J.L.L. III and T.L.O.L. v. Jefferson County Department of Human Resources et al.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 10/26/2012 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, 2012-2013 2110517 J.L.L. I I I and T.L.O.L. v. J e f f e r s o n County Department o f Human Resources et a l . Appeal from S t . C l a i r J u v e n i l e Court (JU-11-326.01) PER CURIAM. J . L . L . I I I a n d T.L.O.L., r e s p e c t i v e l y t h e u n c l e a u n t o f D.R.O., a m i n o r child judgment o f the S t . Clair adoption a c t i o n as t o t h e c h i l d ("the c h i l d " ) , Juvenile Court and t h e appeal dismissing from a their for lack of jurisdiction. 2110517 The c h i l d i s a r e s i d e n t of the S t a t e of Washington. c h i l d was a d j u d i c a t e d d e p e n d e n t i n O c t o b e r 2010, s h o r t l y The after she was b o r n , a n d , s i n c e t h a t t i m e , she has b e e n i n t h e l e g a l custody of the S t a t e of Washington. Washington The c h i l d h a s n e v e r left and h a s b e e n u n d e r t h e f o s t e r c a r e o f J.B. a n d E.B. ("the f o s t e r p a r e n t s " ) s i n c e O c t o b e r 2010. In O c t o b e r 2011, J . L . L . a n d T.L.O.L. uncle") filed a petition ("the a u n t a n d t h e i n the S t . C l a i r s e e k i n g t o adopt the c h i l d , Probate Court t h e i r n i e c e ; the c h i l d ' s parents c o n s e n t e d t o t h e p e t i t i o n . On November 3, 2011, t h e J e f f e r s o n County Department to o f Human R e s o u r c e s ("JCDHR") f i l e d a m o t i o n intervene i n the adoption proceedings; a notice of contest and objection interlocutory t o the a d o p t i o n ; a motion decree that might have to set aside been any e n t e r e d ; and a motion t o t r a n s f e r the a c t i o n t o the S t . C l a i r J u v e n i l e Court ("the juvenile court"). On November 9, 2011, t h e g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m i n t h e S t a t e o f Washington adoption p e t i t i o n day, filed an objected to the f i l e d by t h e aunt and t h e u n c l e . That a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e from the Washington office child's appearance and same Attorney General's objected to the juvenile c o u r t ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n on b e h a l f o f t h e W a s h i n g t o n D e p a r t m e n t o f 2 2110517 Social and H e a l t h S e r v i c e s , D i v i s i o n Services. aunt Additionally, and the uncle's the f o s t e r o f C h i l d r e n and F a m i l y parents adoption objected petition. The t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t on November to the case was 18, 2011. On J a n u a r y 4, 2012, t h e a u n t a n d t h e u n c l e f i l e d a b r i e f a r g u i n g t h a t the j u v e n i l e c o u r t had j u r i s d i c t i o n t o hear t h e i r adoption p e t i t i o n . based guardian challenging matter. On J a n u a r y ad litem the j u v e n i l e 15, 2012, t h e c h i l d ' s A l a b a m a appeared court's and filed jurisdiction a motion t o hear the The a u n t a n d t h e u n c l e f i l e d a s e c o n d b r i e f w i t h t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t a s s e r t i n g t h e i r p o s i t i o n as t o j u r i s d i c t i o n on February the case 2, 2012. T h a t same d a y , t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t d i s m i s s e d f o r l a c k of j u r i s d i c t i o n . The aunt and t h e uncle t h e r e a f t e r f i l e d a m o t i o n t o a l t e r , amend, o r v a c a t e t h e o r d e r o f d i s m i s s a l , w h i c h t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t d e n i e d on F e b r u a r y 2012. The a u n t and t h e u n c l e t i m e l y f i l e d t h i s The o n l y i s s u e on a p p e a l for want o f j u r i s d i c t i o n . as t o j u r i s d i c t i o n appeal. i s whether the j u v e n i l e erred i n d i s m i s s i n g the adoption proceedings a l e g a l matter. 