Edward Dyess v. Lajune White Dyess

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 4/13/12 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2011-2012 2110121 M.W.H. v. R.W. and L.W. Appeal from DeKalb J u v e n i l e Court (JU-06-283.02) BRYAN, J u d g e . M.W.H. ("the m o t h e r " ) a p p e a l s the DeKalb J u v e n i l e Court her petition child"), t o modify from a judgment e n t e r e d by ("the j u v e n i l e c o u r t " ) t h a t custody i n f a v o r o f R.W. denied o f h e r s o n , C.J.W. ("the ("the m a t e r n a l g r a n d f a t h e r " ) and 2110121 L.W. ("the m a t e r n a l s t e p g r a n d m o t h e r " ) collectively (hereinafter referred to as " t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s " ) . Procedural We affirm. History The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t , on J u l y 19, 2006, t h e m a t e r n a l grandparents, i n case no. J U - 0 6 - 2 8 3 . 0 1 , petition i n the juvenile maternal grandparents because t h e c h i l d ' s court. alleged filed a dependency In their the c h i l d that petition, the was d e p e n d e n t f a t h e r was unknown, t h e m o t h e r was m a n i c d e p r e s s i v e , a n d t h e m o t h e r was n o t a b l e t o p r o v i d e a f i t a n d proper home f o r the c h i l d . They further alleged that the m o t h e r was l i v i n g i n t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s ' home w i t h t h e c h i l d a t t h e time t h e p e t i t i o n was f i l e d , t h a t t h e m o t h e r was p l a n n i n g t o t a k e t h e c h i l d t o I l l i n o i s , t h a t t h e home t h a t t h e m o t h e r was g o i n g t o t a k e t h e c h i l d fit to i n I l l i n o i s and p r o p e r p l a c e f o r t h e c h i l d , child and t h a t t o remove t h e f r o m t h e home o f t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s t h a t t h e c h i l d w o u l d be abandoned. sought temporary August 2006, awarding and permanent the juvenile The m a t e r n a l custody was n o t a w o u l d mean grandparents of the c h i l d . court entered a default custody of the c h i l d to the maternal The m o t h e r s u b s e q u e n t l y f i l e d 2 a motion In judgment grandparents. to s e t aside the 2110121 default judgment. The record indicates that the parties a p p e a r e d b e f o r e t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t f o r a h e a r i n g on S e p t e m b e r 19, 2006. entered On o r a b o u t S e p t e m b e r 26, 2006, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t a judgment t h a t s e t aside the d e f a u l t judgment awarded the m a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d colloquy with "reasonable the parties." visitation" with The the mother child was that no i n d i c a t i o n temporary i n t h e judgment t h a t order that rehabilitate herself. Almost with the allow court to modify mother award o f c h i l d the mother time They filed a to alleged that no. a petition in the mother's v i s i t a t i o n t h e mother was rights i n an r i g h t s were due The m a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s a l s o r e q u e s t e d an support from the mother. filed There i s on A u g u s t 16, 2007, i n c a s e a b u s i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p and t h a t h e r v i s i t a t i o n t o be t e r m i n a t e d . be i n t e n d e d t o be the the maternal grandparents child. to No a p p e a l was t a k e n f r o m t h a t j u d g m e n t . one y e a r l a t e r , JU-06-283.02, the j u v e n i l e would i t was "after awarded was " g e n e r a l l y s u p e r v i s e d " by t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s . and an answer to the On A u g u s t 22, 2007, maternal grandparents' p e t i t i o n and a c o u n t e r c l a i m r e q u e s t i n g s o l e l e g a l and p h y s i c a l custody of the c h i l d . She alleged 3 that t h e r e h a d been a 2110121 material change grandparents in circumstances since the were a w a r d e d