.K.P. i n the r e c o r d , ("the maternal ("the m a t e r n a l g r a n d f a t h e r " ) f i l e d Juvenile dependent. On C o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r Court August a s e e k i n g t o have t h e 4, 2006, (hereinafter the Etowah t h e "August 4, 2 0 0 6 , d e p e n d e n c y o r d e r " ) f i n d i n g t h e c h i l d t o be d e p e n d e n t a n d awarding pendente l i t e custody of the c h i l d 2 to the maternal 2101154 and 2101173 grandmother. 1 A handwritten notation on t h e A u g u s t 4, dependency order s t a t e s t h a t the dependency p e t i t i o n were t o be served Within a on few the 2006, and order the child father. months of receiving custody of p u r s u a n t t o t h e A u g u s t 4, 2 0 0 6 , d e p e n d e n c y o r d e r , t h e m a t e r n a l grandmother t r a n s f e r r e d p h y s i c a l custody of the m a t e r n a l a u n t and seek or obtain uncle. The court order a child. However, the maternal aunt uncle and child October 14, "Unified Family i n i t i a t e d by 10-882. and 2010, physical m o t h e r , whom he of the in entry the father f i l e d of Marshall that petition custody remained them uncle the did not of the of the custody the of to home the July 2011 actions. Court" In h i s p e t i t i o n , awarding until judgment i n the u n d e r l y i n g On m a t e r n a l a u n t and child was a petition County; designated as the in action c a s e number the f a t h e r s o u g h t an a w a r d o f the child. identified i n that d e c e a s e d f o r more t h a n f o u r y e a r s , The father petition as the named having DR- legal the been as t h e s o l e d e f e n d a n t ; t h e T h e r e i s no i n d i c a t i o n i n t h e r e c o r d t h a t t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d f a t h e r was a w a r d e d p e n d e n t e l i t e c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d o r t h a t he has b e e n i n v o l v e d as a p a r t y t o any o t h e r actions p e r t a i n i n g to the c h i l d . 1 3 2101154 and father named intervenor" referred court 2101173 the i n case t o as i n that maternal grandmother number DR-10-882 "the f a t h e r ' s action custody entered an as a "potential (hereinafter action"). order sometimes The 2 specifying trial that the f a t h e r ' s p e t i t i o n be s e r v e d on t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r . On November 18, 2010, t h e m a t e r n a l a u n t a n d u n c l e i n the M a r s h a l l child the filed J u v e n i l e C o u r t a p e t i t i o n s e e k i n g t o have t h e d e c l a r e d d e p e n d e n t and s e e k i n g an a w a r d o f c u s t o d y o f child. The action initiated by the maternal aunt and u n c l e ' s d e p e n d e n c y p e t i t i o n was d e s i g n a t e d as c a s e number J U 10-300302.01 and i s h e r e i n a f t e r s o m e t i m e s r e f e r r e d t o i n t h i s opinion as " t h e d e p e n d e n c y a c t i o n " o r " t h e m a t e r n a l a u n t and u n c l e ' s dependency a c t i o n . " In t h e i r dependency p e t i t i o n , the m a t e r n a l a u n t and u n c l e a l l e g e d t h a t t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r had relinquished physical after the mother's death, custody and t o them that the i n 2006, child shortly had resided c o n t i n u o u s l y i n t h e i r home s i n c e t h a t t i m e ; t h e y a l s o alleged I n h i s c u s t o d y p e t i t i o n , t h e f a t h e r a l l e g e d t h a t he h a d b e e n a d j u d i c a t e d t h e f a t h e r o f t h e c h i l d i n 2005 and h a d p a i d s u p p o r t f o r t h e c h i l d p u r s u a n t t o t h e 2005 j u d g m e n t . The f a t h e r f u r t h e r a l l e g e d t h a t t h e m o t h e r h a d d i e d i n 2006 and t h a t t h e c h i l d h a d b e e n r e s i d i n g s i n c e 2006 i n t h e p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y o f t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r o r t h e m a t e r n a l a u n t and uncle. 2 4 2101154 and that the 2101173 f a t h e r had child to them. their dependency voluntarily The maternal petition r e l i n q u i s h e d c u s t o d y of aunt to allege dependent because, t h e y argued, the child. In their and uncle that later the f a t h e r had child the uncle At the withdrew father's trial their parental conformity with of claim rights, their t h i s m a t t e r , the seeking but County termination to of assert, amended d e p e n d e n c y p e t i t i o n , that abandonment o f t h e the parental m a t e r n a l aunt they continued f a t h e r ' s a c t i o n s c o n s t i t u t e d an We the was maternal a u n t and u n c l e s o u g h t t h e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e f a t h e r ' s rights. amended abandoned amended d e p e n d e n c y p e t i t i o n , the and the in the child. note t h a t t h i s c o u r t ' s c l e r k v e r i f i e d t h a t i n M a r s h a l l a domestic-relations custody action circuit court. i s within 3 The action as the father's jurisdiction the such of that county's maternal aunt and uncle's dependency Under the c u r r e n t Alabama J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e A c t ("the A J J A " ) , § 12-15-101 e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1975, i f a c h i l d whose p a t e r n i t y has b e e n e s t a b l i s h e d by a j u d g m e n t o f t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t has n o t b e e n d e t e r m i n e d t o be d e p e n d e n t , t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t does n o t r e t a i n c o n t i n u i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e c h i l d , and any 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 i n v o l v i n g t h e c h i l d must be b r o u g h t i n t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t . D.C.S. v. L.B., [Ms. 2091185, Nov. 18, 2011] So. 3d , ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 1 ) . T h e r e f o r e , we c o n c l u d e t h a t , u n d e r t h e c u r r e n t v e r s i o n o f t h e A J J A , t h e f a t h e r , who was a p p a r e n t l y n o t s e r v 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 i n i t i a t e d by t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r , 3 5 2101154 and petition 2101173 invoked the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. P u r s u a n t t o § 1 2 - 1 7 - 2 4 . 1 , A l a . Code 1975, M a r s h a l l County has created i t the a family-court "Unified Family Court," division that has titled which handles f a m i l y - r e l a t e d a c t i o n s a r i s i n g under the j u r i s d i c t i o n of b o t h the j u v e n i l e c o u r t and the c i r c u i t c o u r t . r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t c a s e number JU- c a s e number DR-10-882 were e a c h a s s i g n e d to 10-300302.01 and The and considered his c a p a c i t y as a j u d g e f o r t h e u n i f i e d s y s t e m i n t h a t c o u n t y . Accordingly, below, by t h e same t r i a l j u d g e , a p p a r e n t l y t h i s c o u r t w i l l r e f e r to the a c t i o n s of the whether in case number number DR-10-882, as h a v i n g JU-10-300302.01 b e e n t a k e n by A f t e r t h e m a t e r n a l a u n t and u n c l e petition, in court did not an order expressly m a t e r n a l a u n t and setting uncle's court in trial the rule dependency a motion to on matter, on the December 8, together dependency a c t i o n case court." dismiss father's custody a c t i o n . grandmother's motion to d i s m i s s , but entered "the or filed their the m a t e r n a l grandmother f i l e d c a s e number DR-10-882, t h e trial sitting in The maternal 2010, with (case number i t the JU- p r o p e r l y i n i t i a t e d h i s a c t i o n s e e k i n g an a w a r d o f c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d by i n v o k i n g t h e c i r c u i t - c o u r t j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e M a r s h a l l U n i f i e d Family Court. 