J.K. v. State Department of Human Resources

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 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 be 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 2110311 J.K. v. State Department o f Human Resources Appeal from Shelby J u v e n i l e Court (JU-09-684.01) THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e . On September 28, 2009, t h e Shelby County Department o f Human R e s o u r c e s ("DHR") f i l e d a c o m p l a i n t ("the c h i l d " ) declared dependent. s e e k i n g t o have A.K. I n i t s complaint, DHR a l l e g e d t h a t P.K. ("the f a t h e r " ) a n d J.K. ("the m o t h e r " ) h a d 2110311 e n d a n g e r e d t h e c h i l d by e x p o s i n g h e r t o t h e d o m e s t i c b e t w e e n them. parents ("the and Pursuant DHR, the t o a s a f e t y p l a n e n t e r e d i n t o by child was p a t e r n a l grandmother"). lite violence placed An i n the O c t o b e r 27, home o f the D.H. 2009, p e n d e n t e order c o n t i n u e d the c h i l d ' s placement w i t h the p a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r and a w a r d e d t h e p a r e n t s s u p e r v i s e d v i s i t a t i o n w i t h the child. On December 15, 2009, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t e n t e r e d an i n w h i c h i t , among o t h e r and t h e f a t h e r had and found court order, physical the p a r e n t s o f f e r e d by Service Plan DHR ("ISP"). in custody t h a t the each s t i p u l a t e d to the c h i l d ' s the c h i l d dependent. 2009, o r d e r , services t h i n g s , determined the The set dependency of to cooperate forth c h i l d was custody mother As p a r t o f t h a t December were o r d e r e d and order i n an parents, awarded t o the mother. DHR the Individualized placed, pending the with 15, with was further primary ordered to c o n t i n u e t o s u p e r v i s e and p r o v i d e s e r v i c e s f o r t h e f a m i l y . On March 26, 2010, DHR filed i n the juvenile m o t i o n f o r an i m m e d i a t e s h e l t e r - c a r e h e a r i n g . DHR alleged that the child had 2 been taken court a I n t h a t motion, into protective 2110311 custody based on the a c t i v i t i e s " by Also order on mother. March finding custodian reports or 26, that other of 2010, "the custody of juvenile c o u r t awarded the child to the v i s i t a t i o n w i t h the c h i l d , was grandmother. a p p e a r on On order. be filed We a the "motion to valid postjudgment motion. must be that filed judgment). that, entry in of the of the father J.H., mother mother, then set aside" lite The supervised the and maternal the father See I n h e r A p r i l 15, 2010, Rule the the by M a r c h 26, new 2010, order, 1(B), in a i t was A l a . R. days not Juv. a P. juvenile action e n t r y o f an order or motion, the mother a l l e g e d terms 3 represented f i l e d more t h a n 14 2010, w i t h i n 14 d a y s a f t e r the the order. M a r c h 26, to for grandmother. the a postjudgment motion stipulating guardian, to provide by n o t e t h a t , b e c a u s e i t was the an i t s p e c i f i e d t h a t the mother's 2010, 2010, entered awarding pendente m o t h e r and and after (providing able and irrational parent, paternal signatures 15, no supervised t h e M a r c h 26, April counsel, to The has welfare" and/or j u v e n i l e court s u i t a b l e person s u p e r v i s i o n and visitation the child child's the "unstable of the March 26, 2010, 2110311 order, she had n o t u n d e r s t o o d t h a t she was dependency of the On mother J u l y 9, and the visitation orders. father, The 2010, DHR filed father the a and the alleging the child. with As s t i p u l a t i n g to result, had child DHR the maternal j u v e n i l e court a motion been in exercising violation sought to have of unsupervised earlier the from the c l e a r and it ordered entered an order on July those and order, the "admissions the j u v e n i l e court continued the of the c h i l d to the p a t e r n a l grandmother, and 1 The That order, ordered services. 