Joseph P. LaRose III and Ann LaRose v. Royce LaRose

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 12/7/12 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, 2012-2013 2110655 Joseph P. LaRose I I I and Ann LaRose v. Royce LaRose Appeal from Cullman C i r c u i t Court (DR-10-243 and DR-10-481) BRYAN, J u d g e . This i s t h e second time these parties have appeared before t h i s court r e l a t e d t o protection-from-abuse proceedings in the Cullman Circuit procedural history Court. We set forth the pertinent i n L a R o s e v . L a R o s e , 71 So. 3d 651 (Ala. 2110655 Civ. App. 2 0 1 1 ) , as follows: 1 "On A p r i l 18, 2010, Ann L a R o s e ('the p a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r ' ) and K e l l y H i l l ('the p a t e r n a l a u n t ' ) came t o A l a b a m a t o e x e r c i s e v i s i t a t i o n w i t h V a n e s s a L a R o s e ('the c h i l d ' ) p u r s u a n t t o a S o u t h C a r o l i n a consent judgment awarding the p a t e r n a l grandmother and Joseph P. LaRose III ('the paternal grandfather') unsupervised v i s i t a t i o n w i t h the c h i l d e v e r y t h i r d weekend and f o r two nonconsecutive two-week p e r i o d s e a c h summer. Royce L a R o s e ('the mother') r e f u s e d t o p e r m i t the p a t e r n a l grandmother and t h e p a t e r n a l a u n t t o v i s i t w i t h t h e c h i l d . I n f a c t , t h e f o l l o w i n g day, on A p r i l 19, 2010, the mother f i l e d a p e t i t i o n i n the Cullman C i r c u i t C o u r t seeking a protection-from-abuse ('PFA') order p u r s u a n t t o A l a . Code 1975, § 30-5-1 e t s e q . , against both the p a t e r n a l grandmother and the p a t e r n a l a u n t . The m o t h e r ' s p e t i t i o n was a s s i g n e d c a s e number DR-10-243. The c o u r t e n t e r e d two ex p a r t e PFA orders r e s t r a i n i n g both the paternal g r a n d m o t h e r and t h e p a t e r n a l a u n t f r o m c o n t a c t w i t h the m o t h e r , as p e r m i t t e d by A l a . Code 1975, § 3 0 - 5 - 7 ( a ) ( 1 ) and ( b ) ( 1 ) - ( 3 ) . "On May 25, 2010, t h e p a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r and the p a t e r n a l g r a n d f a t h e r ( r e f e r r e d t o c o l l e c t i v e l y a t t i m e s as 'the p a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s ' ) f i l e d a 'Notice of Registration of Child Custody Determination' pursuant t o A l a . Code 1975, § 30-3B-305, a p o r t i o n o f t h e U n i f o r m C h i l d C u s t o d y Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act ('UCCJEA'), c o d i f i e d a t A l a . Code 1975, § 30-3B-101 e t s e q . T h a t a c t i o n was a s s i g n e d c a s e number DR-10-243.01. ... " "On or about July 16, 2010, the paternal The t e r m s d e f i n e d i n t h e f o l l o w i n g e x c e r p t f r o m s u p r a , w i l l be u s e d t h r o u g h o u t t h i s o p i n i o n . 1 2 LaRose, 2110655 g r a n d f a t h e r , who was n o t t h e s u b j e c t o f t h e ex p a r t e PFA o r d e r s i n e x i s t e n c e a t t h e t i m e , a t t e m p t e d t o e x e r c i s e v i s i t a t i o n w i t h the child. The mother refused to allow the paternal grandfather to exercise his v i s i t a t i o n . On J u l y 21, 2010, the m o t h e r f i l e d a p e t i t i o n s e e k i n g a PFA o r d e r a g a i n s t t h e p a t e r n a l g r a n d f a t h e r ; t h a t a c t i o n was assigned c a s e number DR-10-481. The t r i a l c o u r t s e t a h e a r i n g on t h e m o t h e r ' s PFA p e t i t i o n on A u g u s t 4, 2010, and c o n s o l i d a t e d c a s e number DR-10-481 w i t h c a s e numbers DR-10-243 and DR-10-243.01. We n o t e t h a t , d e s p i t e the c o n s o l i d a t i o n of the actions, 'the actions r e t a i n [ e d ] t h e i r s e p a r a t e i d e n t i t y and t h e p a r t i e s and p l e a d i n g s i n one a c t i o n d [ i d ] n o t a u t o m a t i c a l l y become parties and pleadings in the other a c t i o n [ s ] . ' R u l e 42, C o m m i t t e e Comments on 1973 A d o p t i o n ; see a l s o Ex p a r t e F l e x i b l e P r o d s . Co., 915 So. 2d 34, 50 ( A l a . 