c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d maternal and t h a t t h e c h i l d ' s b e s t s i n t e r e s t s w o u l d be p r o m o t e d b y t h e change so as to overcome the inherent d i s r u p t i v e effect caused by the change i n c u s t o d y . On June 23, 2008, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t e n t e r e d a pendente l i t e o r d e r b a s e d on an a g r e e m e n t o f t h e p a r t i e s . that order, the maternal grandparents Pursuant t o maintained custody of t h e c h i l d , t h e m o t h e r was o r d e r e d t o p a y $150 a month i n c h i l d support, t h e m o t h e r was awarded specific visitation rights w i t h t h e c h i l d , t h e m o t h e r was o r d e r e d t o s e e a p s y c h i a t r i s t , and t h e m o t h e r a n d t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d f a t h e r were o r d e r e d t o attend family counseling. The j u v e n i l e requests 1 c o u r t s e t t h e f i n a l h e a r i n g on t h e p e n d i n g for relief f o r S e p t e m b e r 8, 2008. On September 9, 2008, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r t h a t s t a t e d t h a t t h e c a s e h a d been c a l l e d f o r t r i a l b u t was n o t r e a d y t o be h e a r d . The o r d e r a l s o s t a t e d t h a t " t h e ex p a r t e p r o t e c t i o n o r d e r e x e c u t e d on A u g u s t 16, 2007, and a l l addendums t h e r e t o i n c a s e number DR-2007-414 a r e h e r e b y r e v o k e d a n d h e l d f o r n a u g h t . " A p p a r e n t l y , c a s e no. DR-2007-414 i s a r e l a t e d a c t i o n i n v o l v i n g t h e same p a r t i e s . No i s s u e s r e l a t i n g t o a j u d g m e n t o r o r d e r i n c a s e no. DR-2007-414 have been r a i s e d b y t h e p a r t i e s i n t h i s appeal. 1 4 2110121 The j u v e n i l e c o u r t r e s c h e d u l e d 6, 2008, ordered t h e mother p s y c h i a t r i c evaluation before mother's v i s i t a t i o n nearly identical the f i n a l hearing t o schedule and the f i n a l hearing, i n place. f o r November complete a and l e f t t h e On November 6, 2008, an o r d e r t o t h e S e p t e m b e r 9, 2008, o r d e r was entered and t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t s t a t e d t h a t " t h i s m a t t e r s h a l l come f o r hearing on m o t i o n o f any p a r t y . " N o t h i n g f u r t h e r happened i n t h e case u n t i l t h e mother's attorney filed a motion t o w i t h d r a w on F e b r u a r y 9, 2010, s t a t i n g t h a t t h e c a s e h a d been d o r m a n t s i n c e November 2008 a n d t h a t he h a d h a d no c o n t a c t On A p r i l with t h e mother s i n c e t h a t 28, 2010, t h e m o t h e r f i l e d time. a motion t o s e t a final hearing and a renewed motion f o r c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d . She alleged that last she h a d u n d e r g o n e treatment since the h e a r i n g , t h a t she h a d a s t a b l e home, t h a t she h a d c o n s i s t e n t l y paid child there support t o the maternal was no r e a s o n why she s h o u l d grandparents, n o t have and t h a t custody of the child. The April juvenile court conducted an o r e t e n u s hearing on 19, 2 0 1 1 . On June 9, 2 0 1 1 , t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t i s s u e d a judgment s t a t i n g t h a t t h e c u s t o d y - m o d i f i c a t i o n 5 standard t o be 2110121 a p p l i e d t o the mother's r e q u e s t f o r custody of the c h i l d the custody-modification standard McLendon, So. 2d 863 findings specific 455 of fact, f o u n d t h a t t h e c h i l d was custody, and The ( A l a . 