6 2101154 and 2101173 10-300302.01), order later for hearing. The i n December 2010, v i s i t a t i o n with On a the J a n u a r y 7, trial awarding court the father 2011, t h e m a t e r n a l a u n t and t h a t a c t i o n w i t h t h e i r dependency a c t i o n . custody action enter an order a of consolidation two the notice of The his actions. specifically b e c a u s e t h e two an certain child. uncle motion i n the f a t h e r ' s custody a c t i o n seeking to his entered The granting a "consolidate" father f i l e d in "consent" trial the filed to did court the not consolidation, a c t i o n s i n v o k e d the j u r i s d i c t i o n of and, different c o u r t s , i t does n o t a p p e a r t h a t c o n s o l i d a t i o n w o u l d have b e e n appropriate ore i n t h i s case. tenus hearing ore tenus h e a r i n g court that she The f o r the trial two On actions. We did not want t o be a party not s e e k i n g at to the the trial father's an a w a r d o f c u s t o d y child. July 22, 2011, the trial court d e n y i n g t h e m a t e r n a l a u n t and u n c l e ' s entered 2010, the trial court entered 7 a judgment dependency p e t i t i o n o r d e r i n g t h a t c a s e number JU-10-300302.01 be J u l y 22, note t h a t the m a t e r n a l grandmother i n f o r m e d the c u s t o d y a c t i o n b e c a u s e she was of the court d i d conduct a j o i n t closed. Also and on i n c a s e number DR-10- 2101154 and 882 2101173 a judgment awarding On August 5, postjudgment it was 2011, custody of the c h i l d the maternal filed with regard to both postjudgment motion, The and m a t e r n a l a u n t and u n c l e f i l e d this and m o t i o n ; the s t y l e of t h a t motion c a s e number J U - 1 0 - 3 0 0 3 0 2 . 0 1 . the aunt c o u r t i n each case trial on to the uncle father. filed a indicated that number DR-10-882 and c o u r t d i d not r u l e on September 1, 2011, the a separate n o t i c e of appeal to case. Much o f t h e t e s t i m o n y f r o m t h e t r a n s c r i p t o f t h e h e a r i n g concerns mother the and details of the various details father's about relationship the father's with interactions w i t h the mother, the m a t e r n a l grandmother, the m a t e r n a l and u n c l e , o r t h e c h i l d . p o r t i o n s of t h a t evidence The explained maternal child was as born and aunt T h i s o p i n i o n summarizes the r e l e v a n t follows. in April t h a t t h e m o t h e r and grandmother the the the 2004. child maternal The had witnesses lived with the grandfather from the t i m e t h e c h i l d was b o r n u n t i l t h e m o t h e r ' s d e a t h i n June 2006. The f a t h e r a d m i t t e d t h a t he had been p r e s e n t a t , the b i r t h been i n v i t e d t o b u t had of the child. I t i s undisputed t h a t , b e f o r e t h e m o t h e r ' s June 2006 d e a t h , t h e f a t h e r had 8 not had 2101154 and 2101173 brief contact instigation with the o f t h e m o t h e r ; one the g e n e t i c t e s t i n g paternity The that only a few times at the o f t h o s e o f o c c a s i o n s was resulted i n the February 5, at 2005, judgment. father attended service i n June events. The following child 2 0 0 6 , and father the the mother's he also mother's saw the testified death, he funeral and child that, memorial during in visited the the those weeks child a p p r o x i m a t e l y f i v e more t i m e s a t what he c h a r a c t e r i z e d as t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d f a t h e r ' s home. The maternal 4 grandmother testified that the child remained i n her p h y s i c a l custody f o l l o w i n g the mother's death and that the father custody of the c h i l d . d i d not r e q u e s t , or attempt to take, The m a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r and t h e c h i l d moved t o a n o t h e r c o u n t y , and t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r o b t a i n e d pendente l i t e custody of the c h i l d pursuant t o the August 2006, dependency order. However, i t i s u n d i s p u t e d 4, that, w i t h i n a few months o f t h e e n t r y o f t h a t o r d e r , t h e m a t e r n a l E i t h e r s h o r t l y b e f o r e o r a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y t h e same t i m e as t h e m o t h e r ' s d e a t h , t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r and t h e maternal grandfather divorced. 4 9 2101154 and 2101173 g r a n d m o t h e r gave 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 t h e m a t e r n a l a u n t and The child uncle. father admitted t h a t , aside he had d e a t h , he The had i n the d i d not visit month o r the so child the child did not f o r the alleging during those years. visit he the had had child The in initiated a vandalized c i r c u i t court The father invitation, birthday he the child child's c o u l d not attended 2009. uncle maternal uncle and was for c h i l d at a l l athletic r e c a l l any with the he maternal against father him, testified c o n v i c t i o n on t h a t charge acquitted. that, the at party Shortly lunch t h a t he action v e h i c l e ; the had events. to for of the d e t a i l s maternal the discuss the the father aunt's child's fifth father child. encouraged the invited The 10 the t h e r e a f t e r , the t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had and because criminal her testified in April maternal visit the 2006. father t e s t i f i e d that 2008 t h a t he a p p e a l e d h i s d i s t r i c t - c o u r t to the remainder of see the mother's 2008 and t h a t he had n o t r e q u e s t e d v i s i t a t i o n grandmother the f o l l o w i n g the f a t h e r a l s o a d m i t t e d t h a t he d i d n o t i n 2007 and the from the v i s i t s w i t h met The father to f a t h e r t o one of testified that of t h a t c o n v e r s a t i o n , he but 2101154 a n d 2101173 he c h a r a c t e r i z e d i t as " c o r d i a l . " I t i s u n d i s p u t e d , however, that the f a t h e r d i d not attend the A p r i l 2009 a t h l e t i c to which t h e m a t e r n a l u n c l e had i n v i t e d him. event A f t e r seeing the child at the A p r i l 2009 p a r t y , t h e f a t h e r d i d n o t v i s i t the child a g a i n i n 2009, a n d he h a d no c o n t a c t w i t h t h e c h i l d i n 2010 b e f o r e he i n i t i a t e d h i s c u s t o d y a c t i o n i n c a s e number DR10-882 i n October visiting the 2010. child The pursuant father f i r s t to a court began order regularly entered in December 2010. The f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d on d i r e c t four years examination b e t w e e n t h e m o t h e r ' s J u n e 2006 d e a t h that i n the and O c t o b e r 2010, when he f i l e d h i s c u s t o d y p e t i t i o n , he h a d a s k e d f o r a n d been refused visitation cross-examination, in visitation child. occasion, requested occasions. the maternal However, aunt and u n c l e The f a t h e r s t a t e d t h a t he h a d on one o c c a s i o n a f t e r t h e A p r i l the maternal the seven on t h e f a t h e r c o u l d r e c a l l o n l y one i n s t a n c e w h i c h he t e l e p h o n e d refused v i s i t a t i o n . on and was requested 2009 m e e t i n g w i t h u n c l e b u t t h a t he h a d n o t b e e n a l l o w e d t o v i s i t The the maternal father a visit with had uncle testified telephoned the c h i l d 11 that, "midweek" on that and had f o r t h e u p c o m i n g weekend. 2101154 and The 2101173 maternal uncle f a t h e r t h a t he and testified to the t h e m a t e r n a l a u n t were t a k i n g t h e c h i l d out o f town t h a t weekend and back regarding that t h a t he had be o u t o f town and had a s k e d him could other testify to no requested v i s i t a t i o n with t h e m a t e r n a l a u n t and encourage child, the The the father h a v i n g done the which the the father to the explained the The child. the p l a n s in which he We note t h a t , testified visit that or he have could again although attempted contact not to father had t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e y had to call father to c a l l again, but the occasion uncle father had m a t e r n a l aunt t e s t i f i e d t h a t , to her 6 H disputed told explained with the recall their so. f a t h e r had had in had another time f o r a p o s s i b l e v i s i t . c o n f i r m e d t h a t the m a t e r n a l u n c l e to he contact o r v i s i t e d w i t h t h e c h i l d o n l y 12 y e a r s between the father knowledge, filed his child's custody birth and petition. the times date The grandfather t e s t i f i e d he had had i n the on father t h a t t e s t i m o n y , p o i n t i n g t o a d d i t i o n a l v i s i t s he maternal the and month f o l l o w i n g t h e m o t h e r ' s d e a t h i n 2006; t h e m a t e r n a l a u n t s t a t e d t h a t she had n o t b e e n aware o f t h o s e 12 visits. 