2010, for like the the parents s u p e r v i s e d by earlier s e t f o r t h i n d e t a i l t h e v a r i o u s s e r v i c e s DHR parents 9, convincing evidence presented t h a t t h e p a r e n t s ' v i s i t a t i o n be or i t s designee. the grandmother h e l d i n contempt. purposes of a d j u d i c a t i o n . " award of c u s t o d y court mother, f i n d i n g t h e c h i l d d e p e n d e n t b a s e d on t h e p a r t i e s ' and that was orders, to cooperate or scheduled also p r o v i d i n g the I n a d d i t i o n , i n t h e J u l y 9, 2010, juvenile court DHR comply with dependency a dispositional hearing The r e c o r d does n o t c o n t a i n a t r a n s c r i p t o f t h e J u l y 9 2010, h e a r i n g , so t h i s c o u r t i s u n a b l e t o d e t e r m i n e t o w h a t evidence the j u v e n i l e c o u r t r e f e r s . 1 4 2110311 for September July 9, 2010, The time, The parents' signatures hearing i t u l t i m a t e l y was November 3, which appear on the least one order. dispositional and On in 2010. rescheduled c o n d u c t e d on 2011, i t found awarded c u s t o d y was the juvenile that the child at January 13, 2011. c o u r t s i g n e d an remained order dependent of the c h i l d to the p a t e r n a l grandmother. and In t h a t o r d e r , t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t s p e c i f i e d , among o t h e r t h i n g s , that the mother visitation juvenile 20, "as and the father a g r e e d t o and were arranged court a l s o scheduled awarded by a review supervised the p a r t i e s . " hearing The f o r December 2011. Although the November j u v e n i l e c o u r t c l e r k ' s date in the State Accordingly, court as specifies Judicial that required that order was by Rule "[a]n order 3, 2011, order contains stamp, t h a t o r d e r was Information not or a Ala. entered System ("SJIS"). by juvenile "entered" 58(c), not the the R. Civ. P., judgment shall be ' e n t e r e d ' w i t h i n the meaning of these Rules and which deemed the Rules A p p e l l a t e P r o c e d u r e as o f t h e a c t u a l d a t e o f t h e i n p u t o f o r d e r or judgment i n t o the S t a t e J u d i c i a l I n f o r m a t i o n 5 of the System." 2110311 T h u s , b e c a u s e i t was n o t e n t e r e d i n t h e S J I S , t h e November 3, 2011, constitute a valid order d i d not the j u v e n i l e c o u r t . (Ala. 2009) judgment" on t h e d a t e The the (The judgment " c o n s t i t u t e d a i t was final, the c o u r t not been 721 appealable clerk.). a motion t i t l e d "motion to r e c o n s i d e r " 2011, order. In 2 t h a t motion, a r g u e d , among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h a t t h e November 3, had 3d 720, of e n t e r e d i n the SJIS r a t h e r than s t a m p e d " f i l e d " by mother f i l e d 3, or judgment See G r a v e s v. G o l t h y , 21 So. on t h e d a t e i t was November order "entered" in the SJIS and that the mother 2011, she order had not court conducted the r e c e i v e d n o t i c e of i t . On December 20, scheduled review 2011, hearing, the juvenile and, during that c o n s i d e r e d the pending motions to " r e c o n s i d e r . " T h a t m o t i o n was n o t e n t e r e d December 5, 2010, d a t e stamp. 2 i n the hearing, 3 i t On t h a t same SJIS; i t contains a I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e m o t h e r ' s December 5, 2010, " m o t i o n t o r e c o n s i d e r , " see s u p r a n o t e 2, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t i n d i c a t e d t h a t i t had c o n s i d e r e d a p u r p o r t e d p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n f i l e d by t h e p a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r on O c t o b e r 14, 2011, w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e J u l y 9, 2010, d e p e n d e n c y o r d e r . I n t h a t motion, the p a t e r n a l grandmother c h a l l e n g e d the v i s i t a t i o n p r o v i s i o n of t h e J u l y 9, 2010, d e p e n d e n c y o r d e r . However, t h a t p u r p o r t e d p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n was n o t t i m e l y f i l e d . See R u l e 1 ( B ) , A l a . R. J u v . P. (a p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n i n a j u v e n i l e a c t i o n must be f i l e d w i t h i n 14 d a y s ) . I n t h e O c t o b e r 14, 2011, m o t i o n , t h e 3 6 2110311 d a t e , 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 i n w h i c h other things, "remains" order order. the t h e November A c c o r d i n g l y , we c o n c l u d e 3, 2011, order i n i t s December c o u r t r e l i e v e d DHR action, t h a t t h e December 20, i n c o r p o r a t e d t h e t e r m s o f t h e November 3, 2 0 1 1 , In addition, juvenile that t h e c o u r t ' s o r d e r and r e i t e r a t e d t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f that order. 