1984) . the juvenile forth in Without Ex parte making any court nevertheless d e p e n d e n t and a w a r d e d " p r i m a r y c a r e , control" grandparents. set was of the child to the maternal j u v e n i l e c o u r t awarded the mother specific v i s i t a t i o n w i t h t h e c h i l d and o r d e r e d t h e m o t h e r t o c o n t i n u e paying c h i l d support to the maternal grandparents. N e i t h e r the mother nor the m a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s postjudgment motion c o u r t ' s judgment. of appeal Court. as in The case c h a l l e n g i n g any On June 17, 2011, no. part of the filed a juvenile the mother f i l e d a n o t i c e JU-06-283.02 to the DeKalb Circuit j u v e n i l e c o u r t subsequently c e r t i f i e d the r e c o r d adequate for appeal, and the DeKalb Circuit t r a n s f e r r e d the mother's appeal t o t h i s c o u r t . Court 2 Issues On did not appeal, have the mother contends subject-matter A p p a r e n t l y , the appeal a s s i g n e d c a s e no. CV-11-92. 2 t h a t the jurisdiction juvenile to decide t o the DeKalb C i r c u i t 6 court Court her was 2110121 custody-modification petition d i d have s u b j e c t - m a t t e r and t h a t , i f t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t j u r i s d i c t i o n , the j u v e n i l e court erred by a p p l y i n g t h e McLendon s t a n d a r d to her request f o r custody of the c h i l d . Discussion Initially, the mother will we n o t e t h a t t h e i s s u e s p r e s e n t e d are questions review of law. on a p p e a l "Accordingly, the j u v e n i l e court's this j u d g m e n t de n o v o , by court without g i v i n g any p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s t o t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s legal Civ. conclusions." App. J.W. 68 So. 3d 878, have s u b j e c t - m a t t e r of the c h i l d argues t h a t the j u v e n i l e court d i d not jurisdiction over her request i n c a s e no. JU-06-283.02 court lacked subject-matter 2006, i . e . , c a s e no. J U - 0 6 - 2 8 3 . 0 1 . grandparents' original the jurisdiction the Code 1975; initial over grandparents i n She a r g u e s t h a t dependency p e t i t i o n f i l e d with a juvenile intake o f f i c e r , Ala. f o r custody b e c a u s e , she s a y s , dependency a c t i o n i n i t i a t e d by t h e m a t e r n a l maternal 879 ( A l a . 2011). The m o t h e r f i r s t juvenile v. C.B., (1) t h e was not see f o r m e r § 12-15-50, (2) t h a t t h e a l l e g a t i o n s o f d e p e n d e n c y i n t h e dependency p e t i t i o n were 7 insufficient t o invoke the 2110121 jurisdiction o f t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ; and did the c h i l d not f i n d dependent or t h e mother u n f i t September 2006 j u d g m e n t a w a r d i n g maternal It grandparents. is clear (3) t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e i n the custody of the c h i l d to the 3 from our review of the September 2006 j u d g m e n t t h a t i t was e n t e r e d a f t e r an a g r e e m e n t o f t h e p a r t i e s b e c a u s e t h e award o f c u s t o d y t o t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s made a f t e r o n l y a c o l l o q u y w i t h t h e p a r t i e s . was Moreover, there i s n o t h i n g i n t h e September 2006 j u d g m e n t t o i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e judgment was scheduled not no and final claims there left was no further review As noted unadjudicated. we a b o v e , t h e r e was no a p p e a l t a k e n f r o m t h a t j u d g m e n t . this c o u r t does n o t u s u a l l y judgments that are final entertain and have collateral n o t been Morgan v. L a u d e r d a l e C n t y . Dep't o f P e n s i o n s 2d 649, 651 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1986), we Although a t t a c k s on appealed, see & S e c . , 494 So. will consider the mother's arguments because t h e y i m p l i c a t e the j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s continuing subject-matter jurisdiction to determine the We n o t e t h a t t h e m o t h e r ' s c u s t o d y - m o d i f i c a t i o n p r o c e e d i n g was i n i t i a t e d i n t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t b e f o r e J a n u a r y 1, 2009. A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e A l a b a m a J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e A c t , as i t e x i s t e d b e f o r e J a n u a r y 1, 2009, a p p l i e s i n t h i s c a s e . See f o r m e r § 12-15-1 e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1975. 