2101154 and Dr. 2101173 D a v i d R. the c h i l d , Wilson, a licensed psychologist, evaluated the maternal aunt and u n c l e , the father, and the f a t h e r ' s w i f e , S.L.C. I n s h o r t , Dr. W i l s o n t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e maternal uncle aunt and psychologically healthy. were Dr. honest, Wilson credible, testified and that the m a t e r n a l a u n t and u n c l e were and w o u l d be e x c e l l e n t p a r e n t s t o the child. Dr. Wilson bonded w i t h the m a t e r n a l Dr. Wilson testified that the child a u n t and u n c l e as p a r e n t testified that the results of was very figures. the testing d u r i n g h i s e v a l u a t i o n of the f a t h e r caused him c o n c e r n because the validity father Dr. had attempted Wilson unusual father indicators would have p r o b l e m s he had. father why responded he that, cases, tests the revealed that himself i n a better although difficulty such behavior behavior or is not that suggested admitting was seeking custody of the the light. the acknowledging Dr. W i l s o n t e s t i f i e d t h a t , when he a s k e d t h a t t h e c h i l d was responsibility, first to present testified i n custody f o r those child, the the father h i s c h i l d , t h a t t h e c h i l d was h i s and t h a t , a l t h o u g h he had m i s s e d s i x y e a r s , he w a n t e d t o make i t up 13 the t o h e r ; Dr. child's Wilson 2101154 a n d 2101173 testified the t h a t t h e f a t h e r h a d n o t s a i d t o h i m t h a t he loved child. Dr. Wilson t e s t i f i e d that he h a d t a l k e d w i t h the c h i l d s h o r t l y a f t e r t h e f a t h e r i n i t i a t e d h i s c u s t o d y a c t i o n and had been granted some visitation with the c h i l d . Dr. W i l s o n s t a t e d t h a t t h e c h i l d was a n x i o u s a b o u t v i s i t i n g t h e f a t h e r . He a l s o b e l i e v e d t h a t a change i n c u s t o d y c o u l d be traumatic f o r the c h i l d relationships emotionally and c o u l d a f f e c t h e r a b i l i t y t o form i n the future. On cross-examination by t h e f a t h e r , D r . W i l s o n t e s t i f i e d t h a t he h a d n o t s e e n any a d v e r s e p s y c h o l o g i c a l e f f e c t s t o t h e c h i l d f r o m h e r change i n c u s t o d y from t h e m a t e r n a l grandmother t o t h e m a t e r n a l aunt and u n c l e f o l l o w i n g t h e mother's death. The he father t e s t i f i e d at the hearing h a d begun w o r k i n g i n the insurance i n this business matter that i n 2007 a n d t h a t he h a d b e e n e m p l o y e d b y t h e same e m p l o y e r f o r t h e l a s t three for years. two y e a r s The f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t he h a d b e e n and t h a t he a t t e n d e d church married regularly. The f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t he h a d n o t a t t e m p t e d t o v i s i t t h e c h i l d o r s e e k c u s t o d y o f h e r e a r l i e r b e c a u s e he was young; he s t a t e d t h a t he b e l i e v e d t h a t he became m a t u r e enough t o h a n d l e t h e 14 2101154 a n d 2101173 situation at approximately insurance industry. The child t h e same time he entered f a t h e r a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t he h a d c o n s i s t e n t l y p a i d support. The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s 2006, t h e m a t e r n a l s u p p o r t payments. that, a t some p o i n t i n g r a n d m o t h e r began r e c e i v i n g those An o r d e r e n t e r e d b y t h e t r i a l deposit account the c h i l d support f o r the c h i l d . grandmother she r e c e i v e d i n t o I t i s not clear from child- court during the pendency o f t h i s matter r e q u i r e d t h e m a t e r n a l to the a savings t h e r e c o r d on appeal whether, before t h e e n t r y o f t h a t order, the maternal grandmother had been s a v i n g t h e c h i l d Regardless, the r e c o r d demonstrates was p a y i n g uncle child support support f o r the c h i l d . that, although the father as o r d e r e d , the maternal aunt and h a d n o t r e c e i v e d any o f t h e f a t h e r ' s c h i l d - s u p p o r t payments during the years the c h i l d was i n their physical custody. The maternal aunt and u n c l e testified that they had r a i s e d t h e c h i l d s i n c e s h o r t l y a f t e r t h e death o f t h e mother. They t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e y l o v e t h e c h i l d as t h e i r own c h i l d ; the maternal a n d have t r e a t e d h e r t h e c h i l d r e f e r s t o t h e m a t e r n a l aunt and u n c l e as "Mommy" a n d "Dad," r e s p e c t i v e l y . 15 The 2101154 a n d 2101173 maternal aunt and u n c l e also testified that they a r e each e m p l o y e d , t h a t t h e i r home i s a d e q u a t e f o r t h e c h i l d , t h a t t h e y attend church r e g u l a r l y , and t h a t extracurricular The the c h i l d i s involved i n activities. father began December 2010 o r d e r visiting the c h i l d of the t r i a l regularly after a c o u r t awarded him v i s i t a t i o n w i t h t h e c h i l d d u r i n g t h e pendency o f t h i s m a t t e r . The f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t he l o v e s t h e c h i l d a n d t h a t she i s happy i n h i s home. On q u e s t i o n i n g from t h e m a t e r n a l aunt and u n c l e , t h e f a t h e r d e n i e d f o r c i n g t h e c h i l d t o r e f e r t o h i m as h e r f a t h e r , and he d e n i e d p r e v e n t i n g aunt and u n c l e the c h i l d f o r that c h i l d also t e s t i f i e d at the hearing. the maternal aunt and u n c l e father. The child testified She s t a t e d that that The e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e d gave t h e c h i l d t e l e p h o n e so t h a t she c o u l d c o n t a c t by purpose. t h e f a t h e r makes h e r c a l l h i m "Poppy." that the maternal o r from u s i n g a c e l l u l a r t e l e p h o n e p r o v i d e d the m a t e r n a l aunt and u n c l e The from c a l l i n g a cellular them when she v i s i t e d t h e during visitations the f a t h e r o r h i s w i f e sometimes p u t t h a t c e l l u l a r t e l e p h o n e i n a place where she c a n n o t a c c e s s i t . 16 The c h i l d indicated that 2101154 and 2101173 she w a n t e d t o l i v e w i t h t h e m a t e r n a l a u n t and u n c l e and the father. On juvenile and visit appeal, the maternal aunt court erred i n f a i l i n g i n awarding custody of and uncle to f i n d the child argue the c h i l d to the that the dependent father. In response, the f a t h e r contends t h a t , a l t h o u g h the m a t e r n a l aunt and uncle properly dependency p e t i t i o n appealed i n case the judgment denying their number J U - 1 0 - 3 0 0 3 0 2 . 0 1 , t h e y do n o t have s t a n d i n g t o c h a l l e n g e t h e " c u s t o d y j u d g m e n t " e n t e r e d i n c a s e number DR-10-882. The f a t h e r a r g u e s t h a t t h e m a t e r n a l a u n t and u n c l e were n o t p a r t i e s t o c a s e number DR-10-882 and, therefore, that that action. they As cannot appeal the i s e x p l a i n e d below, judgment e n t e r e d i n we do not reach the f a t h e r ' s argument b e c a u s e we r e s o l v e t h i s i s s u e on a d i f f e r e n t basis. The February 5, 2005, judgment f a t h e r ' s p a t e r n i t y of the c h i l d that established and o r d e r e d h i m t o pay the child s u p p o r t a l s o c o n s t i t u t e d an a w a r d o f c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d the mother. Ex p a r t e L.N.K., 64 So. 3d 656, 656 to (Ala. Civ. App. 2 0 1 0 ) ; M.R.J. v. D.R.B., 17 So. 3d 683, 686-87 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009); and T.B. v. C.D.L., 910 17 So. 2d 794, 795-96 ( A l a . 2101154 a n d 2101173 Civ. App. 2 0 0 5 ) . Upon t h e mother's death, custody of the c h i l d d i d not automatically vest i n the father. father had i s correct a prima that, facie right However, t h e upon t h e m o t h e r ' s d e a t h i n 2006, he t o custody of the c h i l d . M.H. v. H.N.M., 70 So. 3d 398, 406 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 1 ) ; Newman v . Newman, 667 So. 2d 1362, 1365 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 4 ) ; s e e a l s o Ex p a r t e D.J., 645 So. 2d 303 ( A l a . 1994); and D a n i e l s v. T r a w i c k , 232 A l a . 466, 5 5 1 , 168 So. 551 ( 1 9 3 6 ) . We n o t e that t h a t p r i m a f a c i e p r e s u m p t i o n i n f a v o r o f t h e p a r e n t does n o t a p p l y when t h e p a r e n t i s d e t e r m i n e d t o be u n f i t o r when he o r she has v o l u n t a r i l y nonparent. parte relinquished custody of the c h i l d to a Ex p a r t e G.C., 924 So. 2d 651, 656 ( A l a . 2 0 0 5 ) ; Ex S.T.S., 806 So. 2d 336 ( A l a . 