3 court as t o t h e c h i l d The j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s is strictly 8, determination Therefore, we 2110517 a p p l y a de novo s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w . See Ex p a r t e M o r r i s , So. 2d 932, The 936 right 999 ( A l a . 2008). to adopt in Alabama is provided for and g o v e r n e d by t h e A l a b a m a A d o p t i o n Code ("the A A C " ) , § 26-10A-1 et s e q . , A l a . Code 1975. address jurisdiction The f o l l o w i n g p r o v i s i o n s of the AAC and venue o f a d o p t i o n p r o c e e d i n g s : "The probate court shall have original jurisdiction over p r o c e e d i n g s brought under the c h a p t e r . I f any p a r t y whose c o n s e n t i s r e q u i r e d fails t o consent or i s unable t o consent, the p r o c e e d i n g w i l l be t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h e c o u r t h a v i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n over j u v e n i l e matters f o r the l i m i t e d purpose of t e r m i n a t i o n of p a r e n t a l r i g h t s . The p r o v i s i o n s o f t h i s c h a p t e r s h a l l be a p p l i c a b l e t o proceedings i n the c o u r t h a v i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n over juvenile matters." Ala. Code 1975, § 26-10A-3. " A l l p e t i t i o n s may be f i l e d i n t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t i n the county i n w h i c h : (1) The m i n o r o r a d u l t r e s i d e s o r has l e g a l residence; (2) A p e t i t i o n e r r e s i d e s , o r i s i n m i l i t a r y s e r v i c e ; or (3) An o f f i c e o f any a g e n c y o r i n s t i t u t i o n o p e r a t i n g under the laws of t h i s state h a v i n g g u a r d i a n s h i p or custody of a minor o r an a d u l t i s l o c a t e d . " Ala. Code 1975, The State § 26-10A-4. a u n t and t h e u n c l e a r g u e t h a t t h e i r of Alabama, coupled with 4 the consent r e s i d e n c e i n the of the child's 2110517 parents, i s s u f f i c i e n t over the adoption principal brief, t o a f f o r d Alabama c o u r t s proceedings as to the In r e g a r d i n g the c h i l d the Washington c o u r t s because the c h i l d custody of the S t a t e of JCDHR, child. their h o w e v e r , t h e a u n t and t h e u n c l e a c k n o w l e d g e t h a t t h e r e i s a custody case legal jurisdiction in i t s brief, pending i n i s currently i n the Washington. asserts that the juvenile court lacked j u r i s d i c t i o n over the adoption proceedings because, i t says, shows the record "available residents resident the for of that adoption"; the the that child the S t a t e o f A l a b a m a ; and not child's State of Washington; o f W a s h i n g t o n and has was that parents the child that the of C h i l d r e n ("the I C P C " ) , adherence 44-2-20, A l a . Code Additionally, aunt and the that that Alabama adoption foster the Uniform proceedings of had Placement t o w h i c h i s mandated under 1975. the courts is a uncle p a r e n t s have f i l e d a brief a p p e a l . The f o s t e r p a r e n t s a s s e r t t h r e e a r g u m e n t s . F i r s t , contend are never been i n the c u s t o d y f a i l e d t o c o m p l y w i t h t h e I n t e r s t a t e Compact f o r t h e § legally Adoption cannot A c t ("the exercise because there 5 UAA") jurisdiction is already they dictates over an on the ongoing 2110517 c u s t o d y p r o c e e d i n g as t o t h e c h i l d p e n d i n g i n t h e W a s h i n g t o n courts. Second, t h e f o s t e r p a r e n t s argue t h a t Alabama courts cannot e x e r c i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n because, pursuant t o the P a r e n t a l K i d n a p p i n g P r e v e n t i o n A c t ("the P K P A " ) , 20 U.S.C. § 1738A, t h e home s t a t e o f t h e c h i l d , which t h e y argue i s Washington, the a u t h o r i t y t o e x e r c i s e e x c l u s i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n