3 8 2110121 mother's request f o r c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d . See f o r m e r § 12-15¬ 32, 1975 A l a . Code continuing (setting forth j u r i s d i c t i o n before Regarding the first the juvenile court's J a n u a r y 1, 2 0 0 9 ) . part of her argument, even i f we assume t h a t t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s ' d e p e n d e n c y p e t i t i o n not filed that by a j u v e n i l e the juvenile intake court d i d not consider the dependency p e t i t i o n reveals that the officer, maternal we obtain cannot grandparents conclude jurisdiction on t h a t b a s i s . The filed a was to record verified dependency p e t i t i o n t h a t i n c l u d e d a f f i d a v i t s from t h e m a t e r n a l grandfather and t h e m a t e r n a l M.M.M., 915 So. 2d 64, 71-72 it was undisputed h a d n o t been this court that signed held stepgrandmother. ( A l a . C i v . App. 2005), i n which t h e dependency p e t i t i o n or f i l e d that I n W.T.H. v. there by a j u v e n i l e was i n that intake "no p r o c e d u r a l case officer, irregularity" and t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s d e p e n d e n c y j u d g m e n t was n o t v o i d or otherwise petition due to be h a d been v e r i f i e d dependency p e t i t i o n because by t h e p e t i t i o n i n g the dependency party and t h e h a d been d e l i v e r e d t o and f i l e d w i t h t h e c l e r k of the j u v e n i l e court. the reversed A c c o r d i n g l y , we f i n d no m e r i t i n f i r s t p a r t o f t h e mother's argument. 9 2110121 We also disagree with allegations in the insufficient to invoke court. The juvenile dependency p e t i t i o n d e p e n d e n t , and t o be v. initial the contention dependency dependency maternal specifically petition, So. that the by grandparents' that the 2010), our i n Ex parte i s i n need definition of child from persons or a Civ. App. t h e c h i l d . " The m a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s had J.W. 2008) dependency child i n t e r e s t s would child, So. 3d supervision juvenile 1042, 1047 were to (Ala. whether pursuant court obligated "must and care to the consider supervision for and/or record indicates that, although been p r o v i d i n g 10 be of the j u v e n i l e c o u r t ) . i s r e c e i v i n g adequate care legally was d e p e n d e n t . See (Ala. c h i l d ' s best care 2006 child h e l d t h a t , when d e t e r m i n i n g dependency, whether the those of the a l l e g a t i o n s t h a t the L.E.O., 61 supreme c o u r t of f a c t s that, i f proven f a c t u a l a l l e g a t i o n s i n the to invoke the j u r i s d i c t i o n Furthermore, supervise 532-33 were July the awarding the p e t i t i o n e r c u s t o d y of the sufficient child 526, the petition alleged that c o u p l e d w i t h the s p e c i f i c d e p e n d e n t and served 2d that jurisdiction i t also alleged specific 999 (concluding a mother's t r u e , c o u l d show t h a t t h e c h i l d was N.K.M., was the care f o r the the child 2110121 w h i l e t h e c h i l d l i v e d i n t h e i r home, t h e m a t e r n a l were n o t l e g a l l y o b l i g a t e d t o do s o . that the dependency grandparents juvenile invoked the A c c o r d i n g l y , we filed dependency by a l s o argues t h a t have j u r i s d i c t i o n was the custody "[T]his court the j u v e n i l e i n the September of the c h i l d 2006 find that the judgment to the maternal h a s h e l d t h a t when t h e e v i d e n c e i n the consistent with a finding the i n t e r e s t of o f j u d i c i a l economy t h i s dependency j u d g m e n t . " J . P . v. S.S., As we maternal implicit