2011, specified i t , among ordered from the case 20, 2 0 1 1 , o r d e r , any f u r t h e r the involvement i n " c l o s e d , " and a s s e s s e d costs. The S J I S c o n t a i n s r e f e r e n c e s t o t h e December 20, 2 0 1 1 , o r d e r such t h a t t h i s c o u r t concludes the SJIS pursuant 2011, from t o Rule 58(e). order i s the f i n a l Golthy, supra. t h a t t h a t o r d e r was e n t e r e d i n T h e r e f o r e , t h e December 20, judgment i n t h i s m a t t e r . The m o t h e r filed G r a v e s v. a timely notice of appeal t h e December 20, 2 0 1 1 , o r d e r . As an i n i t i a l matter, we n o t e t h a t the mother, without c i t i n g any s u p p o r t i n g a u t h o r i t y , a r g u e s t h a t t h e d e l a y b e t w e e n the ore tenus h e a r i n g and t h e e n t r y o f t h e j u v e n i l e court's p a t e r n a l grandmother requested t h a t the j u v e n i l e c o u r t e n t e r an o r d e r a l l o w i n g t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r a n d J.K. a n d K.K., the p a t e r n a l g r a n d f a t h e r and the p a t e r n a l stepgrandmother, t o have u n s u p e r v i s e d v i s i t a t i o n w i t h t h e c h i l d . In resolving t h i s a p p e a l , we do n o t d e t e r m i n e , e v e n a s s u m i n g t h a t t h e motion had been t i m e l y f i l e d , whether t h e p a t e r n a l grandmother had s t a n d i n g t o s e e k t h a t r e l i e f . 7 2110311 j u d g m e n t was unreasonable. The mother's a t t o r n e y represents i n t h e m o t h e r ' s b r i e f t o t h i s c o u r t t h a t on s e v e r a l he had orally requested a ruling However, t h e m o t h e r d i d n o t the juvenile court, for the juvenile court. motion to t h a t e f f e c t i n nor d i d she seek r e l i e f in this j u v e n i l e a c t i o n between date of the h e a r i n g resolve any the delay extensive Regardless, file from occasions we and the court the ruling. encourage the these matters from t h i s j u v e n i l e court to s t r i v e i n a more e x p e d i t i o u s manner. to "It is c l e a r f r o m t h e f o r m e r [Alabama J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e A c t ] , t h e 2008 [Alabama Juvenile Juvenile Procedure juveniles, 1110250, May The juvenile custody time 25, mother court of the Justice is Act], that, of in the 2012] argues resolving So. 3d i n her to the essence." v i o l a t e d her child and Ex , issues involving parte this due-process paternal Rules T.C., of [Ms. ( A l a . 2012). b r i e f to the Alabama court that r i g h t s by the awarding grandmother when the p a t e r n a l grandmother d i d not a s s e r t a c l a i m f o r c u s t o d y i n the juvenile court. Although prosecute a claim seeking to the juvenile court the paternal grandmother c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d , she that she 8 would be willing did not indicated to accept 2110311 custody Thus, of the c h i l d i n order the j u v e n i l e court was t o meet free the c h i l d ' s needs. t o award custody of the c h i l d t o h e r . See § 1 2 - 1 5 - 3 1 4 ( a ) ( 3 ) c . a n d ( 4 ) , A l a . Code 1975 (a j u v e n i l e c o u r t may a w a r d c u s t o d y o f a d e p e n d e n t c h i l d t o a relative its o r "[m]ake any o t h e r discretion shall deem i n t e r e s t s of the c h i l d " ) . order t o be as t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t i n f o r the welfare Further, 4 t h e mother f a i l s and to cite t o any a u t h o r i t y i n s u p p o r t o f h e r d u e - p r o c e s s argument. is not the f u n c t i o n of t h i s legal research. court best I t t o p e r f o r m an a p p e l l a n t ' s See Sea Calm S h i p p i n g Co. v. C o o k s , 565 So. 2d 212, 216 ( A l a . 