M.A.J. v. S.B.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 06/29/2012 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 2101224 M.A.J. v. S.B. Appeal from J e f f e r s o n J u v e n i l e Court, Bessemer D i v i s i o n (JU-09-700682) MOORE, Judge. M.A.J. ("the f a t h e r " ) Jefferson Juvenile Court child"). We a f f i r m i n p a r t appeals modifying from a custody and reverse judgment ofthe o f J . P . J . ("the i n part. 2101224 Background This i s the this court. App. 2011). procedural second See M.A.J. time v. I n M . A . J . , we these S.B., set p a r t i e s have been 1287 before 73 So. 3d (Ala. Civ. forth the following pertinent history: "The c h i l d was p r e v i o u s l y t h e s u b j e c t o f a 2 0 0 6 dependency a c t i o n i n the j u v e n i l e court t h a t was b r o u g h t b y S.B., the c h i l d ' s maternal grandmother ('the maternal grandmother'). That action u l t i m a t e l y r e s u l t e d i n a N o v e m b e r 28, 2 0 0 7 , j u d g m e n t finding the child dependent and ordering that c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d w o u l d be ' s h a r e d ' b y t h e f a t h e r and the maternal g r a n d m o t h e r and t h a t t h e y would 'share times of p h y s i c a l custody.' "On A u g u s t 1 3 , 2 0 0 9 , t h e f a t h e r f i l e d a p e t i t i o n m o d i f y t h e N o v e m b e r 28, 2 0 0 7 , j u d g m e n t , w h i c h t h e to f a t h e r a m e n d e d on J u n e 18, 2 0 1 0 . r A f t e r the maternal g r a n d m o t h e r f i l e d an a n s w e r t o t h e amended p e t i t i o n , t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t c o n d u c t e d a t r i a l on t h e m e r i t s . On S e p t e m b e r 5, 2 0 1 0 , the j u v e n i l e court entered a judgment c o n c l u d i n g t h a t the f a t h e r had f a i l e d t o meet t h e s t a n d a r d f o r m o d i f i c a t i o n s e t o u t i n Ex p a r t e M c L e n d o n , 455 So. 2 d 863 (Ala. 1984), and s t a t e d : 'The care, custody and c o n t r o l of [the c h i l d ] to remain w i t h maternal grandmother.' The j u v e n i l e c o u r t a w a r d e d t h e f a t h e r v i s i t a t i o n as s e t out i n a schedule a t t a c h e d to the judgment." 73 So. 3d On at 1288 appeal, (footnote this court omitted). agreed with juvenile c o u r t had e r r e d i n a p p l y i n g the standard set forth i n Ex parte The the father appealed. that the custody-modification M c L e n d o n , 455 2 father So. 2d 863 (Ala. 2101224 1984). ("the 73 S o . maternal c h i l d before father's Couch, that So. also grandmother the 2d sole seeking sole the that had the court's juvenile court the best that the proper evidence of standard and, the I d . ( c i t i n g Ex of to parte had Id. not that maternal We filed a notice that sole he counterclaim remanded could the otherwise custody, therefore, lose child 73 So. court that 3d a t heard reversed cause the 3 to the the for the i tis joint-custody 1291. arguments a p p l i c a t i o n of the b e s t - i n t e r e s t presented and joint from the evidence whether the in recognized she had n o t seeking We, erred the award had and the j u v e n i l e court was "to determine previously the governed child. the she judgment interests remand, of 5, 2 0 1 0 , j u d g m e n t juvenile judgment Id. a r r a n g e m e n t be m o d i f i e d . " On the not had child. juvenile in that grandmother father custody S.B. (Ala. 1988)). custody father of 987 the f a t h e r and joint petition. custody of the c h i l d , notified the held best-interest i t s prior the maternal custody had of the September concluded modifying that noted that custody-modification 521 We We grandmother") the entry therefore, in 3d a t 1289. regarding standard juvenile to court. the On 2101224 A u g u s t 31, 2011, that, compliance in applied the at August the modify 6, court terminating 7, 2011, vacate the 2010, and in child, The order September on maternal 21, i t was father's i t had presented petition to petition. closing the to attorneys." The case On and September a motion to a l t e r , amend, that court had custody of the juvenile grandmother court's other 2011, evidence father's this r a i s e d no directives, the the the filed the 26, 2011, the issues the sole mandate in his father in or M.A.J., postjudgment timely juvenile f o r purposes of appeal, juvenile court the modification 2011, on that of to a judgment s t a t i n g filed his entered an f a t h e r was not appeal. i n d i g e n t ; the 26, the September finding that, finding court's asserting violation father On On noted judgment, the of trial father timely awarded notice this denying also improperly motion. with " a l l a p p o i n t m e n t s as the supra. juvenile court entered