2001); a n d R a g s d a l e v. R a g s d a l e , 991 So. 2d 770, 772 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 8 ) . In t h i s right t o custody following years case, the f a t h e r d i d not a s s e r t h i s prima and seek custody t h e death o f t h e mother. after of the c h i l d i n 2006 R a t h e r , more t h a n t h e mother's death, t h e f a t h e r facie initiated four a new a c t i o n s e e k i n g c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d by f i l i n g h i s p e t i t i o n i n c a s e number DR-10-882. I n c a s e number DR-10-882, t h e f a t h e r named t h e m o t h e r as t h e o n l y d e f e n d a n t , a n d he s t a t e d i n t h a t 18 2101154 and custody earlier. 2101173 petition the mother had died more than four years Thus, t h e s o l e d e f e n d a n t named by t h e f a t h e r i n h i s c u s t o d y p e t i t i o n was deceased. A deceased 5 person c a p a c i t y t o be s u e d i n an a c t i o n s u c h as t h e one the f a t h e r , and, therefore, we conclude that lacks the initiated by the f a t h e r , i n a s s e r t i n g h i s c u s t o d y c l a i m i n c a s e number DR-10-882, failed to invoke the subject-matter j u r i s d i c t i o n of the t r i a l court. See (2002) 67A C.J.S. P a r t i e s § 54 ("The c a p a c i t y t o be sued e x i s t s o n l y i n p e r s o n s i n b e i n g and s o , does n o t e x i s t i n t h e case of persons deceased, and a suit filed against a dead T h e f a t h e r a s s e r t s i n h i s b r i e f on a p p e a l t h a t t h e m a t e r n a l grandmother had " s t a n d i n g " t o c h a l l e n g e the c u s t o d y j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d i n c a s e number DR-10-882. The f a t h e r d i d n o t name t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r as a d e f e n d a n t t o h i s c u s t o d y action. Rather, i n h i s custody p e t i t i o n , the father identified the maternal grandmother as a "potential i n t e r v e n o r " i n t h e c u s t o d y a c t i o n , and he a s k e d t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t " a l l o w s u c h p a r t i e s as may d e s i r e t o h i r e a t t o r n e y s and i n t e r v e n e as t h e C o u r t may deem a p p r o p r i a t e u n d e r A l a b a m a law." Although the t r i a l court ordered t h a t the maternal g r a n d m o t h e r be s e r v e d w i t h t h e f a t h e r ' s c u s t o d y p e t i t i o n , t h e r e i s no i n d i c a t i o n i n t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l t h a t t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r was j o i n e d as a d e f e n d a n t o r p a r t y t o t h e father's custody a c t i o n . The m a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r d i d n o t move t o i n t e r v e n e i n t h e f a t h e r ' s c u s t o d y a c t i o n . At the h e a r i n g i n t h i s matter, the m a t e r n a l grandmother informed the t r i a l c o u r t t h a t she d i d n o t w i s h t o a s s e r t a c l a i m s e e k i n g c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d . A c c o r d i n g l y , g i v e n t h e s e f a c t s and t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l , we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r was n o t a p a r t y t o e i t h e r a c t i o n b e l o w , and i t i s c l e a r t h a t she i s n o t a p a r t y b e f o r e t h i s c o u r t . 5 19 2101154 and person does (footnotes 2101173 not invoke omitted)). the We jurisdiction adopt the S u p e r i o r Court of C o n n e c t i c u t , which of the court." e x p l a n a t i o n of the stated: "'By i t s v e r y t e r m s , an a c t i o n a t l a w i m p l i e s the e x i s t e n c e o f l e g a l p a r t i e s ; t h e y may be n a t u r a l or a r t i f i c i a l p e r s o n s , b u t t h e y must be e n t i t i e s w h i c h t h e l a w r e c o g n i z e s as c o m p e t e n t . ' Thompson v. Peck, 320 Pa. 27, 30, 181 A.2d 597 ( 1 9 3 5 ) . Corkin, the p e r s o n named i n t h e w r i t as t h e d e f e n d a n t i n t h i s c a s e , was d e a d a t t h e t i m e o f s e r v i c e . No s u c h p e r s o n e x i s t e d a t t h a t t i m e . The f i r s t c o u n t o f t h e c o m p l a i n t i s t h u s an a c t i o n a g a i n s t nobody. Bateman v. Wood, 297 Mass. 483, 485, 9 N.E.2d 375 ( 1 9 3 7 ) . '[A] d e a d p e r s o n i s a n o n e x i s t e n t e n t i t y and c a n n o t be a p a r t y t o a s u i t . Therefore, proceedings i n s t i t u t e d a g a i n s t an i n d i v i d u a l who i s d e c e a s e d a t the t i m e o f t h e f i l i n g o f s u i t a r e a n u l l i t y . Such p r o c e e d i n g s a r e v o i d ab i n i t i o and do n o t i n v o k e t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of the t r i a l c o u r t . ' V o l k m a r v. S t a t e Farm M u t u a l A u t o m o b i l e I n s . Co., 104 I l l . App. 3d 149, 151, 60 I l l . Dec. 250, 432 N.E.2d 1149 ( 1 9 8 2 ) ; a c c o r d R i c h i e v. L a u s u s e , 892 S.W.2d 746, 748 (Mo. C t . App. 1 9 9 4 ) . " Noble v. 302-03 Corkin, (1998). 45 Conn. Supp. 330, 332-33, 717 A.2d 301, 6 We n o t e t h a t some a u t h o r i t y f r o m o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s has d e t e r m i n e d t h a t a l a c k o f c a p a c i t y t o be s u e d does n o t a f f e c t a c o u r t ' s s u b j e c t - m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n . C u r r i e r v. S u t h e r l a n d , 218 P.3d 709, 712-13 ( C o l o . 2 0 0 9 ) , and c a s e s c i t e d t h e r e i n . Those c a s e s a r e d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e , h o w e v e r , b e c a u s e t h e t o r t o r c o n t r a c t c l a i m s a s s e r t e d i n t h o s e c a s e s c o u l d be m a i n t a i n e d a g a i n s t a d i f f e r e n t e n t i t y or a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e or e s t a t e of the named d e f e n d a n t . I n t h i s c a s e , t h e c u s t o d y c l a i m a s s e r t e d by t h e f a t h e r c o u l d n o t be a s s e r t e d a g a i n s t a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of t h e m o t h e r o r a g a i n s t t h e m o t h e r ' s e s t a t e . In r e s o l v i n g 6 20 2101154 and 2101173 Given custody the foregoing, action in case conclude number DR-10-882 was void jurisdiction DR-10-882. 7 over the "The r e n d e r s v o i d any absence I n s . Co., 648 number (Ala. of 876 DR-10-882 jurisdiction, and is we Owens v. Owens, 51 So. We So. 2d jurisdiction action." 443, for dismiss the 3d 364, 367 deceased i n c a s e number 448 Moore subject- R i l e y v. Hughes, 17 So. that the want appeal judgment of v. ( A l a . 2003). n o t i c e an a b s e n c e o f hold void i n the a its subject-matter subject-matter ex mero motu. 2009). obtained custody claim an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t may matter j u r i s d i c t i o n 643, father's judgment e n t e r e d J o h n Hancock L i f e Further, never was at l a c k e d t h e c a p a c i t y t o be s u e d i n a c u s t o d y a c t i o n . court defendant father's p e r s o n who trial named the because the sole that inception Therefore, the we in 3d case subject-matter from t h a t ( A l a . C i v . App. judgment. 2010) . t h i s a p p e a l , we h a v e c o n s i d e r e d o n l y t h e c u s t o d y c l a i m i s s u e i n c a s e number DR-10-882, and we c o n f i n e t h e h o l d i n g t h i s case to the f a c t s of t h i s case. For at of We f u r t h e r note t h a t even i f the trial court had a t t e m p t e d t o add t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r as a d e f e n d a n t t o t h e f a t h e r ' s c u s t o d y a c t i o n a f t e r i t o r d e r e d t h a t she be s e r v e d w i t h t h e f a t h e r ' s c u s t o d y p e t i t i o n , s u c h an a t t e m p t w o u l d have had no e f f e c t b e c a u s e t h e f a t h e r ' s c u s t o d y a c t i o n was v o i d ab i n i t i o . 