S.W. v. Jefferson County Department of Human Resources

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 12/14/2012 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 2111009 S.W. v. J e f f e r s o n County Department o f Human Resources Appeal from J e f f e r s o n J u v e n i l e Court (JU-12-50145) MOORE, J u d g e . S.W. Court appeals from an o r d e r ("the j u v e n i l e c o u r t " ) adjudication relating of the Jefferson vacating i t s previous paternity t o B.B. ( " t h e c h i l d " ) a n d d i s m i s s i n g S.W. as a p a r t y t o t h e d e p e n d e n c y p r o c e e d i n g s child. Juvenile regarding the 2111009 On J a n u a r y 17, 2012, the J e f f e r s o n County Department of Human R e s o u r c e s ("DHR") f i l e d a p e t i t i o n i n t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t a l l e g i n g t h a t the c h i l d was l i s t e d A.W. ("the m o t h e r " ) as t h e m o t h e r o f t h e c h i l d , b u t f a t h e r was listed. court entered an dependent. After a shelter-care hearing, order on J a n u a r y 18, c h i l d had b e e n p l a c e d w i t h D.W., DNA testing. hearing, 2012, DNA the The " [ p ] u t a t i v e f a t h e r " and After the juvenile first court entered t e s t r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d t h a t S.W. child. The no the j u v e n i l e noting that the j u v e n i l e court j u v e n i l e court the setting child of an also submit to adjudication an order March 28, had s t a t i n g t h a t t h e m o t h e r and S.W. of the 2012, DHR the a l l e g e d p a t e r n a l aunt of the c h i l d , pursuant to a s a f e t y p l a n . ordered t h a t the In i t s p e t i t i o n , on stipulated that the i s the b i o l o g i c a l o r d e r e d t h a t DHR father maintain l e g a l c u s t o d y of the c h i l d u n t i l the p a t e r n a l aunt's c r i m i n a l background c h e c k was completed and criminal record, at which time, the receive of custody stated that, contact with entered an the pending the order child. further child. showed court The orders, That that S.W. the court was to no would further have juvenile e s t a b l i s h i n g S.W.'s p a t e r n i t y o f t h e 2 had o r d e r e d , she juvenile same day, she no court child. 2111009 On June 15, 2012, S.W. filed a motion seeking specified v i s i t a t i o n with the c h i l d . A f t e r an a d j u d i c a t i o n h e a r i n g , 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 on June 22, 2012, s t a t i n g t h a t DHR, S.W. t h e mother, and h a d s t i p u l a t e d t o t h e a d m i s s i o n o f DHR's c o u r t r e p o r t , t o the mother's h a v i n g r e p o r t e d t o a DHR s o c i a l w o r k e r t h a t she had b e e n m a r r i e d t o "S." when t h e c h i l d was b o r n , and t o t h e p r e v i o u s o r d e r e s t a b l i s h i n g S.W.'s p a t e r n i t y b e i n g pending further order. The juvenile court suspended set aside i t s p r e v i o u s p a t e r n i t y a d j u d i c a t i o n as v o i d b a s e d on t h e m o t h e r ' s h a v i n g been m a r r i e d t o "S." a t t h e t i m e t h e c h i l d was born. The j u v e n i l e c o u r t f u r t h e r c o n c l u d e d t h a t S.W. was n o t a p a r t y to the case and representation of relieved his attorney from further and t h e c h i l d ' s g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m S.W. On J u l y 3, 2012, S.W. filed a j o i n t motion t o a l t e r , amend, o r v a c a t e 2012, order t o the extent that i t vacated the j u v e n i l e court's previous paternity adjudication. juvenile court entered an o r d e r On denying July t h e June 22, 10, the motion 2012, t h e "at this t i m e " a n d s t a t i n g t h a t DHR a n d c o u n s e l f o r t h e m o t h e r were t o 3 2111009 s e e k t h e m o t h e r a n d S.'s m a r r i a g e 2012, S.W. We certificate. On J u l y 17, f i l e d h i s n o t i c e of appeal. initially note t h a t DHR has a r g u e d i n i t sbrief to t h i s c o u r t t h