A.J. v. Cullman County Department of Human Resources (Appeal from Cullman Juvenile Court: JU-06-556.03)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 11/30/2012 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 ( ( 3 3 4 ) 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 2110899, 2110900, and 2110901 A.J. v. Cullman County Department o f Human Resources 2110902, 2110903, and 2110904 T.J. v. Cullman County Department o f Human Resources Appeals from Cullman J u v e n i l e Court (JU-06-556.03; JU-10-376.02; and JU-11-206.02) 2110899; 2110900; 2110901; 2110902; 2110903; and 2110904 MOORE, J u d g e . A.J. ("the m o t h e r " ) and T.J. ("the father") appeal from s e p a r a t e j u d g m e n t s e n t e r e d by t h e C u l l m a n J u v e n i l e C o u r t juvenile court") on May 9, 2012, terminating their parental r i g h t s t o t h e i r c h i l d r e n V . N . J . , who 2005; T . A . J . , who was who April was born on born was b o r n on S e p t e m b e r 28, on O c t o b e r 4, 2011 c o l l e c t i v e l y as " t h e c h i l d r e n " ) . ("the 27, 2009; and (hereinafter We E.R.J., referred d i s m i s s the to appeals. Background On October Human R e s o u r c e s 12, 2011, the Cullman County Department p e t i t i o n e d the j u v e n i l e c o u r t t o t e r m i n a t e the p a r e n t a l r i g h t s o f t h e m o t h e r and t h e f a t h e r t o t h e A f t e r c o n d u c t i n g ore tenus proceedings May 1, 2012, 2012, t e r m i n a t i n g the p a r e n t a l r i g h t s On May j u v e n i l e c o u r t t o g r a n t him 2012, grant father The her and j u d g m e n t s on May o f t h e m o t h e r and 16, 2012, status. the mother i n d i c a t e d t h a t the In on juvenile those motions, that they wished j u v e n i l e c o u r t g r a n t e d t h o s e m o t i o n s on May 2 and 9, the t h e f a t h e r moved t h e i n forma p a u p e r i s s t a t u s ; the mother a l s o r e q u e s t e d i n forma p a u p e r i s children. on A p r i l 18, 2012, the j u v e n i l e c o u r t e n t e r e d f a t h e r to the c h i l d r e n . 18, of to May court the appeal. 31, 2012. The 2110899; 2110900; 2110901; 2110902; 2110903; and m o t h e r f i l e d h e r n o t i c e o f a p p e a l on June 6, filed h i s n o t i c e o f a p p e a l on June 7, 2110904 2012; the father 2012. Analysis " I t i s w e l l s e t t l e d that j u r i s d i c t i o n a l matters are o f s u c h s i g n i f i c a n c e t h a t an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t may t a k e n o t i c e o f them ex mero motu. W a l l a c e v. Tee J a y s M f g . Co., 689 So. 2d 210, 211 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 7 ) ; Nunn v. B a k e r , 518 So. 2d 711, 712 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) . 'The t i m e l y f i l i n g o f [ a ] n o t i c e o f a p p e a l i s a jurisdictional act.' Rudd v. Rudd, 467 So. 2d 964, 965 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 5 ) ; see a l s o P a r k e r v. P a r k e r , 946 So. 2d 480, 485 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2006) ('an u n t i m e l y f i l e d n o t i c e o f a p p e a l r e s u l t s i n a l a c k of a p p e l l a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n , which cannot be waived')." Kennedy v. Merriman, 963 So. 2d 86, 87-88 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007). The m o t h e r and t h e f a t h e r h a d the j u v e n i l e court's May Rule Juv. 2 8(C), A l a . R. M.S.M., 34 So. 3d 1276, 9, 2012, P.; 1279 and 14 d a y s f r o m t h e e n t r y judgments t o a p p e a l . H.J.T. v. ( A l a . C i v . App. State 2009) ("A of See ex r e l . notice o f a p p e a l 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 o f the date of e n t r y filed] o f the judgment o r the d e n i a l o f a postjudgment Neither motion."). the mother nor the father filed a postjudgment m o t i o n p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 52 o r R u l e 59, A l a . R. C i v . P., under the p r o c e d u r a l [timely posture of these 3 which, c a s e s , were t h e only 2110899; 2110900; 2110901; 2110902; 2110903; and motions that would have tolled the time n o t i c e s o f a p p e a l f r o m t h e May 9, 2012, R u l e 4 ( a ) ( 3 ) , A l a . R. App. ("The P. 2110904 for filing judgments. filing of a their See, e.g., post-judgment m o t i o n p u r s u a n t t o R u l e s 50, 52, 55 o r 59 o f t h e A l a b a m a R u l e s of C i v i l for Procedure filing forma ... a notice pauperis s h a l l suspend of i s not time f o r f i l i n g appeal."). a postjudgment the running of the A motion motion time to proceed that tolls in the a n o t i c e of appeal. The mother f i l e d her n o t i c e o f a p p e a l on June 6, 2012, the father his notice o f a p p e a l on June 7, 2012. Because n e i t h e r the mother nor the f a t h e r a p p e a l e d u n t i l after and filed t h e 14-day p e r i o d h a d e x p i r e d , to consider ("An their appeals. filed court."). father's to We, invoke the therefore, jurisdiction See R u l e 2 ( a ) ( 1 ) , A l a . R. App. a p p e a l s h a l l be d i s m i s s e d timely t h i s c o u r t has no i f t h e n o t i c e o f a p p e a l was jurisdiction dismiss the of the mother's and APPEALS DISMISSED. Thompson, P . J . , and P i t t m a n and B r y a n , J J . , c o n c u r . herself. 4 not appellate appeals. Thomas, J . , r e c u s e s P. the

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.