1990) ("Where an a p p e l l a n t f a i l s t o c i t e any a u t h o r i t y f o r an a r g u m e n t , t h i s C o u r t may a f f i r m t h e j u d g m e n t as to those i s s u e s , f o r i t i s neither t h i s its function to perform a l l the Court's duty nor legal research f o r an i n her b r i e f submitted to this appellant."). The m o t h e r also argues c o u r t t h a t she " i n a d v e r t e n t l y " s t i p u l a t e d t o t h e d e p e n d e n c y o f t h e c h i l d i n t h e December 15, 2009, o r d e r . that she b e l i e v e d that s h e was merely The m o t h e r a r g u e s acknowledging the A s i s d i s c u s s e d l a t e r i n t h i s o p i n i o n , we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e J a n u a r y 13, 2 0 1 1 , h e a r i n g was a d i s p o s i t i o n a l , r a t h e r t h a n an a d j u d i c a t o r y , h e a r i n g . 4 9 2110311 dependency allegation and t h a t she d i d n o t i n t e n d t h a t t h e c h i l d was d e p e n d e n t . her brief on a p p e a l that the purported A l t h o u g h t h e mother argues i n she f i l e d "disavowed" h e r s t i p u l a t i o n t o agree a m o t i o n i n w h i c h she t o t h e dependency o f t h e c h i l d , d i s a v o w a l was made i n t h e m o t h e r ' s A p r i l 15, 2010, m o t i o n f i l e d i n r e f e r e n c e t o t h e M a r c h 26, 2010, o r d e r . R e g a r d l e s s , t h e m o t h e r does n o t a r g u e , a s p a r t o f t h i s that the juvenile court erred i n f i n d i n g in i t s December 15, 2009, o r d e r , the c h i l d 5 appeal, dependent a n d , h a d s h e done s o , t h i s c o u r t w o u l d be u n a b l e t o r e v i e w t h a t o r d e r b e c a u s e t h e m o t h e r did not timely Human Res. , Moreover, 68 appeal So. t h e mother it. 3d E.D. v . M a d i s o n C n t y . Dep't o f 163, 167 again ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 0 ) . stipulated to the issue of I n r e s o l v i n g t h i s a p p e a l , t h i s c o u r t need n o t and does not d e c i d e w h e t h e r t h e m o t h e r ' s s t i p u l a t i o n t o t h e M a r c h 26, 2010, o r d e r i n w h i c h t h e 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 "was without a parent ... a b l e to provide f o r the child's supervision and welfare" constituted a dependency d e t e r m i n a t i o n . Compare § 1 2 - 1 5 - 1 0 2 ( 8 ) , A l a . Code 1975 ( u s i n g s i m i l a r language t o d e f i n e t h e term "dependent c h i l d " ) ; see a l s o Ex p a r t e L.E.O., 61 So. 3d 1042, 1047 ( A l a . 2010) ( " I t i s a r e a s o n a b l e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f [§ 12-15-102, d e f i n i n g a 'dependent c h i l d , ' ] 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 w h e t h e r a c h i l d i s ' i n need o f c a r e o r s u p e r v i s i o n , ' t h e j u v e n i l e 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 i s r e c e i v i n g a d e q u a t e c a r e a n d s u p e r v i s i o n from those persons l e g a l l y o b l i g a t e d t o 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 . " ) . 5 10 2110311 dependency as stipulation supplanted contains of the July the e a r l i e r stipulations. mother ever The that record did n o t w i l l i n g l y and the The the order; j u v e n i l e c o u r t , n o r does she a r g u e t o t h i s c o u r t , t h a t she 2010, that 2010, the 9, indication 9, to July no part argued knowingly s t i p u l a t e to t h a t p o r t i o n of order f i n d i n g the m o t h e r does n o t child address dependent. i n her brief on s t i p u l a t i o n t o t h a t p o r t i o n o f t h e J u l y 9, 2010, t h e c h i l d t o be d e p e n d e n t . 