7 21 2101154 and 2101173 t h a t r e a s o n , we have e l e c t e d n o t t o a d d r e s s t h e m e r i t s o f t h e father's argument that the s t a n d i n g to appeal the v o i d maternal aunt and uncle lacked judgment e n t e r e d i n case number DR-10-882. We n e x t t u r n t o t h e m a t e r n a l a u n t and u n c l e ' s a r g u m e n t s t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n c o n c l u d i n g t h a t the c h i l d was not dependent. The m a t e r n a l a u n t and u n c l e c o n t e n d t h a t t h e y p r e s e n t e d c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e d e m o n s t r a t i n g t h a t , i n the four years after the mother's death, the father had a b a n d o n e d t h e c h i l d and h a d l e f t h e r t o be r a i s e d by o t h e r s . See T.B. v. T.H., ("[A]llegations convincing 1975 30 of So. 3d 429, dependency e v i d e n c e . " ) ; see 432 must be also § ( A l a . C i v . App. proven by 12-15-310(b), 2009) clear and A l a . Code ( r e q u i r i n g d e p e n d e n c y a l l e g a t i o n s t o be p r o v e n by clear and c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e ) . "A c h i l d i s d e p e n d e n t i f , a t t h e t i m e a p e t i t i o n i s f i l e d i n t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t a l l e g i n g d e p e n d e n c y , t h e c h i l d meets t h e s t a t u t o r y d e f i n i t i o n of a dependent c h i l d . " 61 So. 3d 1042, 1046 (Ala. 2010). The Ex p a r t e L.E.O., definition of " d e p e n d e n t c h i l d " i s s e t f o r t h i n § 1 2 - 1 5 - 1 0 2 ( 8 ) ( a ) , A l a . Code 22 2101154 and 2101173 1975; section that include a defines the term "dependent child" to child "who has b e e n a d j u d i c a t e d d e p e n d e n t by a j u v e n i l e c o u r t and i s i n n e e d o f c a r e o r s u p e r v i s i o n and meets any o f t h e f o l l o w i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s : II "5. Whose p a r e n t , legal guardian, legal c u s t o d i a n , o r o t h e r c u s t o d i a n has abandoned the c h i l d , as d e f i n e d i n s u b d i v i s i o n (1) o f S e c t i o n 12¬ 15-301." Section 12-15-301(1), "abandonment" Ala. Code 1975, defines that as: "A v o l u n t a r y and i n t e n t i o n a l r e l i n q u i s h m e n t o f t h e c u s t o d y o f a c h i l d by a p a r e n t , o r a w i t h h o l d i n g f r o m t h e c h i l d , w i t h o u t good c a u s e o r e x c u s e , by t h e parent, of his or her presence, care, love, p r o t e c t i o n , maintenance, or the o p p o r t u n i t y f o r the d i s p l a y of f i l i a l a f f e c t i o n , or the f a i l u r e t o c l a i m the r i g h t s of a p a r e n t , or f a i l u r e t o p e r f o r m the d u t i e s of a parent." In Ex parte L.E.O., supra, the child had resided for t h r e e years w i t h the p e t i t i o n e r s w i t h the mother's p e r m i s s i o n ; the petitioners were not related to the child. p e t i t i o n e r s s o u g h t t o have t h e c h i l d d e c l a r e d d e p e n d e n t and be a w a r d e d c u s t o d y of the c h i l d . f i l e d t h e i r dependency p e t i t i o n , been living in California, had 23 The to At the time the p e t i t i o n e r s the c h i l d ' s not seen the f a t h e r , who child had f o r more 2101154 than a n d 2101173 three years. The f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t he h a d h a d no i d e a t h e mother had r e l i n q u i s h e d c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d petitioners and t h a t v i s i t the c h i l d . was 3d t h e mother had t h w a r t e d h i s e f f o r t s t o The j u v e n i l e c o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e c h i l d not dependent, court's to the and judgment w i t h o u t this court an o p i n i o n . 1041 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 9 ) . affirmed the j u v e n i l e L.E.O. v. A.L., 61 So. Our supreme court reversed, holding that the evidence c l e a r l y e s t a b l i s h e d that the father had abandoned dependent. the c h i l d Ex p a r t e and, t h e r e f o r e , L.E.O., that the c h i l d was supra. I n s o h o l d i n g , o u r supreme c o u r t s t a t e d t h a t when a c h i l d meets one o f t h e c r i t e r i a u n d e r t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f a " d e p e n d e n t child," i n c l u d i n g abandonment, determine whether supervision." the child the j u v e n i l e court is " i n need of must care also or Ex p a r t e L.E.O., 61 So. 3d a t 1047; s e e a l s o § 1 2 - 1 5 - 1 0 2 ( 8 ) ( a ) , A l a . Code 1975 (A " d e p e n d e n t c h i l d " i s one "who h a s been a d j u d i c a t e d d e p e n d e n t b y a j u v e n i l e c o u r t a n d i s i n n e e d o f c a r e o r s u p e r v i s i o n a n d meets any o f t h e f o l l o w i n g circumstances: declared that " (emphasis a d d e d ) ) . " [ i ] t i s a reasonable The supreme court i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of [the p r e d e c e s s o r t o § 12-15-102(8)] t o r e q u i r e t h a t , i n d e t e r m i n i n g 24 2101154 a n d 2101173 whether a child i s ' i n need of care or supervision,' juvenile c o u r t must c o n s i d e r w h e t h e r t h e c h i l d adequate care obligated and t o care supervision f o r and/or from supreme c o u r t n o t e d that i s receiving persons legally to supervise the c h i l d . " p a r t e L.E.O., 61 So. 3d a t 1047. our those I n Ex p a r t e L.E.O., the father the had merely Ex supra, assumed w i t h o u t v e r i f y i n g t h a t t h e mother had a d e q u a t e l y c a r e d f o r t h e c h i l d f o r more t h a n t h r e e y e a r s , t h a t he h a d f a i l e d t o e n s u r e t h a t t h e c h i l d h a d b a s i c e s s e n t i a l s , and t h a t he h a d f a i l e d t o contribute court to the support concluded that, custody of the c h i l d of the c h i l d . " a t the time and a f i n d i n g had been abandoned by b o t h p e r s o n s for and/or s u p e r v i s e him." Accordingly, the the p e t i t i o n e r s sought o f dependency, t h e c h i l d legally o b l i g a t e d t o care I d . a t 1050. We n o t e t h a t t h e m a t e r n a l a u n t and u n c l e c i t e J.S.M. v . P . J . , 902 So. 2d 89 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 4 ) , i n s u p p o r t o f t h e i r c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h e c h i l d was d e p e n d e n t . 8 In t h a t case, the I n t h e i r b r i e f on a p p e a l , i n a d d i t i o n t o o t h e r a u t h o r i t y , the m a t e r n a l aunt and u n c l e c i t e cases a d d r e s s i n g whether a parent loses h i s or her prima f a c i e r i g h t t o custody of a c h i l d i n a custody a c t i o n i f the evidence demonstrates that the parent v o l u n t a r i l y r e l i n q u i s h e d custody of the c h i l d t o a nonparent. See Ex p a r t e G.C., s u p r a (a c u s t o d y c a s e i n w h i c h a m a j o r i t y o f o u r supreme c o u r t h e l d t h a t t h e f a t h e r h a d 8 25 2101154 a n d 2101173 father of the 14-year-old the care child's c h i l d a t i s s u e had l e f t the c h i l d i n of the p e t i t i o n e r , a nonrelative, life. petitioner, The father had p a i d but h i s v i s i t a t i o n D u r i n g one o f t h o s e v i s i t a t i o n s , the child with f o r most o f t h e child support the c h i l d was the father refused to the sporadic. to allow t o r e t u r n t o t h e p e t i t i o n e r ' s home; t h e c h i l d residing with hearing. The j u v e n i l e c o u r t f o u n d t h e c h i l d t o be d e p e n d e n t , and this court the father a t the time of was t h e dependency a f f i r m e d t h e dependency judgment, n o t i n g that t h e f a t h e r h a d p a i d some s u p p o r t f o r t h e c h i l d a n d h a d v i s i t e d the child emotional only s p o r a d i c a l l y and t h a t t h e c h i l d had a strong b o n d t o t h e p e t i t i o n e r as a r e s u l t o f h a v i n g lived with her f o r the vast majority of h i s l i f e . 902 J.S.M. v. P . J . , So. 2d a t 96. I n t h i s c a s e , e v e n a s s u m i n g t h a t t h e f a t h e r saw t h e c h i l d in 2006 as much as he c l a i m e d a t t r i a l , i . e . , approximately 10 v o l u n t a r i l y r e l i n q u i s h e d c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d and, t h e r e f o r e , had l o s t h i s p r i m a f a c i e r i g h t t o c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d ) ; T.T.T. v. R.H., 999 So. 2d 544 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 8 ) ( s a m e ) . A l t h o u g h t h e r e a r e s i m i l a r i t i e s between t h e c o n c e p t s o f abandonment a n d a v o l u n t a r y r e l i n q u i s h m e n t o f c u s t o d y , s e e , e.g., T.S. v . E . J . , 976 So. 2d 497 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 7 ) , i n t h i s o p i n i o n we have c o n f i n e d o u r a n a l y s i s t o t h a t p a r t o f t h e m a t e r n a l a u n t a n d u n c l e ' s argument p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e i s s u e o f abandonment. 