2 0 0 5 ) ; and H.J.T. v. S t a t e ex r e l . M.S.M., 34 So. 3d 1276, 1278 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009). " A f t e r t h e t r i a l on t h e c o n s o l i d a t e d a c t i o n s , t h e t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d a j u d g m e n t i n e a c h a c t i o n on A u g u s t 10, 2010. I n t h o s e j u d g m e n t s , t h e t r i a l c o u r t found that the paternal grandparents and the p a t e r n a l a u n t had 'engaged i n a p a t t e r n o f a b u s i v e c o n d u c t d e s i g n e d t o h a r a s s , i n t i m i d a t e and t h r e a t e n t h e [mother] and t h a t she i s f e a r f u l f o r h e r l i f e and t h a t o f h e r c h i l d . ' As a r e s u l t , t h e t r i a l c o u r t prohibited the paternal grandparents and the p a t e r n a l aunt "'from contacting the [mother], her children, husband or anyone in their extended families, in any manner whatsoever, i n person, through a third (3rd) p a r t y , d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y , by m a i l , phone, o r any o t h e r e l e c t r o n i c means and s h a l l m a i n t a i n a d i s t a n c e away f r o m t h e aforementioned persons of at l e a s t two t h o u s a n d (2,000) f e e t a t a l l t i m e s . ' 3 2110655 "In a d d i t i o n , the t r i a l court s p e c i f i c a l l y addressed the p a t e r n a l grandparents' request f o r enforcement of t h e v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s awarded i n t h e South C a r o l i n a judgment, s t a t i n g : "'Further, the [paternal grandparents'] r i g h t s o f v i s i t a t i o n w i t h t h e [mother's] minor daughter a r e hereby suspended i n the S t a t e o f A l a b a m a u n t i l t h e same c a n be r e v i e w e d by t h e South C a r o l i n a c o u r t , w i t h a view toward m o d i f i c a t i o n thereof a l l o w i n g f o r s t r i c t s u p e r v i s i o n o f same f o r t h e s a f e t y and s a f e r e t u r n o f t h e c h i l d t o h e r mother.'" Id. a t 653-54. The p a t e r n a l a u n t a n d t h e p a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s the trial dismissed paternal court's August 10, 2010, j u d g m e n t s . appealed This court t h e a p p e a l t a k e n by t h e p a t e r n a l grandmother and t h e aunt the p a t e r n a l i n c a s e no. DR-10-243 a n d t h e a p p e a l t a k e n b y g r a n d f a t h e r i n case filed more t h a n no. DR-10-481 b e c a u s e t h e appeal "was August 10, 2010, j u d g m e n t i n e a c h o f t h o s e two a c t i o n s a n d was therefore not t i m e l y f i l e d . " Ala. 42 d a y s a f t e r the entry I d . a t 655 ( c i t i n g R u l e R. App. P . ) . However, b e c a u s e t h e p a t e r n a l of the 4(a)(1), grandparents' a p p e a l i n c a s e no. DR-10-243.01 was t i m e l y , we c o n s i d e r e d " a r g u m e n t s on a p p e a l r e l a t i n g to the t r i a l court's judgment i n s o f a r as i t a d d r e s s e [ d ] t h e r e g i s t r a t i o n a n d e n f o r c e m e n t the South C a r o l i n a v i s i t a t i o n the of j u d g m e n t p u r s u a n t t o A l a . Code 4 2110655 1975, the § 30-3B-305, -308, a n d -310." I d ^ a t 656. I n r e g a r d t o a p p e a l f r o m c a s e no. DR-10-243.01, we h e l d that, "[b]ecause t h e mother d i d not present or e s t a b l i s h any d e f e n s e t o t h e e n f o r c e m e n t o f t h e S o u t h C a r o l i n a judgment u n d e r § 3 0 - 3 B - 3 0 8 ( d ) , t h e only possible basis f o rthe t r i a l court's f a i l u r e to e n f o r c e t h a t judgment w o u l d have h a d t o have a r i s e n from i t s assumption of temporary emergency j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r § 3 0 - 3 B - 2 0 4 [ , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 ] . As e x p l a i n e d i n t h e comment t o § 30-3B-310: " ' T h e r e a r e no ... d e f e n s e s [other than those enumerated i n § 30-3B-308(d)] t o an e n f o r c e m e n t a c t i o n . I f t h e c h i l d w o u l d be e n d a n g e r e d b y t h e e n f o r c e m e n t o f a c u s t o d y o r v i s i t a t i o n o r d e r , t h e r e may be a b a s i s f o r t h e a s s u m p t i o n o f emergency j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r S e c t i o n 204 o f t h i s A c t . Upon t h e f i n d i n g o f an emergency, t h e c o u r t i s s u e s a t e m p o r a r y o r d e r and d i r e c t s t h e p a r t i e s t o proceed e i t h e r i n the court that i s e x e r c i s i n g c o n t i n u i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h e c u s t o d y p r o c e e d i n g u n d e r S e c t i o n 202, o r t h e c o u r t t h a t w o u l d have j u r i s d i c t i o n to modify t h e c u s t o d y d e t e r m i n a t i o n under S e c t i o n 203.' "§ 30-3B-310, O f f i c i a l Comment. Thus, a l t h o u g h t h e mother d i d n o t p r e s e n t any d e f e n s e s to the e n f o r c e m e n t o f t h e S o u t h C a r o l i n a j u d g m e n t , we a g r e e w i t h t h e mother t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t PFA o r d e r s p r o t e c t i n g t h e m o t h e r a n d t h e c h i l d were w a r r a n t e d s e r v e d as a b a s i s f o r t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s e x e r c i s e o f t e m p o r a r y emergency j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n t t o § 30-3B-204(a) a n d t h e r e f o r e as a b a s i s f o r i t s d e c i s i o n t o d e c l i n e enforcement of the South C a r o l i n a judgment. 5 2110655 "We c o n c l u d e t h a t , a l t h o u g h t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d have t e m p o r a r y e m e r g e n c y j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n t t o § 30-3B-204(a), the t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment f a i l s t o comply w i t h the requirements of § 30-3B-204(c) b e c a u s e i t c o n t a i n s no t i m e l i m i t w i t h i n w h i c h t h e m o t h e r must o b t a i n an o r d e r m o d i f y i n g the South C a r o l i n a judgment from the South C a r o l i n a c o u r t . Without such a limitation, the trial court's judgment 'suspending' v i s i t a t i o n i s p o t e n t i a l l y a permanent judgment t e r m i n a t i n g v i s i t a t i o n , which would e f f e c t a m o d i f i c a t i o n of the South C a r o l i n a judgment d e s p i t e the f a c t t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t would have l a c k e d j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r t h e UCCJEA t o do so a t t h e t i m e o f t h e A u g u s t 10, 2010, judgment. F u r t h e r , t h e r e c o r d i s d e v o i d o f any i n d i c a t i o n t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t f o l l o w e d the r e q u i r e m e n t s of § 30-3B-204(d), w h i c h mandated t h a t the t r i a l court c o m m u n i c a t e w i t h t h e S o u t h C a r o l i n a c o u r t as p a r t o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s e x e r c i s e o f t e m p o r a r y emergency jurisdiction." Id. at 657-58. B a s e d on 2010, the above a n a l y s i s , we j u d g m e n t i n c a s e no. reversed the August 10, DR-10-243.01 "insofar as i t 'suspended' the paternal g r a n d p a r e n t s ' v i s i t a t i o n w i t h t h e c h i l d , and we remand[ed] the cause for the trial court to communicate with the South Carolina court as r e q u i r e d by § 30-3B-204(d) and to correct the wording of the p r o v i s i o n e f f e c t i n g the 'suspension' of the p a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s ' v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s t o c o m p l y w i t h t h e l i m i t a t i o n s r e q u i r e d by § 30-3B204([c]) [2] The o p i n i o n i n L a R o s e a c t u a l l y o r d e r e d t h e t r i a l c o u r t " t o c o m p l y w i t h t h e l i m i t a t i o n s r e q u i r e d by § 