A.S. v. M.W., L.L.D., and Henry County Department of Human Resources
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL: 07/20/2012 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e Reporter of Decisions, Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS SPECIAL TERM, 2012 2101180 A.S. v. M.W., L.L.D., and Henry County Department o f Human Resources Appeal from Henry J u v e n i l e Court (JU-10-15; JU-10-16; and JU-10-17) MOORE, J u d g e . A.S., t h e mother, appeals from judgment o f t h e Henry J u v e n i l e C o u r t finding her three dependent. c h i l d r e n , D.W., an A u g u s t 30, ("the j u v e n i l e J.W., a n d T.W., I n t h a t same j u d g m e n t , t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t 2011, court") t o be awarded 2101180 custody and o f D.W. awarded t o L.L.D., D.W.'s m a t e r n a l custody of J.W. a n d T.W. great-grandmother, t o M.W., whom t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t h a d a d j u d i c a t e d t o be t h e i r b i o l o g i c a l f a t h e r . I n h e r v e r y s h o r t b r i e f t o t h i s c o u r t , t h e mother argues t h a t M.W. that, lacked standing because he l a c k e d to maintain standing, juvenile court] regarding these orders." However, t h e " p r o c e e d i n g s " a p a t e r n i t y a c t i o n and " a l l proceedings children i n [the result b e g a n a n d were i n void maintained t h r o u g h o u t as a d e p e n d e n c y a c t i o n f i l e d b y t h e H e n r y Department o f Human standing. juvenile See court Rule 12(A), ("DHR"), A l a . R. which J.W., a n d T.W. clearly J u v . P. d i d not lack subject-matter a d j u d i c a t e D.W., t h e i r custody Resources County had Hence, t h e jurisdiction to dependent and t o d i s p o s e of i n accordance w i t h t h e dependency s t a t u t e s . The j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s A u g u s t 30, 2 0 1 1 , j u d g m e n t t o t h a t e f f e c t i s n o t v o i d , a n d , b e c a u s e t h e m o t h e r does n o t make any a r g u m e n t regarding The judgment i t s correctness, i ti s affirmed. mother's argument adjudicating the really pertains paternity 2 of only J.W. t o the and T.W. 2101180 (hereinafter r e f e r r e d t o as " t h e c h i l d r e n . " ) . court entered based on t h e r e s u l t s o f g e n e t i c biological entered that j u d g m e n t on A p r i l 1 22, 2010, t e s t i n g , that father of the c h i l d r e n . The j u v e n i l e concluding, M.W. was t h e T h a t j u d g m e n t , w h i c h was i n t h e dependency p r o c e e d i n g s r e g a r d i n g the c h i l d r e n , r e m a i n e d i n t e r l o c u t o r y i n n a t u r e u n t i l t h e f i n a l j u d g m e n t was entered on A u g u s t 30, 2 0 1 1 , d i s p o s i n g children. 2011, A t the f i n a l t h e mother of the custody of the d i s p o s i t i o n a l hearing asserted, f o r the f i r s t on A u g u s t time, that 8, the c h i l d r e n were b o r n d u r i n g h e r m a r r i a g e t o a n o t h e r man, J.L.W.; she entered into evidence her and J.L.W.'s marriage c e r t i f i c a t e a n d h e r a f f i d a v i t a s s e r t i n g t h a t J.L.W. p e r s i s t e d i n the presumption of h i s p a t e r n i t y . the mother, 1989), standing citing maintained Ex p a r t e that no B a s e d on t h a t Presse, other 554 So. 2d 406 ( A l a . man, including make i t s p a t e r n i t y a d j u d i c a t i o n a f i n a l The M.W., had t o s e e k an a d v e r s e p a t e r n i t y a d j u d i c a t i o n a n d , t h u s , that the j u v e n i l e court lacked subject-matter 1 evidence, j u v e n i l e court judgment. d i d not adjudicate D.W. 3 j u r i s d i c t i o n to the p a t e r n i t y of 2101180 Ex parte Presse does hold that, i f children are born d u r i n g a m a r r i a g e , t h e husband o f t h e mother i s t h e presumed f a t h e r o f t h e c h i l d r e n a n d no o t h e r man s h a l l have s t a n d i n g t