over matters concerning the c h i l d . Last, that the child's best interests custody the f o s t e r parents would n o t be has argue served by g r a n t i n g t h e a d o p t i o n p e t i t i o n o f t h e a u n t a n d t h e u n c l e . The f o s t e r p a r e n t s r e l y on JCDHR's a r g u m e n t s , w h i c h a r e g r o u n d e d in law a p p l i c a b l e to jurisdictional issues cases, i n support of the j u v e n i l e court's It i s undisputed that the c h i l d i n child-custody judgment. i s a resident o f and under the l e g a l custody of t h e State of Washington pursuant t o t h e c h i l d ' s d e p e n d e n c y a d j u d i c a t i o n o f O c t o b e r 2010. JCDHR and the f o s t e r p a r e n t s ' arguments a r e based, premise that Washington exercise the fact are ongoing of j u r i s d i c t i o n that the operates i n general, custody t o preempt on t h e proceedings another in state's o v e r t h e a d o p t i o n p r o c e e d i n g s as t o t h e c h i l d . JCDHR's a n d t h e f o s t e r p a r e n t s ' b r i e f s r e l y on t h e UAA and t h e PKPA t o s u p p o r t their 6 contention that Alabama 2110517 courts cannot exercise p r o c e e d i n g s . The jurisdiction o v e r t h e a d o p t i o n p r o c e e d i n g s . We e x e r c i s e of the a u n t and t h e u n c l e r e l y on t h e AAC t h e i r p o s i t i o n t h a t A l a b a m a c o u r t s may the over jurisdiction exercise adoption to jurisdiction a g r e e t h a t t h e AAC of Alabama courts support in speaks t o adoption p r o c e e d i n g s , b u t t h e p r o v i s i o n r e l i e d upon by t h e a u n t and the u n c l e does n o t s p e a k t o t h e e x e r c i s e o f t h a t j u r i s d i c t i o n an adoption proceeding subject of an ongoing another state. whether Alabama the courts and we can are i s already and confronted with i n l i g h t o f t h e UAA and the a r e s i d e n t of exercise jurisdiction Child Custody J u r i s d i c t i o n uncle posit that the the the issue over the PKPA. a s s e r t t h a t d o i n g so was govern Enforcement pursuant court dismissed of Act aunt the t o the UCCJEA; t h e y e r r o r b e c a u s e t h e UCCJEA i s i n t e n d e d competing custody direct application in this Code 1975, and § 30-3B-101 e t s e q . The juvenile a c t i o n f o r l a c k of j u r i s d i c t i o n to who proceeding U C C J E A " ) , A l a . Code 1975, the a child a u n t and t h e u n c l e a l s o d i s c u s s t h e a p p l i c a b i l i t y Uniform ("the custody Therefore, adoption proceedings The involving over o r d e r s . The UCCJEA does n o t have c a s e i n l i g h t o f § 30-3B-103, A l a . which e x p r e s s l y excludes adoption proceedings 7 from 2110517 t h e o p e r a t i o n o f t h e UCCJEA. To t h e e x t e n t t h a t JCDHR contends that court's t h e UCCJEA mandates a f f i r m a n c e o f t h e j u v e n i l e o r d e r , we are c o n s t r a i n e d by the p l a i n language o f t h e UCCJEA to disagree. In contrast, premise that, JCDHR's because arguments the are child grounded currently upon the resides W a s h i n g t o n and b e c a u s e t h e r e i s a c u s t o d y p r o c e e d i n g in pending t h e r e , t h e a u n t and t h e u n c l e w o u l d n o t be a b l e u l t i m a t e l y t o a d o p t t h e c h i l d b e c a u s e t h e y have n o t a l r e a d y o b t a i n e d c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d . However, o u r r e v i e w o f t h e AAC does n o t a s t a t u t o r y b a s i s f o r JCDHR's c o n t e n t i o n . I n d e e d , and 26-10A-6 specify that a d u l t s may adopt reveal §§ 26-10A-5 minors without p r e f e r e n c e t o e x i s t i n g c u s t o d y , w h i c h i s a d d r e s s e d o n l y as t o the matter AAC, the o f n e c e s s a r y c o n s e n t s u n d e r § 26-10A-7. U n d e r t h e proper procedure in a situation p r e s e n t e d h e r e , where c u s t o d y p r o c e e d i n g s another which state, provides i s set forth that proceedings u n t i l a like the have commenced i n i n § 26-10A-21, A l a . Code juvenile court should a determination i s reached stay was i n that t h e w r o n g remedy t o a p p l y i n t h i s 8 1975, adoption c u s t o d y p r o c e e d i n g . To d i s m i s s f o r l a c k o f j u r i s d i c t i o n b a s e d on t h e AAC one pending solely matter. 