26 2101154 a n d 2101173 t i m e s i n t h e month o r so f o l l o w i n g t h e m o t h e r ' s d e a t h , i t i s undisputed child that i n 2006. contact visit with with party. that the c h i l d with h a d no f u r t h e r contact with the The f a t h e r a d m i t t e d t h a t he d i d n o t h a v e a n y the c h i l d After visitation the father that i n 2007 o r 2008. The f a t h e r h a d one i n 2009, when he a t t e n d e d h e r b i r t h d a y visit, the child, the father made one r e q u e s t f o r and t h e m a t e r n a l u n c l e explained t h e f a m i l y was t o be o u t o f town a t t h e t i m e of that proposed v i s i t . The f a t h e r d i d n o t a t t e m p t t o r e s c h e d u l e proposed v i s i t , made no a t t e m p t t o s e e t h e c h i l d d i d n o t see t h e c h i l d again b e f o r e in October 2010. dependency action The m a t e r n a l one month a g a i n , and f i l i n g h i s custody aunt and u n c l e later, conduct during the child's petition supra, before their that the filing that c o n s t i t u t e d an abandonment o f t h e c h i l d . The f a t h e r , i n a r g u i n g life petition filed contending father's that t h a t t h e f a c t s i n Ex p a r t e L.E.O., a r e d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from t h e f a c t s o f t h i s case, has e m p h a s i z e d t h a t , u n l i k e t h e f a t h e r i n Ex p a r t e L.E.O., he h a s contributed t o the support of the c h i l d . 9 However, t h e f a t h e r As i n d i c a t e d e a r l i e r i n t h i s o p i n i o n , f o r reasons not made c l e a r i n t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l , t h e m a t e r n a l a u n t a n d u n c l e d i d n o t r e c e i v e t h e c h i l d - s u p p o r t p a y m e n t s made b y t h e 9 27 2101154 and 2101173 in J.S.M. v. P . J . , s u p r a , a l s o l e f t h i s c h i l d i n t h e of others f o r years, s u p p o r t was the fact not h e l d t o negate Further, specifies and the a had paid the dependency of the statutory parent he definition a child child. abandonment she " w i t h h o l d [ s ] f r o m t h e c h i l d , w i t h o u t good c a u s e o r e x c u s e , ... or her presence, abandons of child or his that that custody when he c a r e , l o v e , p r o t e c t i o n , maintenance, the o p p o r t u n i t y f o r the d i s p l a y of f i l i a l affection, or or the f a i l u r e to c l a i m the r i g h t s of a p a r e n t , or f a i l u r e to perform the duties of "maintenance," consider child, in a determining i t i s clear there § i s any that 12-15-301(1). is i . e . , support, parent i s equally that parent." one whether failing significant. evidence a of parent t o be The many factors to has abandoned a p r e s e n t and father indicating Although a c t as does n o t that he a contend served any p a r e n t a l r o l e t o the c h i l d i n the f o u r y e a r s between the death of t h e m o t h e r and t h e t i m e he of the child. child, mother's there Other is death, than filed his petition h i s testimony that no evidence the child indicating enjoyed father. 28 the he that, f o r custody loved after presence, the the care, 2101154 a n d 2101173 protection, or f i l i a l father claimed See a f f e c t i o n of the father, the r i g h t s or performed the duties of a parent. § 12-15-301 ( 1 ) . The f a t h e r contends i n h i s b r i e f submitted t o t h i s t h a t h i s c u r r e n t c i r c u m s t a n c e s do n o t s u p p o r t a that or that the the c h i l d i s dependent. father cites h i s current now w i l l i n g and able I n making t h a t circumstances, to properly court determination argument, t h e m a i n t a i n s t h a t he i s care f o r the child, and i n s i s t s t h a t a c h i l d ' s d e p e n d e n c y s h o u l d be d e t e r m i n e d a t t h e time o f t h e dependency h e a r i n g . the July 22, 2 0 1 1 , j u d g m e n t A t t h e time o f t h e e n t r y o f i n t h e dependency f a t h e r had abandoned t h e c h i l d t o t h e care than four years. part f o r more of that action, obtaining v i s i t a t i o n with the c h i l d d i d So. 2d 1081, 1092 ( A l a . 2005) filing with of others The f a t h e r ' s f i l i n g a c u s t o d y a c t i o n a n d , a s n o t n e g a t e h i s abandonment o f t h e c h i l d . 933 action, the of "court papers" the establishment ("'We s h o u l d and t h e t a k i n g o f human K.W.J. v . J.W.B., 933 So. 2d 1975, See Ex p a r t e J.W.B., n o t equate t h e of legal positions relationships.'" (quoting 1081 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2005) (Murdock, J . , d i s s e n t i n g ) ) ) . F u r t h e r , we d e c l i n e t o h o l d the f a t h e r ' s r e g u l a r e x e r c i s e o f t h a t c o u r t - o r d e r e d 29 that visitation 2101154 a n d 2101173 f o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y s e v e n months b e f o r e t h e f i n a l h e a r i n g i n any way diminished the effects The testimony o f h i s abandonment o f t h e c h i l d . o f Dr. W i l s o n was t h a t , f a t h e r ' s abandonment, t h e c h i l d and uncle t o be h e r p a r e n t s as a r e s u l t of the considered the maternal and t h a t a t r a n s f e r of custody away f r o m them c o u l d have a d a m a g i n g e f f e c t on t h e c h i l d . child's testimony statements. at the f i n a l We c a n n o t conclude hearing aunt supported The those t h a t , under these f a c t s , t h e f a t h e r ' s s t a t e d w i l l i n g n e s s t o appear i n t h e c h i l d ' s l i f e and s e r v e i n a p a r e n t a l r o l e d i m i n i s h e d o r e r a s e d h i s abandonment of her for the vast majority of her l i f e . F u r t h e r , we n o t e t h a t m o t h e r i n J.W. v . N.K.M., 999 So. 2d 526 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 8 ) , made an argument s i m i l a r t o t h e father's, i . e . , that her circumstances a t the time ofthe h e a r i n g and judgment d i d n o t s u p p o r t a d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t t h e child a t i s s u e i n t h a t case was d e p e n d e n t . I n making t h a t a r g u m e n t , t h e m o t h e r i n J.W. v . N.K.M., s u p r a , c i t e d c a s e s i n which this c o u r t had emphasized a parent's c u r r e n t s i t u a t i o n i n t e r m i n a t i o n - o f - p a r e n t a l - r i g h t s cases. t h e argument i n t h a t c a s e , This court rejected stating: "In t h o s e c a s e s , however, the e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e parents had a l t e r e d t h e circumstances o f 30 2101154 and 2101173 t h e i r l i v e s t o e n a b l e them t o be more s t a b l e o r appropriate parents. The e v i d e n c e i n t h i s case supports a finding that the mother's current circumstances are similar to her circumstances d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d s i n w h i c h she e l e c t e d t o l e a v e t h e c h i l d w i t h r e l a t i v e s r a t h e r t h a n p r o v i d e a home f o r the c h i l d h e r s e l f . " 999 So. 2d a t 538 Similarly, (emphasis in this added). case, the evidence demonstrates the f a t h e r ' s circumstances at the time of the t r i a l that were t h e same as t h o s e d u r i n g t h e y e a r s f o l l o w i n g t h e m o t h e r ' s death, when he to child. failed t o meet h i s p a r e n t a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s The f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t he b e l i e v e d he became m a t u r e enough t o " h a n d l e t h i s , " i . e . , t o assume c u s t o d y o f t h e at the the same t i m e business, which he he first started s t a t e d was working i n 2007. i n the child, insurance However, t h e father a d m i t t e d he d i d n o t see t h e c h i l d d u r i n g 2007 o r 2008 and t h a t he v i s i t e d h e r o n l y once d u r i n g 2009. c u r r e n t w i f e i n A u g u s t 2009, and and h i s w i f e p u r c h a s e d a home. The father married his i n November 2009 t h e father A p p r o x i m a t e l y one y e a r later, and w i t h o u t h a v i n g a t t e m p t e d t o make c o n t a c t w i t h t h e c h i l d o r t h e m a t e r n a l a u n t and u n c l e , t h e f a t h e r f i l e d h i s O c t o b e r custody petition. 