J.A. and D.A. v. C.M.

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 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 2110262 J.A. and D.A. v. C.M. Appeal from Cherokee J u v e n i l e Court (JU-11-121.01, JU-11-122.01, and JU-11-123.01) BRYAN, J u d g e . J.A. a ("the f a t h e r " ) judgment court") that a n d D.A. ("the m o t h e r " ) a p p e a l o f t h e Cherokee J u v e n i l e concluded that dependent and t h a t o r d e r e d their Court three from ("the j u v e n i l e c h i l d r e n were n o t t h e c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d r e n t o be 2110262 returned t o t h e m o t h e r and the father. The m o t h e r and the f a t h e r a p p e a l e d from t h a t judgment because the j u v e n i l e c o u r t awarded C.M. children, ("the maternal aunt") visitation with the d e s p i t e i t s c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n were not dependent. The record on appeal procedural history. a petition maternal pendente l i t e 2011, On J u l y 8, 2011, On t h e same day, grandmother") following pertinent the m a t e r n a l aunt t h a t the filed children t h e m a t e r n a l a u n t and filed a verified j o i n t custody of the c h i l d r e n . the j u v e n i l e lite the i n the j u v e n i l e c o u r t a l l e g i n g were d e p e n d e n t . ("the reveals J.T. petition for A l s o on J u l y c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r a w a r d i n g pendente custody of the c h i l d r e n t o the m a t e r n a l grandmother the maternal aunt. order allowing children. On 8, and The j u v e n i l e c o u r t s u b s e q u e n t l y e n t e r e d an the August mother 5, 2011, order g r a n t i n g pendente l i t e and the the father juvenile to visit the court entered custody s o l e l y to the an maternal aunt. The 27, juvenile 2011, holding and court conducted i t entered a a f i n a l h e a r i n g on judgment on November t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n were n o t d e p e n d e n t . 2 The October 9, 2011, juvenile 2110262 court ordered mother and awarded the that custody the father. maternal at least However, a week. returned to j u v e n i l e court with the The the also children one week d u r i n g t h e summer and a u n t t o have t e l e p h o n e once the aunt v i s i t a t i o n weekend e a c h month and the maternal o f t h e c h i l d r e n be one allowed c o n t a c t w i t h the c h i l d r e n mother and the father filed a t i m e l y p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n , a r g u i n g , among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h a t the law d i d not aunt. a l l o w an a w a r d o f v i s i t a t i o n T h e i r p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n was law, see Rule father f i l e d 1 ( B ) , A l a . R. Juv. a t i m e l y n o t i c e of P., denied and appeal. to the by maternal operation t h e m o t h e r and children dependent. after i t determined that the 1 On a p p e a l , t h e m o t h e r and t h e f a t h e r a r g u e t h a t t h e c o u r t e r r e d by a w a r d i n g t h e m a t e r n a l of trial aunt v i s i t a t i o n w i t h the children were the not Whether the Alabama J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e A c t , § 12-15¬ 101 e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1975, a l l o w s f o r an a w a r d o f visitation T h e r e i s an o r d e r i n t h e r e c o r d p u r p o r t i n g t o deny t h e m o t h e r and the f a t h e r ' s p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n . The order i n d i c a t e s t h a t i t was f i l e d i n t h e c l e r k ' s o f f i c e on December 1, 2011, b u t 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 o r d e r had b e e n e n t e r e d . See R u l e 5 8 ( c ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. The m o t h e r and t h e f a t h e r f i l e d t h e i r p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n on November 16, 2 0 1 1 ; t h u s , i t was d e n i e d by o p e r a t i o n o f l a w on November 30, 2011. See R i l e 1 ( B ) , A l a . R. J u v . P. 1 3 2110262 i n the circumstances law. This court presented reviews i n t h i s appeal i s a question of questions o f l a w de novo. p a r t e Byrom, 47 So. 3d 7 9 1 , 794 ( A l a . 2010) ( c i t i n g See Ex Simcala, I n c . v. A m e r i c a n C o a l T r a d e , I n c . , 821 So. 2d 197, 200 ( A l a . 