2010, order, dispositional ("If the among o t h e r hearing. juvenile e v i d e n c e ... order her finding As a l r e a d y i n d i c a t e d , t h e J u l y things, scheduled See court appeal § the matter 12-15-311(a), finds from clear for a Ala. Code 1975 and convincing t h a t a c h i l d i s dependent, the j u v e n i l e c o u r t proceed immediately, may i n t h e a b s e n c e o f o b j e c t i o n s h o w i n g good c a u s e o r a t a p o s t p o n e d h e a r i n g , t o make p r o p e r d i s p o s i t i o n the case." 9, (emphasis a d d e d ) ) . A t the b e g i n n i n g of the of January 13, 2011, h e a r i n g , the j u v e n i l e c o u r t e x p r e s s l y noted t h a t the c h i l d was d e p e n d e n t and t h a t t h e p a r t i e s were b e f o r e t h e s o l e l y on the child. i s s u e of the d i s p o s i t i o n , Specifically, the j u v e n i l e court or placement, of stated: "THE COURT: A l l right. In t h i s case the c o u r t a p e t i t i o n was f i l e d a l l e g i n g t h e c h i l d t o be 11 court the 2110311 dependent. On December 1 5 t h , 2009, t h e c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r a d j u d i c a t i n g t h e c h i l d t o be dependent, p l a c i n g custody w i t h - - o r l e a v i n g custody with both p a r e n t s , placement w i t h t h e mother, pending an o r d e r from a court of competent jurisdiction. " S u b s e q u e n t t o t h a t , t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f Human Resources f i l e d a motion f o r a s h e l t e r care h e a r i n g . T h a t s h e l t e r c a r e h e a r i n g was h e l d on M a r c h 2 6 t h , 2010. And p u r s u a n t t o a s h e l t e r c a r e o r d e r , t h e c o u r t l e f t custody w i t h both p a r e n t s , placement w i t h [the paternal grandmother] for shelter-care purposes. "We came b a c k on J u l y 9 t h , 2010, f o r a subsequent a d j u d i c a t i o n . A t t h a t t i m e an o r d e r was e n t e r e d a d j u d i c a t i n g t h e c h i l d t o be d e p e n d e n t , p l a c i n g custody w i t h [the p a t e r n a l grandmother], pending a f u r t h e r or pending a d i s p o s i t i o n trial t h a t was o r i g i n a l l y s e t on September 1 6 t h . I t was not h e a r d t h a t day, has been c o n t i n u e d a c o u p l e o f t i m e s , a n d t h a t i s what we a r e h e r e t o d a y a b o u t i s the d i s p o s i t i o n t h a t a t t a c h e s t o the a d j u d i c a t i o n o r d e r o f J u l y 9 t h , 2010. " W i t h t h a t , t h i s h e a r i n g w i l l be i n t h e n a t u r e of a d i s p o s i t i o n a l h e a r i n g . T h e r e f o r e , a l l e v i d e n c e t h a t i s r e l e v a n t a n d m a t e r i a l i s a d m i s s i b l e . The law specifically excludes [ s i c ] t h e competent, r e l e v a n t , m a t e r i a l , which a l l o w s the c o u r t t o hear h e a r s a y t e s t i m o n y , a n d d o c u m e n t a r y e v i d e n c e c a n come i n i n c e r t a i n manners, j u s t b a s i c a l l y r e l a x i n g t h e rules of evidence f o r the court to get information n e c e s s a r y t o make a d e t e r m i n a t i o n as t o what t h e a p p r o p r i a t e placement f o r t h i s dependent c h i l d i s . " (Emphasis After added.) that statement, the j u v e n i l e court asked p a r t i e s w h e t h e r t h e y were r e a d y t o p r o c e e d , a n d e a c h 12 the answered 2110311 in the affirmative. None of the p a r t i e s disputed child was d e p e n d e n t o r t h a t 2011, h e a r i n g was f o r t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e d i s p o s i t i o n o f a dependent child. mother, mentioned the purpose that the In fact, of the January the p a r t i e s , t h a t the January 13, i n c l u d i n g the 13, 2 0 1 1 , h e a r i n g was a d i s p o s i t i o n a l h e a r i n g on s e v e r a l o c c a s i o n s , i n c l u d i n g i n t h e i r discussions of the relaxed e v i d e n t i a r y rules a p p l i c a b l e to a d i s p o s i t i o n a l , a s o p p o s e d t o an a d j u d i c a t o r y , h e a r i n g . See § 1 2 - 1 5 - 3 1 1 ( b ) , A l a . Code 1975 ( i n a d i s p o s i t i o n a l h e a r i n g , " a l l r e l e v a n t and m a t e r i a l evidence h e l p f u l i n d e t e r m i n i n g the b e s t interests court of the c h i l d even though ... may be r e c e i v e d b y t h e j u v e n i l e not admissible in the adjudicatory h e a r i n g " ) ; s e e a l s o R.G. v. C a l h o u n C n t y . Dep't o f Human R e s . , 716 So. 2d 219, 220 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1998) ( h o l d i n g t h a t , u n d e r the predecessor t o § 1 2 - 1 5 - 3 1 1 ( b ) , A l a . Code 1975, " [ i ] n a d i s p o s i t i o n a l h e a r i n g , a l l m a t e r i a l and r e l e v a n t evidence may be c o n s i d e