31 2010 2101154 and We 2101173 n o t e t h a t t h e f a t h e r has c o n t e n d e d l a c k of m a t u r i t y p r e v e n t e d him child earlier. two and three and assuming custody of from that h i s youth the However, t h e m a t e r n a l a u n t and u n c l e a r e o n l y years older, respectively, than the father. Thus, t h e m a t e r n a l a u n t and u n c l e were q u i t e young themselves when and they took physical providing a home and time maternal the custody caring aunt and of the f o r the c h i l d . the s h o u l d have b e e n t h e f a t h e r ' s p a r e n t a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , they t h e f a t h e r a t t h e t i m e he f i l e d h i s f o r custody of the L i k e the f a t h e r this case, left the recognize to child. i n J.S.M. v. P . J . , s u p r a , t h e f a t h e r i n a l t h o u g h he child i n to at what petition stepped In f a c t , began meet were b o t h y o u n g e r t h a n was uncle child be contributed cared that a finding f o r by to the others child's support, for years. o f d e p e n d e n c y must be We supported by c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e and t h a t a d e t e r m i n a t i o n w h e t h e r a child court. i s dependent i s w i t h i n the d i s c r e t i o n Ex p a r t e L.E.O., 61 So. 3d a t 1048; 902 So. 2d a t 95. are similar credible of the trial J.S.M. v. P.J., However, we c o n c l u d e t h e f a c t s o f t h i s t o t h o s e o f Ex p a r t e L.E.O., s u p r a , i n t h a t evidence supports the 32 [trial] court's case "no conclusion" 2101154 and t h a t the 2101173 c h i l d was abandoning her. We n o t d e p e n d e n t as a r e s u l t o f t h e Ex p a r t e L.E.O., 61 So. 3d a t father's 1048. conclude t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n f a i l i n g to find t h e c h i l d d e p e n d e n t b e c a u s e o f t h e f a t h e r ' s abandonment o f t h e child. We therefore reverse the j u d g m e n t i n c a s e number JU- 10-300302.01 and remand t h e c a u s e f o r t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o e n t e r a judgment i n c o n f o r m i t y the with this opinion. j u d g m e n t i n c a s e number DR-10-882 i s 1 0 The appeal of dismissed. 2101154 -- APPEAL DISMISSED. 2101173 -- REVERSED AND Thompson, P.J., and REMANDED. Pittman, Bryan, and Thomas, J J . , concur. Moore, J . , c o n c u r s i n t h e result, with writing. B e c a u s e we are r e v e r s i n g the judgment d e n y i n g the m a t e r n a l a u n t and u n c l e ' s d e p e n d e n c y p e t i t i o n , we p r e t e r m i t d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e m a t e r n a l a u n t and u n c l e ' s a r g u m e n t t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n f a i l i n g t o c o n d u c t a h e a r i n g on t h e i r postjudgment motion. 1 0 33 2101154 a n d 2101173 MOORE, J u d g e , c o n c u r r i n g i n t h e r e s u l t . Courts throughout a deceased person t h i s country u n i v e r s a l l y recognize that lacks the capacity on w h e t h e r t o be s u e d , a complaint the courts are s p l i t person as t h e s o l e d e f e n d a n t i s a l e g a l n u l l i t y t h a t f a i l s t o invoke the subject-matter jurisdiction naming but a deceased of the court. C u r r i e r v . S u t h e r l a n d , 218 P.3d 709, 713 ( C o l o . 2009) 6A Charles Alan Wright and Procedure & A r t h u r R. M i l l e r , § 1559 (2d e d . 1990)) . Older Federal cases See (citing Practice have taken t h e p o s i t i o n t h a t "a d e f e c t i n c a p a c i t y d e p r i v e s t h e c o u r t o f subject-matter j u r i s d i c t i o n , s i n c e a r e a l case o r c o n t r o v e r s y does n o t e x i s t when one o f t h e p a r t i e s i s i n c a p a b l e o f s u i n g or b e i n g sued." 6A C h a r l e s A l l e n W r i g h t , A r t h u r R. M i l l e r & Mary K a y Kane, F e d e r a l P r a c t i c e a n d P r o c e d u r e 2010) have (footnotes omitted). reasoned that § 1559 (3d e d . However, more modern d e c i s i o n s a l a c k o f c a p a c i t y t o be s u e d a f f e c t s u b j e c t - m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n , which concerns power o f a c o u r t t o d e c i d e P.3d a t 713 (citing a case. Maryland does n o t solely the S e e , e . g . , C u r r i e r , 218 People's Counsel v. Federal E n e r g y R e g u l a t o r y Comm'n, 760 F.2d 318, 319 (D.C. C i r . 1 9 8 5 ) ; Summers v . I n t e r s t a t e Tractor & Equip. 34 Co., 466 F . 2 d 42, 50 2101154 a n d 2101173 (9th C i r . 1 9 7 2 ) ; Brown v . K e l l e r , 274 F.2d 779, 780 ( 6 t h C i r . 1 9 6 0 ) ; V o r h e e s v . B a l t a z a r , 283 Kan. 389, 153 P.3d 1227, 1232 (2007); 845, and A u s t i n N u r s i n g 848-49 Idaho (Tex. 2 0 0 5 ) ) ; C t r . , I n c . v. L o v a t o , see a l s o Trimble v . E n g e l k i n g , 130 300, 302-03, 939 P.2d 1379, 1381-82 legal-nullity (1997) r u l e a s remnant o f a n t i q u a t e d requirements and r e f u s i n g t o adopt i t ) . 171 S.W.3d (treating strict-pleading The l a t t e r c a s e s h o l d t h a t t h e naming o f a d e c e a s e d d e f e n d a n t i s a d e f e c t t h a t can be c u r e d b y s u b s t i t u t i o n o f t h e r e a l p a r t y i n i n t e r e s t . No A l a b a m a a p p e l l a t e c o u r t h a s a d d r e s s e d t h e e f f e c t o f a complaint f i l e d s o l e l y against a deceased person. court has h e l d t h a t a complaint filed standing invoke to sue fails j u r i s d i c t i o n of the t r i a l to Our supreme b y a p e r s o n who l a c k s the subject-matter c o u r t and t h a t t h e c o m p l a i n t be amended t o s u b s t i t u t e an a p p r o p r i a t e p l a i n t i f f . cannot See C a d l e Co. v . S h a b a n i , 4 So. 3d 460, 462-63 ( A l a . 2008) . By a n a l o g y , that reasoning would a l i g n holding that a t r i a l over a complaint Bricker Ill. Alabama w i t h those jurisdictions c o u r t h a s no s u b j e c t - m a t t e r s o l e l y a g a i n s t a deceased person. v. Borah, jurisdiction See, e.g., 127 I l l . App. 3d 7 2 2 , 469 N.E.2d Dec. 707 ( 1 9 8 4 ) ; M i t c h e l l v . Money, 35 241, 82 602 S.W.2d 687 (Ky. 2101154 and C t . App. 1304 2101173 1 9 8 0 ) ; and ( C t . App. Pittman, M e r c e r v. M o r g a n , 86 N.M. 1 9 7 4 ) ; see a l s o G a r l o c k p e r s o n was (holding that complaint a legal 526 14, 2010] So. ("the father") c o u r t , and 3d nullity). against 2006, f a i l e d t o i n v o k e trial v. f i l e d i n name o f d e c e a s e d Thus, t h e c u s t o d y p e t i t i o n f i l e d on O c t o b e r 14, M.C. P.2d S e a l i n g T e c h n s . , LLC [Ms. 2008-IA-01572-SCT, O c t . ( M i s s . 2010) 711, J.S. ("the 2010, m o t h e r " ) , who the s u b j e c t - m a t t e r by died in j u r i s d i c t i o n of a l l s u b s e q u e n t a c t i o n s by t h e t r i a l the court i n c a s e no. DR-10-882, i n c l u d i n g t h e e n t r y o f a j u d g m e n t a w a r d i n g custody of the c h i l d t o the f a t h e r , are v o i d . will not 120 (Ala. Civ. court should As J.E., in s u p p o r t an appeal. App. 2009). dismiss capacity declining to that the 2005 child-support months mother, later, a the find child the the argue t h a t the as juvenile judgment, S.K.P., t h e court, dependent. child's legal died maternal 36 I So. 117, that concur 3d this 2101154. 2101173, A.E., the m a t e r n a l u n c l e , Hayes, 16 Therefore, a p p e a l no. t o a p p e a l no. its Hayes v. A v o i d judgment maternal trial court, clearly The custodian in aunt, 2006. acting erred evidence Less in proves pursuant grandmother, and to than obtained a two a 2101154 a n d 2101173 j u d g m e n t d e c l a r i n g t h e c h i l d d e p e n d e n t a n d n a m i n g h e r as t h e child's legal custodian. Whatever l e g a l r i g h t s the maternal g r a n d m o t h e r r e c e i v e d f r o m t h a t j u d g m e n t , w h i c h was o b t a i n e d i n a dependency p r o c e e d i n g never served, see Rule service grandmother turning uncle custody within maternal aunt petitions on p a r e n t s d i d not long of the c h i l d a the father apparently 1 3 ( A ) ( 1 ) , A l a . R. J u v . P. o f dependency maternal i n which over few months. and u n c l e those to the maternal The and (requiring of c h i l d ) , exercise child resided they acted as was the rights, aunt and with h e r de the facto c u s t o d i a n s up u n t i l t h e t i m e o f t h e d e p e n d e n c y h e a r i n g on J u l y 21, 2 0 1 1 . In Ex p a r t e L.E.O., supreme c o u r t d e t e r m i n e d 61 So. 3d 1042 ( A l a . 2010), our t h a t a c h i l d t h a t has been abandoned by h i s o r h e r p a r e n t s i s " i n n e e d o f c a r e o r s u p e r v i s i o n , " a n d t h e r e f o r e d e p e n d e n t , when t h e c h i l d i s n o t " r e c e i v i n g a d e q u a t e c a r e and s u p e r v i s i o n from t h o s e p e r s o n s care f o r and/or t o s u p e r v i s e t h e c h i l d . " legally obligated to 61 So. 3d a t 1047. In Ex p a r t e L.E.O., t h e supreme c o u r t c o n s t r u e d t h e s t a t u t o r y definition o f "dependent c h i l d " i n former Code 1975, a p a r t o f t h e f o r m e r 37 § 12-15-1(10), A l a . Alabama J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e A c t 2101154 and ("the but 2101173 former AJJA"), the f o r m e r § 12-15-1 e t s e q . , A l a . Code t e r m s a t i s s u e i n Ex p a r t e u n c h a n g e d i n t h e new Act ("the AJJA"), controlling L.E.O. r e m a i n e s s e n t i a l l y v e r s i o n of the Alabama J u v e n i l e § 12-15-100 e t s e q . , 1 2 - 1 5 - 1 0 2 ( 8 ) , A l a . Code 1975. Thus, Ex p a r t e to the definition 941 So. (per P a r k e r , (holding 2d caselaw good law interpreting because present See of 920, a 924 "dependent ( A l a . 