2110517 Next, we look to affirmance based assert over foster on t h e UAA that both conclusion the statutes p a r e n t s ' arguments and t h e PKPA. The provide parents a separate basis f o r t h a t Alabama c o u r t s cannot the a d o p t i o n p e t i t i o n foster urging exercise jurisdiction o f the aunt and the u n c l e . T h e i r argument i s o v e r s i m p l i f i e d ; a l t h o u g h t h e y s t a t e i n t h e i r that the UAA, exercising minor expressly jurisdiction i f there pending which in a over an prohibits court of another a or a d o p t i o n state, has been A l a b a m a , i n a c t u a l i t y i t has n o t b e e n a d o p t e d See D.B. v. M.A., 975 So. 3d 927, 936 n.5 of j u r i s d i c t i o n in situations here, because, the explicitly unlike exclude like from as adopted in this UCCJEA, i t does n o t by state. (Ala. Civ. the to a proceeding 2 0 0 6 ) . However, t h e PKPA p r o v i d e s a l t e r n a t i v e g u i d a n c e issue brief state adoption proceeding i s already a custody the App. on the one presented by i t s terms adoption proceedings. Moreover, the PKPA has b e e n i n t e r p r e t e d t o a p p l y t o a d o p t i o n a c t i o n s . B r o o k s h i r e v. B l a c k w e l l , 384 S.C. 333, re I l l . App. Baby G i r l Ill. Dec. 301 (Colo. 2004). F., 402 ( 2 0 0 8 ) ; and 682 S.E.2d 295 3d 127, ( C t . App. In N.E.2d 428, 342 P e o p l e ex r e l . A . J . C . , 88 P.3d 599 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1 7 3 8 A ( g ) , 9 932 2009); a p a r t o f t h e PKPA, 2110517 a state court "shall not exercise proceeding f o r a custody or v i s i t a t i o n jurisdiction i n any determination" f i l e d while a s i m i l a r proceeding i s already pending i n the c h i l d ' s home state. In 1 this case, Washington i s unquestionably the child's home s t a t e , w h i c h i s d e f i n e d i n t h e PKPA as t h e p l a c e where a minor has l i v e d U.S.C. § f o rat least 1738A(b)(4), Washington h e r e n t i r e s i x c o n s e c u t i v e months, s e e 28 because life. the The c h i l d child has has never lived in resided i n Alabama. Because t h e c u s t o d y p r o c e e d i n g c o n c e r n i n g t h e c h i l d was ongoing uncle courts filed i n Washington a t t h e time t h a t t h e aunt their cannot proceedings. adoption p e t i t i o n exercise and t h e i n Alabama, t h e Alabama jurisdiction over the adoption See Ex p a r t e D.B., 975 So. 2d 940 ( A l a . 2007) (granting exclusive j u r i s d i c t i o n over custody proceedings t o a minor's home s t a t e , p u r s u a n t t o t h e PKPA, where a c u s t o d y p r o c e e d i n g h a d a l r e a d y commenced i n that state). Therefore, 2 8 U.S.C. § 1738A(g) g i v e s e x c l u s i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n t o a s t a t e i n which custody o r v i s i t a t i o n proceedings i n v o l v i n g the m i n o r a r e a l r e a d y p e n d i n g so l o n g a s t h a t s t a t e i s e x e r c i s i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n c o n s i s t e n t l y w i t h t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e PKPA, i . e . , so l o n g as t h a t s t a t e i s e x e r c i s i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n as t h e c h i l d ' s home s t a t e . 1 10 2110517 the juvenile proceedings court's judgment dismissing the adoption i s affirmed. AFFIRMED. Pittman, J . , concurs. Thompson, P . J . , and B r y a n , Thomas, and Moore, J J . , c o n c u r i n the r e s u l t , without writings. 11

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.