30-3B-204 ( b ) . " 71 So. 3d a t 658 (emphasis added). Although t h i s apparent t y p o g r a p h i c a l e r r o r i n L a R o s e i s n o t m e n t i o n e d by t h e p a r t i e s 2 6 2110655 Id. a t 658. As noted e a r l i e r , the appeals taken from n o s . DR-10-243 and DR-10-481 were d i s m i s s e d . case Id. On June 1, 2011, a f t e r a c e r t i f i c a t e o f j u d g m e n t had b e e n issued by this court, the remand amending t h e A u g u s t trial 10, court 2010, entered an judgments order i n case on nos. DR-10-243, DR-10-243.01 and DR-10-481 t o i n c l u d e t h e f o l l o w i n g language: "Upon remand, t h i s [c]ourt finds that this [ c ] o u r t o b t a i n e d temporary emergency jurisdiction p u r s u a n t t o A l a b a m a Code S e c t i o n , 30-3B-204(a). P r i o r to the issuance of the o r i g i n a l [o]rder, the [c]ourt communicated with the South Carolina [ c ] o u r t s r e g a r d i n g the j u r i s d i c t i o n a l i s s u e s between t h e A l a b a m a and S o u t h C a r o l i n a [ c ] o u r t . The m o t h e r s h a l l c o n t a c t t h e S o u t h C a r o l i n a [ c ] o u r t by A u g u s t 10, 2 0 1 1 [ , ] t o o b t a i n m o d i f i c a t i o n o f t h e [ c ] o u r t [o]rder i n p l a c e i n South C a r o l i n a . The [ p a t e r n a l grandparents'] right of visitation with the [mother]'s minor daughter i s hereby suspended i n the S t a t e o f A l a b a m a u n t i l A u g u s t 10, 2 0 1 1 [ , ] o r t h e same can be r e v i e w e d by t h e S o u t h C a r o l i n a [ c ] o u r t , w i t h a view toward m o d i f i c a t i o n thereof allowing s t r i c t s u p e r v i s i o n o f same f o r t h e s a f e t y and s a f e r e t u r n of the c h i l d t o her mother." On extension August 9, 2011, o f t h e PFA o r d e r s the mother filed a motion for i n c a s e no. DR-10-243 and c a s e no. on a p p e a l -- most l i k e l y b e c a u s e i t i s e v i d e n t f r o m r e a d i n g the e n t i r e t y of the o p i n i o n t h a t we were r e f e r r i n g to s u b s e c t i o n (c) o f § 30-3B-204 -- we t a k e t h i s o p p o r t u n i t y t o note the e r r o r . 7 2110655 DR-10-481. In grandparents her motion, continued 3 she alleged t o make " v e r b a l that and the paternal physical threats a g a i n s t " t h e m o t h e r , t h e c h i l d , and t h i r d p a r t i e s as described in entry the the mother's o r i g i n a l PFA orders PFA i n A u g u s t 2010. continued to c h i l d and t h a t , w i t h o u t the paternal grandparents threats. The fear f o r her paternal Carolina that n o t had mother a l l e g e d t h a t and f o r the extension be filed the safety PFA to any the the out a response their stating a p e t i t i o n to modify the the South Carolina court South had that they c o n t a c t w i t h t h e m o t h e r o r t h e c h i l d as a l l e g e d m o t h e r , and the PFA that there was no basis f o r an she of carry able of orders, of the i t s j u d g m e n t a w a r d i n g them v i s i t a t i o n , the extension not had by of orders. On A u g u s t 15, 2011, m o t i o n t o e x t e n d t h e PFA until safety despite grandparents f i l e d not judgment, The would t h a t t h e m o t h e r had modified petitions August grandparents 15, filed 2012. the t r i a l orders On c o u r t g r a n t e d the mother's f o r an a d d i t i o n a l 12 months -¬ August a motion to 18, reconsider 2011, the the trial paternal court's The p a t e r n a l a u n t d i d n o t p a r t i c i p a t e i n any o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g s a f t e r t h e c a u s e was remanded t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n April 2011. 