b e s t - i n t e r e s t standard custody juvenile the father's petition. the a l s o n o t e d t h a t i t had testimony In court a j u v e n i l e court p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n as t o t h e during separate purported the order to trial dated grant i s s u e o f c u s t o d y by 4 based the on that his September father's amending i t s 2101224 A u g u s t 31, 2011, judgment to award the grandmother j o i n t August 31, 2011, custody but f a t h e r and the leaving a l l other judgment i n maternal terms of that effect. Analysis The 2011, in father that the juvenile custody award v i o l a t e d the M.A.J., timely that argues supra. We postjudgment the motion j u v e n i l e court M.A.J., supra, custody of rule that on first the by had child. motion that the September 7, violated this awarding the However, within 14 August mandate i s s u e d by note on court's days father mandate grandmother its filing and, Juv. P., September 21, 2011. v. N.L., 864 A l t h o u g h the 2011, of So. 2d law 1089, juvenile court purporting to any action on the 26, 2011, was a grant father's nullity already been d e n i e d by Id. on 1090 entered the an operation 5 the of law on S.D.C. App. 2002). September motion father's on deemed See postjudgment postjudgment because Civ. order father's 1091. at (Ala. on to thus, t h a t m o t i o n was d e n i e d by in sole failed p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 1 ( B ) , A l a . R. operation a asserting j u v e n i l e court of court filed 2011, court's maternal the this 31, 26, motion, September motion September 21, had 2011. 2101224 Because was a the nullity, August 31, M.A.J., juvenile court's we 2011, now consider judgment September whether violated the this 26, 2011, juvenile court's order court's mandate in supra. " I n Ex p a r t e E d w a r d s , [727 So. 2 d 792 (Ala. 1 9 9 8 ) , ] t h i s C o u r t h e l d t h a t when an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t remands a case, the t r i a l c o u r t does not have the d i s c r e t i o n t o c o n d u c t a new t r i a l o r a n e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g . 727 So. 2 d a t 7 9 4 - 9 5 . Instead, after a c a s e i s r e m a n d e d , t h e t r i a l c o u r t may e n t e r '"'[n]o judgment other than t h a t d i r e c t e d or p e r m i t t e d by the reviewing court The appellate court's decision is final as to a l l matters before i t , b e c o m e s t h e l a w o f t h e c a s e , a n d m u s t be e x e c u t e d a c c o r d i n g to the mandate, w i t h o u t granting a new t r i a l or t a k i n g a d d i t i o n a l evidence.'"' Id. at 794 ( q u o t i n g E x p a r t e A l a b a m a P o w e r Co., 431 So. 2 d 151 (Ala. 1 9 8 3 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n 5 Am. J u r . 2d A p p e a l & E r r o r § 991 (1962))." Ex parte Queen, Although is not that 959 the easily So. the evidence child under 621 after the (Ala. August agree with court In that 31, 2011, father violated judgment, considering 2006). the t r a n s f e r r i n g custody grandmother. that, we juvenile mandate by i m p r o p e r l y indicated 620, juvenile court's deciphered, judgment, maternal 2d the this of the the custody in court's juvenile i s "awarded t o / t o remain w i t h " the maternal 6 that, c h i l d to previously b e s t - i n t e r e s t standard, judgment the court presented of the grandmother 2101224 and that the "father's petition to modify [custody] is denied." I n M.A.J., s u p r a , procedural posture only the grant arrangement thereby of favor with this petition, the to aspect this deny the by father's August in court's the to the could joint-custody that existing mandate arrangement of or Thus, a l t h o u g h the t h a t , due juvenile court to modify father juvenile court's violated the already court's joint-custody that the the standard grandmother action, I d . a t 1289. interest reverse of maintaining complied the the concluded father's petition in arrangement. of h o w e v e r , we petition, joint-custody the juvenile court applying the best- custody-modification 31, 2011, favor of mandate. juvenile court's modification the We, maternal therefore, August 31, 2011, judgment. The f a t h e r next a s s e r t s t h a t the d e n y i n g him asserts that, indigency appeal indigency at the s t a t u s , the and, jurisdiction therefore, to act status time f o r purposes the f a t h e r had that i n the juvenile court the case. 7 juvenile already of erred h i s appeal. court filed juvenile court revoked his notice no longer in He his of had 2101224 Rule proceed 24, A l a . R. App. P., i n forma p a u p e r i s pertinent on addresses motions appeal. That for leave to rule provides, in part: "Notwithstanding the p r o v i s i o n s of the preceding p a r a g r a p h , a p a r t y who h a s b e e n p e r m i t t e d t o p r o c e e d i n an a c t i o n i n t h e c o u r t i n f o r m a p a u p e r i s , ... may p r o c e e d on a p p e a l i n f o r m a p a u p e r i s w i t h o u t f u r t h e r a u t h o r i z a t i o n u n l e s s , before or a f t e r the n o t i c e of a p p e a l i s f i l e d , t h e t r i a l c o u r t ... s h a l l f i n d t h a t t h e p a r t y i s o t h e r w i s e n o t e n t i t l e d so t o p r o c e e d , in which event the trial court shall state in writing the reasons for such certification or finding. "If a motion f o r leave to proceed i n forma pauperis i s d e n i e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t , or i f t h e t r i a l court s h a l l c e r t i f y t h a t the appeal i s not taken i n good f a i t h or s h a l l f i n d t h a t the p a r t y i s otherwise not e n t i t l e d to proceed i n forma p a u p e r i s , the clerk shall f o r t h w i t h serve n o t i c e of such action. A m o t i o n f o r l e a v e s o t o p r o c e e d may be filed i n the a p p e l l a t e c o u r t w i t h i n 28 days (4 weeks) a f t e r s e r v i c e of the n o t i c e of the a c t i o n of the t r i a l court. The m o t i o n s h a l l be a c c o m p a n i e d b y a copy of the a f f i d a v i t f i l e d i n the t r i a l c o u r t , or by the a f f i d a v i t p r e s c r i b e d by the f i r s t p a r a g r a p h o f t h i s s u b d i v i s i o n i f no a f f i d a v i t h a s b e e n f i l e d i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t , and by a copy o f the s t a t e m e n t of r e a s o n s g i v e n by the t r i a l c o u r t f o r i t s a c t i o n . " (Emphasis As added.) recognized i n Rule 24, a f t e r a n o t i c e of appeal has entitled a appeal case, the to proceed on juvenile court trial been f i l e d in complied 8 court -- forma may certify -¬ that a party i s not pauperis. w i t h R u l e 24 by In this entering an 2101224 order finding that appeal i n forma finding. outside court pauperis the failed by Rule authority pauperis. denial address the issue 2 d 1, 20 income; to proceed o f h i s argument t h a t f o r leave has wholly of h i s request. further. ( A l a . 2003) t o do a p a r t y ' s As court, a See B u t l e r 9 he however, this as court pauperis. any r e l e v a n t to proceed we court i n forma t o address result, was order this need not v . Town o f A r g o , 871 ("'[I]t i s not the function l e g a l research motion, the juvenile failed with i n forma that court's to cite merit. filed the father, i n forma t h e f a t h e r has f a i l e d he indigency of that attesting As d i d t h e j u v e n i l e h i s motion his on a p p e a l In support i t s the juvenile t o do, t h e f a t h e r of the juvenile motion Moreover, court's Court 24. for of appeal i s without his affidavit copy i n support i n denying 24. t o p r o c e e d on the basis t o proceed a monthly a the father's In h i s b r i e f , So. by Rule and earning required erred f o r leave submitted to attach denied his notice a s h e was e n t i t l e d as a l l o w e d employed stating i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n i n revoking a motion father and the father's assertion that a f t e r he f i l e d Further, this pauperis Therefore, court acted status t h e f a t h e r was n o t e n t i t l e d of this o r t o make a n d a d d r e s s 2101224 legal arguments for a propositions not argument.'" (quoting party based supported by on undelineated sufficient Dykes v. Lane T r u c k i n g , general authority or I n c . , 652 S o . 2 d 2 4 8 , 2 5 1 ( A l a . 1 9 9 4 ) , c i t i n g i n t u r n S p r a d l i n v . S p r a d l i n , 601 So. 2d 7 6 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) ) ) . 2d 1021 , provides effect 1023 See a l s o B e n n e t t v . B e n n e t t , ( A l a . C i v . App. t h a t w h e r e no l e g a l i s t h e same For 1 987) law of reasons, we had been affirm made."). the t r i a l judgment i n s o f a r as i td e n i e d t h e f a t h e r i n d i g e n c y reverse that part of the t r i a l maternal grandmother sole the cause f o r the entry Alabama a u t h o r i t y i s c i t e d or argued, the a s i f no a r g u m e n t the foregoing ("The 50 6 S o . court's judgment court's status; awarding the c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d , a n d we o f a judgment we consistent remand with this opinion. The appeal father's request f o r t h e award of attorney fees on i s denied. A F F I R M E D I N PART; R E V E R S E D Thompson, P . J . , and I N PART; AND Pittman, concur. 10 Bryan, REMANDED. 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.