r e d b y t h e t r i a l c o u r t " ) ; a n d Heup v . S t a t e Dep't o f Human R e s . , 522 So. 2d 295, 298 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1988) (same). The m o t h e r a r g u e s b e f o r e the January t h i s court that the evidence a t 13, 2 0 1 1 , h e a r i n g d i d n o t s u p p o r t t h a t t h e c h i l d was d e p e n d e n t . a determination However, " b e c a u s e t h e m o t h e r 13 2110311 h a d a l r e a d y s t i p u l a t e d t o t h e d e p e n d e n c y o f t h e c h i l d , DHR d i d n o t have t h e b u r d e n o f p r o v i n g the d i s p o s i t i o n a l h e a r i n g . " Human R e s . , (Ala. [Ms. 2100761, C i v . App. 2012). the dependency of the c h i l d i n K.D. v. J e f f e r s o n C n t y . Dep't o f J a n . 13, 2012] So. 3d Thus, b e c a u s e t h e r e c o r d , on appeal d e m o n s t r a t e s t h a t the mother had s t i p u l a t e d t o the i s s u e o f the c h i l d ' s d e p e n d e n c y , we her argument that dependency. of a to ("[W]hen p a r t i e s s t i p u l a t e t o t h e child, dependent w i t h o u t the i s merit the evidence d i d not support a f i n d i n g of I d . at dependency cannot say t h a t there a juvenile court c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g may find a child evidence e s t a b l i s h i n g c h i l d ' s dependency."). In her b r i e f s submitted to this court, the mother does not e x p l i c i t l y argue t h a t the j u v e n i l e c o u r t e r r e d i n awarding custody of the c h i l d t o the p a t e r n a l grandmother pursuant t o the Alabama Code 1975. (providing Juvenile See 6 that a J u s t i c e A c t , § 12-15-101 e t s e q . , A l a . § 12-15-314(a)(3)c., juvenile court may Ala. award Code custody 1975 of a dependent c h i l d t o a r e l a t i v e the j u v e n i l e c o u r t concludes i s I n h e r r e p l y b r i e f , the mother a g a i n a r g u m e n t t h a t t h e c h i l d was n o t d e p e n d e n t . 6 14 r e i t e r a t e s her 2110311 "qualified to receive language i n h e r b r i e f s u c h an a r g u m e n t . we b r i e f l y c o u l d p o s s i b l y be c o n s t r u e d Therefore, a juvenile as r a i s i n g o u t o f an abundance o f c a u t i o n , court may that i s i n the c h i l d ' s best 3 1 4 ( a ) , A l a . Code 1975; Res., However, n o t e t h a t a f t e r a c h i l d h a s been a d j u d i c a t e d t o dependent, disposition f o r the child") . address that i s s u e . We f i r s t be and care make any c u s t o d i a l interests. § 12-15- K.F. v . C l e b u r n e C n t y . Dep't o f Human 78 So. 3d 983, 988-89 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 1 ) . " ' I n Ex p a r t e A l a b a m a D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s , 682 So. 2d 4 5 9 [ , 460] ( A l a . 1 9 9 6 ) , t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t s t a t e d t h e a p p l i c a b l e p r i n c i p l e s o f a p p e l l a t e review i n the context of a challenge t o a juvenile court's custodial disposition of a dependent c h i l d : " ' " A p p e l l a t e review i s l i m i t e d i n cases where t h e e v i d e n c e i s p r e s e n t e d to the t r i a l court ore tenus. In a c h i l d custody c a s e , an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t p r e s u m e s t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s t o be c o r r e c t a n d w i l l n o t r e v e r s e w i t h o u t p r o o f o f a c l e a r abuse o f discretion or p l a i n error. R e u t e r v. N e e s e , 586 So. 2d 232 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 1 ) ; J . S . v . D.S., 586 So. 2d 944 ( A l a . Civ. App. 1 9 9 1 ) . This presumption i s e s p e c i a l l y a p p l i c a b l e where t h e e v i d e n c e i s conflicting. Ex P a r t e P.G.B., 600 So. 2d 259, 261 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) . An a p p e l l a t e c o u r t w i l l n o t r e v e r s e t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment b a s e d on t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s o f f a c t u n l e s s t h e f i n d i n g s a r e so p o o r l y s u p p o r t e d b y t h e e v i d e n c e as t o be p l a i n l y a n d 15 2110311 p a l p a b l y wrong. See Ex p a r t e W a l t e r s , So. 