in was Because based t h e mother on agreed an pending court hold trial has that a court's ( A l a . C i v . App. t h a t t h e September agreement to allow t o have c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d grandparents' the 989 So. 2d 591, 598 entered record of dependency, i n c o u r t may s t a t e d above, i t i s e v i d e n t judgment grandparents is that grandparents. made a d i s p o s i t i o n parties. the d i d not o f d e p e n d e n c y and when t h e t r i a l 2006 of court supports a finding 2008). maternal jurisdiction because i t d i d not e x p r e s s l y dependent awarded finding conclude court. The m o t h e r child petition grandparents the of maternal i n response dependency the to the petition, we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e m o t h e r a g r e e d t h a t she was u n a b l e t o p r o v i d e 11 2110121 proper care was and support dependent. See 4 f o r the c h i l d , former § juvenile court A l a . Code 1975 A c c o r d i n g l y , we c o n c l u d e ( d e f i n i n g a dependent c h i l d ) . the i . e . , that the c h i l d 12-15-1(10), that implicitly found that the c h i l d was d e p e n d e n t i n t h e September 2006 j u d g m e n t and, p u r s u a n t t o t h a t implicit finding, grandparents. awarded custody Accordingly, we of the c h i l d t o the maternal conclude court had c o n t i n u i n g s u b j e c t - m a t t e r A u g u s t 2007. See f o r m e r § 1 2 - 1 5 - 3 2 ( a ) case jurisdiction of a child becomes 21 y e a r s obtained shall be to consider initially filed in ("For p u r p o s e s o f t h i s by t h e j u v e n i l e retained o f age u n l e s s the juvenile jurisdiction the mother's c u s t o d y - m o d i f i c a t i o n p e t i t i o n chapter, that court by i t u n t i l terminated prior the i n any child t h e r e t o by T h i s c o n c l u s i o n s h o u l d n o t be r e a d as h o l d i n g t h a t a p a r e n t s t i p u l a t e s t h a t t h e i r c h i l d i s dependent anytime t h e p a r e n t a g r e e s t o a l l o w a n o n p a r e n t t o have t e m p o r a r y c u s t o d y of t h e i r c h i l d . T h i s c o n c l u s i o n i s l i m i t e d t o c a s e s s u c h as t h i s one, i . e . , c a s e s i n w h i c h t h e r e i s a p e n d i n g d e p e n d e n c y p e t i t i o n f i l e d by a nonparent t h a t a l l e g e s t h a t t h e c h i l d i n q u e s t i o n does n o t have a p a r e n t a b l e o r w i l l i n g t o p r o v i d e care or support f o r the c h i l d . I n such a case, a j u v e n i l e c o u r t w o u l d have j u r i s d i c t i o n t o make a c u s t o d i a l disposition o f t h e c h i l d o n l y i f t h e c h i l d was d e p e n d e n t . See K.C.G. v. S.J.R., 46 So. 3d 499, 501-02 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2010) (a juvenile court has j u r i s d i c t i o n t o make a custodial d i s p o s i t i o n o f a c h i l d i n a dependency p r o c e e d i n g o n l y i f t h e j u v e n i l e court determines that the c h i l d i s dependent). 4 12 2110121 order of t h e judge o f t h e j u v e n i l e To the extent challenges implicit of of the evidence dependency S e p t e m b e r 2006 j u d g m e n t , we w i l l because t h e time See " ) . t h a t t h e mother, i n h e r b r i e f the sufficiency finding court i n the on appeal, t o support juvenile not consider that an court's argument f o r m a k i n g s u c h an a r g u m e n t h a s l o n g p a s s e d . Morgan, 494 So. 2d a t 651. At t h e s t a r t o f t h e o r e tenus h e a r i n g , t h e mother argued that the juvenile court c o u l d make a c u s t o d y determination r e g a r d i n g t h e c h i l d o n l y i f t h e r e was a f i n d i n g t h a t t h e c h i l d was be dependent. Therefore, d i s m i s s e d and custody she a r g u e d , t h e e n t i r e c a s e of the c h i l d should r e t u r n e d t o t h e mother b e c a u s e t h e r e was no i n d i c a t i o n t h a t t h e c h i l d h a d e v e r d e c l a r e d dependent by t h e j u v e n i l e the maternal implicit grandparents court. responded by been The a t t o r n e y f o r arguing that an f i n d i n g o f d e p e n d e n c y h a d b e e n made i n t h e S e p t e m b e r 2006 j u d g m e n t b a s e d on t h e p l e a d i n g s b e f o r e t h e c o u r t a n d t h e c o l l o q u y t h a t l e d t o t h e September 200 6 j u d g m e n t . 