2001)) ("Because t h e i s s u e b e f o r e us p r e s e n t s o f l a w , we r e v i e w t h e m a t t e r a pure question de novo, w i t h o u t a n y p r e s u m p t i o n of c o r r e c t n e s s . " ) . "Juvenile courts arepurely creatures of statute and have e x t r e m e l y limited jurisdiction. See Ex p a r t e K.L.P., 868 So. 2d 454, 456 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2003). That l i m i t e d j u r i s d i c t i o n a l l o w s a j u v e n i l e c o u r t t o make a d i s p o s i t i o n of a c h i l d in a dependency p r o c e e d i n g o n l y a f t e r f i n d i n g t h e c h i l d d e p e n d e n t . V.W. v. G.W., 990 So. 2d 414, 417 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008) ( q u o t i n g K.B. v. C l e b u r n e County Dep't o f Human Res., 897 So. 2d 379, 389 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2004) (Murdock, J . , c o n c u r r i n g i n t h e r e s u l t ) ) ( ' " [ I ] n o r d e r t o make a d i s p o s i t i o n o f a c h i l d i n the c o n t e x t o f a dependency p r o c e e d i n g , t h e c h i l d must i n f a c t be d e p e n d e n t a t t h e t i m e o f t h a t disposition."')." T.B. v. T.H., 30 So. 3d 429, 431 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009) emphasis added). (first Furthermore, t h i s c o u r t has h e l d t h a t , i n a dependency a c t i o n , " [ i ] f a j u v e n i l e c o u r t d e t e r m i n e s t h a t t h e c h i l d i s n o t d e p e n d e n t , t h e c o u r t must d i s m i s s t h e d e p e n d e n c y p e t i t i o n . " K.C.G. v. S.J.R., 46 So. 3d 499, 501-02 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 0 ) . See a l s o § 1 2 - 1 5 - 3 1 0 ( b ) , A l a . Code 1975 ( " I f t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t f i n d s t h a t t h e a l l e g a t i o n s i n t h e [dependency] 4 2110262 petition have evidence, the When a not juvenile juvenile dependent, the a judgment C.F., 30 3d a t In court juvenile 3d proven court affecting 75 So. So. been 685, shall clear court "lack[s] custody of a the ( A l a . C i v . App. judgment, the child." 2011) juvenile c o u r t d i d n o t have j u r i s d i c t i o n awarding visitation to custody" of the the maternal is to not enter L.R.J. (citing c o u r t had jurisdiction children were dependent petition and returned to not to the allow the m o t h e r and 58 So. 3d 782, was t o do to custody court 2 v. T.B., explicitly Accordingly, to enter aunt children. juvenile v. T.D., child jurisdiction juvenile J.W. petition."). 431). i t s final the convincing the that f o u n d t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n were n o t d e p e n d e n t . "affect and dismiss determines the 687 by or The a judgment to only otherwise thing after finding that dismiss the the the the dependency of the children the father. See § 792 ( A l a . C i v . App. to be 12-15-310(b); 2010) ("There A c c o r d i n g l y , we r e j e c t t h e c o n t e n t i o n i n t h e maternal a u n t ' s b r i e f t h a t t h i s c o u r t c o u l d c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e r e was an i m p l i c i t f i n d i n g of dependency i n the j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s f i n a l j u d g m e n t , w h i c h w o u l d have a l l o w e d t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t t o make any d i s p o s i t i o n o f t h e c h i l d r e n t h a t i t f o u n d t o be i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f t h e c h i l d r e n . See § 1 2 - 1 5 - 3 1 4 ( a ) ( 4 ) , A l a . Code 1975. 2 5 2110262 is no p r o v i s i o n i n t h e A l a b a m a disposition of a child dependent, and, i n f a c t , to 637 Juvenile Justice Act f o r the i f the c h i l d i s n o t p r o v e n t o be the A c t requires the j u v e n i l e court dismiss the p e t i t i o n . " ) ; a n d J . L . v . W.E., 64 So. 3d 631, ( A l a . C i v . App. 2010) ( i n a d e p e n d e n c y p r o c e e d i n g , child has a p a r e n t there i s no n e e d able and w i l l i n g t o care when a f o r him o r h e r , t o conduct the d i s p o s i t i o n a l phase of a dependency p r o c e e d i n g because t h e c h i l d would s i m p l y r e t u r n t o his or her parent or parents). Accordingly, we insofar the j u v e n i l e court's as i t a w a r d e d t h e m a t e r n a l children. juvenile reverse The c a u s e court i s remanded to enter a aunt v i s i t a t i o n with judgment judgment with the instructions consistent to the with this opinion. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Thompson, concur. P . J . , and P i t t m a n , 6 Thomas, a n d 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.