3 8 2110655 o r d e r e x t e n d i n g t h e PFA The record orders. indicates Family Court f o r the Ninth that, on December 19, 2011, t h e J u d i c i a l C i r c u i t o f South Carolina e n t e r e d a judgment d e n y i n g t h e mother's r e q u e s t t o t r a n s f e r subject-matter court jurisdiction to the State a n d venue o f t h e a c t i o n o f Alabama. i n that The j u d g m e n t s t a t e d t h a t t h e mother had n o t r e q u e s t e d a m o d i f i c a t i o n o f t h e South Carolina j u d g m e n t as d i r e c t e d b y t h e t r i a l c o u r t and t h a t , i n s t e a d , t h e mother had r e q u e s t e d t h a t subject-matter the South C a r o l i n a jurisdiction o f t h e case relief The hearing The could not grant r e q u e s t e d by t h e mother. trial court subsequently conducted on J a n u a r y 5, 2012, a n d r e c e i v e d w h e t h e r t h e PFA o r d e r s an evidence ore tenus regarding i n c a s e n o s . DR-10-243 a n d DR-10-481 s h o u l d be e x t e n d e d o r made p e r m a n e n t . the t r i a l transfer t o Alabama. judgment s t a t e d t h a t t h e South C a r o l i n a c o u r t the court On J a n u a r y 17, 2012, c o u r t e n t e r e d a j u d g m e n t i n c a s e n o s . DR-10-243 a n d DR-10-481 t h a t stated, i n pertinent part: "The [c]ourt finds that the [paternal grandparents] continue to present a c r e d i b l e threat o f harm t o t h e [mother] and h e r f a m i l y a n d t h a t a further order f o r p r o t e c t i o n i s necessary f o r the [mother] a n d f a m i l y a n d t o p r e v e n t f u r t h e r a b u s e . 9 2110655 " A c c o r d i n g l y , the [c]ourt hereby grants the motion t o e x t e n d t h e [ o ] r d e r f o r p r o t e c t i o n from abuse d a t e d A u g u s t 10, 2010, and i n d o i n g s o , ORDERS AND ADJUDGES, t h e [ p a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s a n d t h e p a t e r n a l a u n t ] ... a r e e n j o i n e d a n d p r o h i b i t e d f r o m harassing, stalking, annoying, telephoning, c o n t a c t i n g , o r o t h e r w i s e communicating w i t h the [ m o t h e r ] , h e r c h i l d r e n , h u s b a n d , o r anyone i n t h e i r e x t e n d e d f a m i l i e s , i n any m a t t e r w h a t s o e v e r , i n p e r s o n , through a t h i r d (3rd) p a r t y , d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y , b y m a i l , phone, o r any o t h e r e l e c t r o n i c means a n d s h a l l m a i n t a i n a d i s t a n c e away f r o m t h e a f o r e m e n t i o n e d p e r s o n s o f a t l e a s t two t h o u s a n d (2,000) f e e t a t a l l t i m e s . " The paternal grandparents filed a postjudgment motion p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 59, A l a . R. C i v . P., w h i c h was d e n i e d b y t h e t r i a l court. The p a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s t h e n f i l e d a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l i n c a s e n o s . DR-10-243 a n d DR-10-481. On a p p e a l , t h e p a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s a r g u e t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t l a c k e d j u r i s d i c t i o n t o e n t e r a p e r m a n e n t PFA o r d e r t h a t e f f e c t i v e l y m o d i f i e d t h e S o u t h C a r o l i n a j u d g m e n t a w a r d i n g them visitation court's January the t r i a l do so with the c h i l d and that, therefore, 17, 2012, j u d g e m e n t i s v o i d . We the trial agree that c o u r t ' s J a n u a r y 17, 2012, j u d g m e n t i s v o i d , b u t we f o r reasons paternal grandparents different from those a s s e r t e d by the on a p p e a l . As n o t e d i n L a R o s e , s u p r a , t h e PFA o r d e r s e n t e r e d i n c a s e n o s . DR-10-243 and DR-10-481 on A u g u s t 10, 2010, were f i n a l , 10 2110655 appealable judgments. grandparents orders As set forth d i d not t i m e l y appeal entered i n case above, the paternal t h e A u g u s t 10, 2010, PFA n o s . DR-10-243 a n d DR-10-481. Our r e v i e w o f t h e A u g u s t 10, 2010, j u d g m e n t s e n t e r e d i n c a s e n o s . DR-10-243 a n d DR-10-481 r e v e a l s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t p l a c e d no t i m e l i m i t a t i o n on t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e PFA o r d e r s ; thus, t h e A u g u s t 10, 2010, PFA o r d e r s i n c a s e n o s . DR-10-243 a n d DR10-481 were permanent. See § 3 0 - 5 - 7 ( d ) ( 2 ) , A l a . Code 1975 ("Any f i n a l p r o t e c t i o n o r d e r i s o f p e r m a n e n t d u r a t i o n u n l e s s o t h e r w i s e s p e c i f i e d o r m o d i f i e d by subsequent c o u r t o r d e r . " ) . T h e r e f o r e , t h e PFA o r d e r s i n c a s e n o s . DR-10-243 a n d DR-10-481 are effective until p e t i t i o n t o modify modified by the t r i a l court after a t h e PFA o r d e r s h a s b e e n f i l e d . See § 30-5- 7 ( d ) ( 1 ) , A l a . Code 1975 ("While t h e f i n a l p r o t e c t i o n o r d e r i s in effect, the court may amend i t s order any time upon subsequent p e t i t i o n b e i n g f i l e d by e i t h e r p a r t y and a h e a r i n g held pursuant entered i n case "permanent," motions nos. to this chapter."). Because t h e PFA orders n o s . DR-10-243 a n d DR-10-481 were f i n a l albeit to extend subject and t o m o d i f i c a t i o n , the mother's t h e PFA o r d e r s , w h i c h were f i l e d i n case DR-10-243 and DR-10-481, were moot b e c a u s e t h e r e was no 11 2110655 time l i m i t a t i o n Our on t h o s e remand supra, PFA o r d e r s . instruction to place a time to the t r i a l limitation on court i n LaRose, the t r i a l court's a s s u m p t i o n o f j u r i s d i c t i o n was a d d r e s s e d o n l y t o c a s e no. DR10-243.01 b e c a u s e t h a t c a s e was t h e o n l y c a s e t h a t t h i s had jurisdiction trial in t o review. court purported to the extent that the t o amend t h e A u g u s t 10, 2010, j u d g m e n t s c a s e n o s . DR-10-243 a n d DR-10-481 on June 1, 2 0 1 1 , a f t e r remand from this court, because t h i s court Furthermore, because the t r i a l d i d not order neither grandparents f i l e d a p e t i t i o n in Thus, court court erred the t r i a l t h e mother court subject-matter t o do s o . t o m o d i f y t h e PFA o r d e r s jurisdiction so nor the p a t e r n a l c a s e n o s . DR-10-243 and DR-10-481, t h e t r i a l obtained i n doing to enter court entered never any o r d e r s or j u d g m e n t s p u r p o r t i n g t o m o d i f y o r amend t h e t e r m s o f t h e PFA orders entered DR-10-481. 4 on A u g u s t 10, 2010, i n c a s e n o s . DR-10-243 a n d Accordingly, the t r i a l c o u r t ' s J a n u a r y 17, 2012, j u d g m e n t s i n c a s e n o s . DR-10-243 a n d DR-10-481 a r e v o i d . See T h e r e i s a l s o no i n d i c a t i o n i n the record that the p a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s s o u g h t t o have t h e PFA o r d e r s i n c a s e nos. DR-10-243 a n d DR-10-481 v a c a t e d pursuant t o Rule 6 0 ( b ) ( 4 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. 4 12 2110655 R.L. v. J.E.R., 69 So. 3d 898, 902 ( A l a . C i v . App. ("'Without s u b j e c t - m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n , in Dev. the action i s void.'" Therefore, "A v o i d judgment w i l l 909 not So. v. Second 2d 783, support the p a t e r n a l grandparents' J a n u a r y 17, 2012, judgment e n t e r e d (quoting Eagerton Coop. D i s t . o f Lowndes C n t y . , 2005))). any 788 vacate the Econ. (Ala. an a p p e a l . " I d . appeal taken from the j u d g m e n t s i n c a s e n o s . DR-10-243 and DR-10- 481 i s d i s m i s s e d , a l b e i t w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n s t o t h e t r i a l to 2011) January 17, 2012, judgments and any p u r p o r t i n g t o amend o f m o d i f y t h e A u g u s t 10, 2010, e n t e r e d i n case nos. DR-10-243 and orders PFA orders DR-10-481. The m o t h e r ' s and t h e p a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s ' an a t t o r n e y f e e on a p p e a l a r e court requests f o r denied. APPEAL DISMISSED. Thompson, P . J . , and P i t t m a n and Moore, J J . , c o n c u r . Thomas, J . , r e c u s e s herself. 13

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.