2d 1352 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) . " ' " 580 K.F. v. C l e b u r n e C n t y . Dep't o f Human R e s . , 78 So. 3d a t 989 (quoting J . J . v . J.H.W., 27 So. 3d 519, 522 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008)). The m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t i n S e p t e m b e r 2010 s h e s e p a r a t e d from t h e f a t h e r and f i l e d a c o m p l a i n t f o r a d i v o r c e father. The m o t h e r a n d t h e f a t h e r h a d t w i c e b e f o r e divorce i n 2010, b u t t h e y had r e c o n c i l e d each from t h e sought t o time. The m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e m a r r i a g e was o v e r , b u t s h e a d m i t t e d having "gone their latest out a couple of times" with the father since separation. In h e r t e s t i m o n y , t h e mother m i n i m i z e d t h e e x t e n t of the c o n f r o n t a t i o n s between h e r s e l f and t h e f a t h e r , she d e n i e d any domestic violence m a r r i a g e was o v e r . 2010 separation mother's home between t h e two, a n d s h e s t a t e d I t i s u n d i s p u t e d t h a t , a f t e r h e r September from t h e f a t h e r , but that m o t h e r ' s home t o l i v e t h e m o t h e r moved i n t o h e r t h e mother i n a hotel was l i v i n g h a d moved out of her i n December 2 0 1 0 . t i m e o f t h e J a n u a r y 13, 2 0 1 1 , h e a r i n g , she that the t h e mother At the testified, i n a h o t e l a n d p l a n n e d t o move t o a townhouse 16 2110311 on F e b r u a r y 1, 2011; t h e m o t h e r lease for that The indicates the p a t e r n a l that the p a t e r n a l The paternal juvenile the would indicated, her w i l l i n g n e s s placement or custodian mother and the father t h e c h i l d h a d been i n h e r c u s t o d y grandmother grandmother court, that g r a n d m o t h e r h a d done a good j o b i n c a r i n g f o r the c h i l d while and a townhouse. record agreed that s t a t e d t h a t she h a d s i g n e d f o r the continue in a t o do filing to continue so. in to serve the as a child. We n o t e t h a t much o f t h e m o t h e r ' s t e s t i m o n y a b o u t e v e n t s that had occurred regarding during the this with matter, evidence. by s e t t i n g Rather, we note or reunification c o n t r a d i c t e d b y t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d by DHR. u s e f u l p u r p o s e w o u l d be s e r v e d that of h e r knowledge o f and c o o p e r a t i o n g o a l s , was of pendency No forth a discussion that i t is the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t , as t h e t r i e r o f f a c t , t o resolve conflicts i n the evidence. Human R e s . , 986 So. 2d 1172, 1196 juvenile has they court v. State ( A l a . C i v . App. Dep't 2007) . of The i s i n t h e b e s t p o s i t i o n t o do s o , b e c a u s e i t the advantage of observing testify J.C. and, thereby, t h e p a r t i e s and w i t n e s s e s assess 17 their demeanor as and 2110311 credibility. of those I_d. Thus, a s s u m i n g t h a t i t r e s o l v e d some o r a l l factual disputes against t h e mother, the juvenile c o u r t was f r e e t o r e j e c t some o r a l l o f t h e r e m a i n d e r o f t h e mother's testimony as lacking in credibility. Ex parte A.M.B., 4 So. 3 d 472, 474 n. 3 ( A l a . 2 0 0 8 ) ; Agee v. S t a t e e x rel. G a l a n o s , 627 So. 2 d 960, 963 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 3 ) . Our review supports a evidence that credibility, of the evidence conclusion could that cause including adequately care i n the record the juvenile i t to her court question statements f o r and p r o t e c t t h e c h i l d . on received the that appeal mother's she could In contrast, the evidence i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e p a t e r n a l grandmother had p r o v i d e d a good home f o r t h e c h i l d , during t h a t she had p r o t e c t e d the c h i l d t h e p e n d e n c y o f t h i s m a t t e r , a n d t h a t s h e was w i l l i n g to continue t o do s o . G i v e n t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d t o i t , we cannot say t h a t the j u v e n i l e court e r r e d i n determining 