2011 judgment, after i t held that I n t h e June t h e McLendon standard a p p l i e d t o t h e mother's p e t i t i o n f o r custody o f t h e c h i l d , t h e juvenile court found the c h i l d 13 dependent. At f i r s t glance, 2110121 those juvenile court's j u d g m e n t i n t e r n a l l y i n c o n s i s t e n t b e c a u s e t h e McLendon standard does two findings not apply proceeding. App. 2009) is to render the i n the d i s p o s i t i o n a l See T.B. v. T.H., phase s t a t u t e , which with a of a dependency 30 So. 3d 429, 432 (a f i n d i n g t h a t t h e McLendon inconsistent However, appear disposition (Ala. s t a n d a r d h a d been under the Civ. met dependency i s g o v e r n e d by t h e " b e s t i n t e r e s t s " s t a n d a r d ) . t h e McLendon standard does apply to a p e t i t i o n to m o d i f y an a w a r d o f " p e r m a n e n t " c u s t o d y t h a t was made p u r s u a n t t o a f i n d i n g t h a t t h e c h i l d was d e p e n d e n t . See P.A. v. 78 So. juvenile 3d 979, 981 ( A l a . C i v . App. c o u r t has e n t e r e d a j u d g m e n t a w a r d i n g c h i l d to a r e l a t i v e , a parent must meet t h e McLendon the 2011) ("When a custody L.S., of a dependent seeking to modify that custody standard i n order t o r e g a i n custody of child."). T h i s c o u r t must c o n s t r u e t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s judgment, i f p o s s i b l e , i n a manner t h a t w o u l d u p h o l d t h e v a l i d i t y o f t h e j u d g m e n t . See Ex p a r t e S n i d e r , 929 So. 2d 447, 457 ( A l a . 2005) ( q u o t i n g C l a r k v. B o a r d o f D e n t a l Exam'rs o f G e o r g i a , 240 Ga. 289, 294, 240 S.E.2d 250, 254 ( 1 9 7 7 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n B y r d v. Goodman, 195 Ga. 621, 621, 25 S.E.2d 34, 35 14 (1943) ( S y l l a b u s 2110121 by the Court)) ("'"When a judgment m e a n i n g s , one o f w h i c h w o u l d r e n d e r proper, given that construction w i l l , i t t h a t would render i s susceptible i t illegal two and t h e i f reasonably i t legal."'"). of other possible, Considering be the arguments p r e s e n t e d to the j u v e n i l e court at the s t a r t of the ore and tenus hearing, considering that t h e same c o u r t judge p r e s i d e d over the o r i g i n a l dependency and t h e m o t h e r ' s c u s t o d y - m o d i f i c a t i o n p r o c e e d i n g , the juvenile court's judgment juvenileproceeding we construe as h o l d i n g t h a t t h e c h i l d had been f o u n d d e p e n d e n t i n t h e September 2006 j u d g m e n t , t h a t t h e McLendon s t a n d a r d a p p l i e d t o t h e m o t h e r ' s c u s t o d y - m o d i f i c a t i o n petition, and t h a t the mother failed t o meet h e r b u r d e n o f proof. We appeal case, in agree w i t h that the mother's the u n d e r l y i n g contention a c t i o n was not a dependency case. i n her b r i e f handled as a custody Thus, we r e j e c t any i m p l i c a t i o n t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s June 2011 judgment t h a t t h e c h i l d dependent a t the time that that only p e t i t i o n s pending before of t r i a l judgment grandparents' was entered. was The the j u v e n i l e court a t the time were t h e m o t h e r ' s r e q u e s t and t h e m a t e r n a l on f o r custody requests 15 of the child f o r an award o f c h i l d 2110121 support the and child. for termination final that the f o r custody that However, we i t was contention a i n 2007 and custody and So. that Terry, 494 This were We with So. ( A l a . C i v . App. c o u r t has, to her not been a finding t h a t the agree w i t h the pendente 1987). 