2006) i n the result) predecessor statute § L.E.O. r e m a i n s J., with four J u s t i c e s concurring that remained as Justice A l a . Code 1975. B o l t e v. R o b e r t s o n , child." precedent 1975, lacked statute material changes). The So. 3d facts, outlined in detail at , show, w i t h o u t i n the dispute, main o p i n i o n , father had a b a n d o n e d t h e c h i l d w i t h i n t h e m e a n i n g o f t h a t t e r m as s e t out i n § 1 2 - 1 5 - 3 0 1 ( 1 ) , A l a . Code 1975. e n d i n g i n 2006 and that A s i d e from s p o r a d i c t h e payment o f c h i l d s u p p o r t , t h e w i t h o u t good c a u s e o r e x c u s e , d i d n o t h i n g toward the first father child until t i m e i n 2010, left u n c l e , who, the the asserting his parental when he child t o a c t as to visits father, a father rights for f i l e d h i s custody p e t i t i o n . reside with the i n d i s p u t a b l y , never a c q u i r e d 38 maternal the The aunt and l e g a l custody of the 2101154 a n d 2101173 child a n d who, volunteers" at a l l times, with "no l e g a l acted as mere obligation" to the c h i l d . Newman v. Newman, 667 So. 2d 1362, 1366-67 1994). Those u n d i s p u t e d "unobligated See ( A l a . C i v . App. f a c t s show t h a t , a t t h e t i m e ofthe dependency h e a r i n g , t h e c h i l d f i t f i r m l y w i t h i n t h e d e f i n i t i o n of a "dependent child" abandoned t h e c h i l d , 12-15-301," adequate and s u p e r v i s i o n t o care "[w]hose be f o r and/or father nevertheless considered ... h a s a n d who was n o t " r e c e i v i n g from those persons to supervise p a r t e L.E.O., 61 So. 3d a t 1047 ( e m p h a s i s The parent as d e f i n e d i n s u b d i v i s i o n (1) o f S e c t i o n § 12-15-102(8)a.5., care obligated as a c h i l d legally the c h i l d . " Ex omitted). argues t h a t t h e c h i l d d e p e n d e n t b e c a u s e he was no l o n g e r could not abandoning the c h i l d , having a s s e r t e d h i s p a r e n t a l r i g h t t o v i s i t a t i o n i n the trial evidence court beginning i n December of the circumstances existing 2010. Viewing a t the time the of the h e a r i n g on J u l y 21, 2 0 1 1 , i t r e m a i n s t h a t t h e f a t h e r , s t r i c t l y speaking, in "has a b a n d o n e d t h e c h i l d , " the past tense as t h a t term i s p h r a s e d i n § 12-15-102(8)a.5. (emphasis added). But, even w i t h o u t such a s t r i c t c o n s t r u c t i o n , I cannot imagine t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t u r e i n t e n d e d t h a t a c h i l d w o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d 39 2101154 a n d 2101173 no longer abandoned disappeared because a parent, a dependency h e a r i n g t h e main o p i n i o n , of that alleviate with missing. (Ala. 81 the c h i l d that during forced, was the a f f i l i a t i o n would not the period when without of the parent case, i m p e l l e d t o forge familial the parent 2005) ( q u o t i n g K.W.J. v . J.W.B., 933 So. 2d 1075, ( A l a . C i v . App. 2005) or her caretakers David (Murdock, J . , d i s s e n t i n g ) ) R. W i l s o n , t o grow a n d f o r m bonds w i t h i n t h e absence o f t h e m i s s i n g a licensed case l i k e t h i s and t h a t t h e t r i a l -- t h a t t h e c h i l d c o n s i d e r s parents "devastating" and t h a t psychologist, parent). r e n d e r e d an "definitely" p s y c h o l o g i c a l and emotional 40 i n any court i n d i c a t e d i t accepted t h e m a t e r n a l aunt and u n c l e the c h i l d 1080¬ (noting o p i n i o n i n t h i s c a s e t h a t w o u l d u n d o u b t e d l y be r e p e a t e d her was See g e n e r a l l y Ex p a r t e J.W.B., 933 So. 2d 1081, 1092 t h a t an a b a n d o n e d c h i l d c o n t i n u e s his I agree any c u r r e n t life t o go w i t h o u t others , that i n the child's as i l l u s t r a t e d i n t h i s bonds visitation. So. 3 d a t parent the fact justification, and, utterly t o attempt t o c l a i m a normal p a r e n t a l r o l e through incremental presence had from the l i f e o f the c h i l d f o r years, had r e c e n t l y reappeared before with who would t o be suffer harm a f f e c t i n g h e r 2101154 a n d 2101173 long i n t o her l i f e i f t h e c h i l d were removed f r o m t h e i r T h a t harm w o u l d be d i r e c t l y f a t h e r abandoned t h e c h i l d , a parent-child traceable t o the fact care. that the causing her t o turn elsewhere f o r relationship. The entire thrust of the dependency s t a t u t e s i s t o p r o t e c t c h i l d r e n from b e i n g by t h e i r parents' Code 1975. the father acts or omissions. Thus, when a p a r e n t d i d i n this considered "unabandoned" dependency abandonment still See § 12-15-101, A l a . "has a b a n d o n e d " a c h i l d , case, of the c h i l d harmed the child should like n o t be f o r the purposes of determining the subject when the e f f e c t s the c h i l d of the t o harm. earlier See Pace v. A r m s t r o n g W o r l d I n d u s . , I n c . , 578 So. 2d 2 8 1 , 283 ( A l a . 1991) (holding that statute should be c o n s t r u e d t h e p u r p o s e s o u g h t t o be o b t a i n e d ) . the f a t h e r had s t a r t e d v i s i t i n g months p r e c e d i n g trial effect to Thus, t h e mere f a c t with the c h i l d that i n the seven t h e d e p e n d e n c y h e a r i n g does n o t mean t h a t t h e c h i l d was no l o n g e r The to give abandoned. court clearly erred in failing to find the c h i l d dependent w i t h i n t h e meaning o f § 12-15-102(8)a.5. and in accordance with L.E.O.. Despite o u r supreme court's d e c i s i o n i n Ex p a r t e any d i s a g r e e m e n t I may have w i t h 41 Ex parte 2101154 a n d 2101173 L.E.O., s e e L.E.O. v. A.L., 61 So. 3d 1058, 1059-67 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2010) (Moore, J . , concurring i n the r e s u l t ) , constrained to give that decision i t s f u l l e s t effect. 16, A l a . Code 1975. main opinion entered I concur i n appeal i n case no. i n the r e s u l t 2101173 no. J U - 1 0 - 3 0 0 3 0 2 . 0 1 , I am § 12-3¬ r e a c h e d by t h e that t h e judgment declining to f i n d the c h i l d dependent and d i s m i s s i n g t h e dependency p e t i t i o n filed by t h e m a t e r n a l a u n t a n d u n c l e , i s due t o be r e v e r s e d a n d t h e case remanded f o r the t r i a l court t o make a finding of d e p e n d e n c y a n d t o c o n d u c t s u c h f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s as r e q u i r e d by t h e A J J A . Ex p a r t e L.E.O., 61 So. 3d a t 1050. However, t h i s c o u r t c a n n o t r e n d e r a j u d g m e n t a w a r d i n g t h e m a t e r n a l aunt and u n c l e c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d , in their brief. child dependent, Because t h e t r i a l the t r i a l as t h e y r e q u e s t court declined to f i n d the court d i d not proceed to the d i s p o s i t i o n a l phase o f t h e dependency p r o c e e d i n g . See T.C. v . Mac.M., , Civ. [Ms. 2100037, Nov. 18, 2011] App. 2011) (Moore, J . , dissenting) phases o f dependency p r o c e e d i n g s ) . never So. 3d 42 t h e two As s u c h , t h e t r i a l e n t e r e d any j u d g m e n t d i s p o s i n g c h i l d i n t h e dependency p r o c e e d i n g . (explaining (Ala. of the custody court of the Despite the fact that i t 2101154 a n d 2101173 i s a p p a r e n t t o me t h a t t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s of the c h i l d be s e r v e d by a w a r d i n g t h e m a t e r n a l aunt and u n c l e would legal 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 , I b e l i e v e i t w o u l d be p r e m a t u r e for this trial court court to order the t r i a l court t o do h a s n o t y e t h a d an o p p o r t u n i t y s t a t u t o r y duty. to f u l f i l l i t s See 12-15-314, A l a . Code 1975. 43 so when t h e

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.