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 was i n t h e c h i l d ' s b e s t The awarding mother l a s t to the paternal grandmother interests. argues t h a t the j u v e n i l e her v i s i t a t i o n that a t the d i s c r e t i o n 18 court erred i n of the paternal 2110311 grandmother r a t h e r than awarding h e r a s p e c i f i c v i s i t a t i o n with the c h i l d . "[T]he d e t e r m i n a t i o n This schedule c o u r t has s t a t e d : of proper visitation " ' " i s w i t h i n t h e sound d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t , and t h a t c o u r t ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n s h o u l d n o t be r e v e r s e d b y an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t a b s e n t a s h o w i n g o f an abuse o f discretion." Ex p a r t e B l a n d , 796 So. 2d [340] a t 343 [ ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) ] . "The p r i m a r y consideration i n setting v i s i t a t i o n rights i s t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t o f t h e c h i l d . Each c h i l d v i s i t a t i o n c a s e must be d e c i d e d on i t s own f a c t s a n d c i r c u m s t a n c e s . " DuBois v. D u B o i s , 714 So. 2d 308, 309 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1998) ( c i t a t i o n o m i t t e d ) . ' " W i l l i a m s v. W i l l i a m s , C i v . App. 2 004) . 905 So. 2d 820, 830 (Ala. "Although t h i s court recognizes t h a t v i s i t a t i o n i s a m a t t e r l e f t t o t h e sound d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t , s u c h d i s c r e t i o n i s n o t unbounded. This c o u r t has p r e v i o u s l y h e l d t h a t i t i s r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r f o r a j u v e n i l e court t o leave the matter of a noncustodial parent's v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s t o the sole d i s c r e t i o n of a c u s t o d i a l parent or other legal custodian of the c h i l d . S e e , e . g . , L.L.M. v . S.F., 919 So. 2d 307 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2005) ( r e v e r s i n g a j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s v i s i t a t i o n award t h a t p l a c e d t h e f a t h e r i n c o n t r o l o f t h e mother's v i s i t a t i o n w i t h t h e c h i l d ) , a n d K.B. v. C l e b u r n e C o u n t y Dep't o f Human R e s . , 897 So. 2d 379 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2004) ( r e v e r s i n g a j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s v i s i t a t i o n award t h a t essentially conditioned t h e mother's right to v i s i t a t i o n w i t h h e r c h i l d upon t h e c o n s e n t o f t h e c h i l d ' s a u n t a n d u n c l e ) ; s e e a l s o D.B. v . M a d i s o n C o u n t y Dep't o f Human R e s . , 937 So. 2d 535, 541 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2006) ( p l u r a l i t y o p i n i o n r e v e r s i n g a j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t t h a t made t h e m o t h e r ' s 19 of 2110311 visitation '"subject to any conditions and l i m i t a t i o n s deemed t o be n e c e s s a r y a n d a p p r o p r i a t e " ' by t h e c h i l d ' s g r e a t a u n t , who was a w a r d e d c u s t o d y of t h e c h i l d ) . " A.M.B. v . R.B.B., 4 So. 3 d 468, 471-72 (concluding that "the juvenile court ( A l a . C i v . App. 2007) i n this case e r r e d i n f a i l i n g t o s e t f o r t h a s p e c i f i c minimum v i s i t a t i o n id. schedule," a t 472). Accordingly, we a g r e e w i t h t h e m o t h e r t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e court e r r e d i n awarding her v i s i t a t i o n a t the d i s c r e t i o n of the p a t e r n a l grandmother. of the j u v e n i l e the entry schedule. We r e v e r s e t h e v i s i t a t i o n p r o v i s i o n c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t , a n d we remand t h e c a u s e f o r o f a judgment s e t t i n g A.M.B. v . R.B.B., forth a specific visitation supra. AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED. Pittman, B r y a n , a n d Thomas, J J . , c o n c u r . Moore, J . , c o n c u r s i n t h e r e s u l t , w i t h o u t 20 writing.

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.