o assert h i spaternity of the children s o l o n g as t h e h u s b a n d p e r s i s t s i n t h e p r e s u m p t i o n t h a t he i s t h e i r f a t h e r . However, s e v e r a l c a s e s s i n c e Ex p a r t e P r e s s e have c l a r i f i e d t h a t a man c l a i m i n g the p a t e r n i t y of c h i l d r e n born d u r i n g the marriage of the mother to another man i s entitled t o an evidentiary h e a r i n g t o p r o v e t h a t t h e m o t h e r ' s h u s b a n d does n o t p e r s i s t i n h i s presumption of p a t e r n i t y . April 13, 2 0 1 2 ] ___ (summarizing caselaw). evidence that So. See D.B. v . A.K., [Ms. 2110180, 3d ___ (Ala. C i v . App. 2012) I n t h i s case, the j u v e n i l e c o u r t heard c o m p l e t e l y undermined t h e mother's assertion t h a t J.L.W. p e r s i s t e d i n h i s p r e s u m p t i o n o f p a t e r n i t y . The evidence presented a t the d i s p o s i t i o n a l hearing showed, w i t h o u t d i s p u t e , t h a t t h e m o t h e r a n d J.L.W. s e p a r a t e d shortly after their marriage and t h a t t h e mother began an e n d u r i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h M.W. thereafter without informing him t o J.L.W. of her continuing marriage fathered the c h i l d r e n J.L.W. h a s n e v e r M.W. undisputedly as d e t e r m i n e d b y t h e g e n e t i c t e s t i n g . met t h e c h i l d r e n , 4 has never supported the 2101180 children, and has never a s s e r t e d children, signed on including h i sparental i n the underlying r i g h t s to the proceedings. M.W. an a f f i d a v i t o f p a t e r n i t y a n d i s l i s t e d a s t h e f a t h e r the children's b i r t h children certificates. He h a s h e l d as h i s own a n d h a s s u p p o r t e d them f r o m t h e t i m e o f their births. The c h i l d r e n r e f e r t o M.W. e v i d e n c e c o u l d have c l e a r l y c o n v i n c e d as "Daddy." the j u v e n i l e court J.L.W. was n o t p e r s i s t i n g i n h i s p r e s u m p t i o n thereby outthe providing subject-matter M.W. standing jurisdiction Nevertheless, we are that of paternity, to properly invoke of the j u v e n i l e court issue of the children's p a t e r n i t y . That the over the 2 constrained to hold that the judgment a d j u d i c a t i n g t h e p a t e r n i t y o f t h e c h i l d r e n i s v o i d f o r f a i l u r e t o j o i n J.L.W. as an i n d i s p e n s a b l e p a r t y . 26-17-603, paternity A l a . Code ... i s t o be a d j u d i c a t e d " party i n a proceeding See also 1975, s p e c i f i e s J.W. to adjudicate that a Section "man "must be j o i n e d " whose as a the parentage of a c h i l d . v. C.H., 988 So. 2d 5 6 0 , 564 ( A l a . C i v . App. M.W. a n d DHR a r g u e a t l e n g t h t h a t t h e same e v i d e n c e e s s e n t i a l l y e s t a b l i s h e s t h a t M.W. i s t h e l e g a l f a t h e r o f t h e children. However, we n e e d n o t d e c i d e t h a t q u e s t i o n a t t h i s juncture of the proceedings. 2 5 2101180 2007) (addressing t h e j o i n d e r o f a l l p r e s u m e d f a t h e r s i n an a c t i o n t o determine a f a t h e r - c h i l d r e l a t i o n s h i p ) . t o j o i n an i n d i s p e n s a b l e p a r t y r e n d e r s e.g., Allbritton App. 2009). court v. Dawkins, a judgment v o i d . See, 19 So. 3d 2 4 1 , 243 ( A l a . Civ. We t h e r e f o r e r e v e r s e t h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e j u v e n i l e to the extent children, The f a i l u r e a n d we i t adjudicated remand juvenile court feasible, and f o r such with this allow with of the directions for f o r the j o i n d e r the opinion. AFFIRMED to t h e case the p a t e r n i t y other proceedings IN PART; REVERSED o f J.L.W., i f as a r e c o n s i s t e n t IN PART; AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, P . J . , and Pittman, concur. 6 Bryan, a n d 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.