628 See and mother's lite orders orders d i d not a l t e r standard. her September f i n d i n g of dependency parental presumption 2d erred 2008 r e l a t e d t o t h e m o t h e r ' s r e q u e s t custody-modification the applied dependent or several t h a t those pendente l i t e 2d 1, 2-3 argues an i m p l i c i t judgment. there entered applicable child have a l r e a d y c o n c l u d e d final that standard o f t h e c h i l d b e c a u s e t h e r e had 2006 j u d g m e n t c o n t a i n e d 515 McLendon judgment d e c l a r i n g the unfit. mother's v i s i t a t i o n the mother argues t h a t the j u v e n i l e c o u r t concluding request the 5 Finally, by of Sims v. for the Sims, However, she f u r t h e r set forth i n Ex parte ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) , s h o u l d have b e e n a p p l i e d . many t i m e s , r e j e c t e d s u c h an argument. "Ex p a r t e T e r r y c o n f i r m s l o n g - s t a n d i n g A l a b a m a l a w t h a t a f i t n a t u r a l p a r e n t has a p r e s u m p t i v e r i g h t t o t h e c u s t o d y o f h i s o r h e r c h i l d as a g a i n s t The requests parties. 5 r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t the maternal grandparents' f o r r e l i e f were r e s o l v e d by an a g r e e m e n t o f t h e 16 2110121 a n o n p a r e n t . 494 So. 2d a t 632. A c c o r d i n g t o Ex p a r t e McLendon, s u p r a , t h a t r i g h t p e r s i s t s until e i t h e r the parent v o l u n t a r i l y f o r f e i t s custody of t h e c h i l d o r a j u d g m e n t awards c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d t o a n o n p a r e n t . 455 So. 2d a t 865. I n s u c h c a s e s , a p a r e n t c a n n o t r e g a i n c u s t o d y m e r e l y by p r o v i n g h i s o r h e r b i o l o g i c a l c o n n e c t i o n t o , and f i t n e s s t o r a i s e , t h e c h i l d , b u t a l s o must show t h a t t h e change i n c u s t o d y w o u l d so m a t e r i a l l y p r o m o t e t h e b e s t interests of the c h i l d t h a t the p o s i t i v e good b r o u g h t a b o u t f r o m t h e change o f c u s t o d y w o u l d more than offset the disruptive effects caused by u p r o o t i n g t h e c h i l d . I d . a t 865-66." R.W. v. D.S., [Ms. 2100536, O c t o b e r ( A l a . C i v . App. L.S., 78 So. 2011) 3d a t 981 (emphasis that the added). ( a f t e r t h e c h i l d was and c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d was held 21, 2011] McLendon So. 3d See , a l s o P.A. v. found awarded t o a r e l a t i v e , t h i s c o u r t standard applied to a subsequent 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 f i l e d by a p a r e n t ) ; J.W. 56 So. S.B., 3d 693, 699 ( A l a . C i v . App. 12 So. 3d 1217, 1218-20 2010) the mother's subsequent Accordingly, we applied the McLendon modification (same); ( A l a . C i v . App. d e p e n d e n c y o f t h e m o t h e r ' s c h i l d r e n was s t i p u l a t i o n by t h e p a r t i e s , v. C.B., and M.B. 2009) v. (when t h e adjudicated after a t h e McLendon s t a n d a r d a p p l i e d t o request f o r custody of the conclude dependent that petition. standard 17 the to juvenile the children). court properly mother's custody- 2110121 The evidence mother does challenge the sufficiency of the t o s u p p o r t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s judgment d e n y i n g h e r request f o r custody the not McLendon parte Riley, o f t h e c h i l d b a s e d on t h e a p p l i c a t i o n standard; thus, that 464 So. 2d 92, 94 issue i s waived. See of Ex ( A l a . 1985). B a s e d on t h e a r g u m e n t s p r e s e n t e d by t h e m o t h e r on a p p e a l , the judgment o f t h e j u v e n i l e court i s affirmed. AFFIRMED. Thompson, concur. P . J . , and Pittman, 18 Thomas, and Moore, 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.