a t S.W.'s a p p e a l must be d i s m i s s e d b e c a u s e i t i s not from a final judgment. I n J.W.K. v. M a r s h a l l D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s , 18 So. 3d 956, 958 App. 2 0 0 9 ) , t h i s c o u r t r e a s o n e d : " I n t h i s case, c o u r t ' s d e n i a l of the mother's request County (Ala. C i v . the j u v e n i l e f o r a hearing d i d not a d j u d i c a t e ' a l l m a t t e r s i n c o n t r o v e r s y between the l i t i g a n t s ' in the underlying, ongoing dependency because the j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s order cases. Therefore, i s not f i n a l , this l a c k s j u r i s d i c t i o n t o c o n s i d e r the mother's appeal." court (Quoting Dabbs v. F o u r T e e s , I n c . , 984 So. 2d 454, 456 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2007), quoting i n turn J e w e l l v. J a c k s o n Co., 331 So. 2d 623, 625 Similarly, (Ala. i n the present & Whitsitt Cotton 1976)). case, the j u v e n i l e court's o r d e r s e t t i n g a s i d e t h e p a t e r n i t y a d j u d i c a t i o n and d i s m i s s i n g S.W. as a party to the dependency proceedings d i d not " a d j u d i c a t e ' a l l m a t t e r s i n c o n t r o v e r s y between t h e l i t i g a n t s ' i n t h e u n d e r l y i n g , ongoing dependency c a s e s . " juvenile court's order i s not f i n a l , 4 I d . Thus, " t h e [and] t h i s court lacks 2111009 j u r i s d i c t i o n t o c o n s i d e r [S.W.'s] a p p e a l . " I d . we d i s m i s s S.W.'s a p p e a l . 1 1 Accordingly, Id. "The p r o p e r means o f s e e k i n g a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w o f an i n t e r l o c u t o r y o r d e r i n t h i s court i s to p e t i t i o n for a writ of mandamus. See Ex p a r t e C . L . J . , 94 6 So. 2d 880, 887 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2006) ('A p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus i s t h e a p p r o p r i a t e method for reviewing an interlocutory o r d e r . ' ) ; see a l s o P.B. v. P.C., 94 6 So. 2d 896 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2006) ( r e c o g n i z i n g t h a t t h e p r o p e r method o f r e v i e w o f p e n d e n t e l i t e o r d e r s i s by a p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus). The presumptively reasonable time w i t h i n which to f i l e a p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus i s t h e t i m e i n w h i c h an a p p e a l may be t a k e n , i . e . , [14] d a y s [when the appeal i s from a j u v e n i l e - c o u r t o r d e r , see R u l e 4 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( E ) , A l a . R. App. P.]. R u l e 4 ( a ) ( 1 ) . ] . R u l e 2 1 ( a ) , A l a . R. App. P.; Ex p a r t e F i b e r T r a n s p . , L.L.C., 902 So. 2d 98 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 4 ) . " Norman v. Norman, 984 So. 2d 427, 429 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2007). In t h i s c a s e , S.W. f i l e d h i s n o t i c e o f a p p e a l more t h a n 14 d a y s a f t e r t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t e n t e r e d t h e June 22, 2012, order. Thus, " [ i ] f [S.W.] had f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus, i t w o u l d have b e e n f i l e d o u t s i d e t h e p r e s u m p t i v e l y r e a s o n a b l e [ 1 4 ] - d a y p e r i o d . " I d . The m o t i o n t o a l t e r , amend, o r v a c a t e f i l e d by S.W. and t h e g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m d i d n o t t o l l the p r e s u m p t i v e l y reasonable time to f i l e a p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus. I d . ; see a l s o Ex p a r t e Onyx Waste S e r v s . o f F l o r i d a , 979 So. 2d 833, 834 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2007) ( " [ U ] n l i k e a postjudgment motion f o l l o w i n g a f i n a l judgment, a m o t i o n t o reconsider an interlocutory order does not toll the p r e s u m p t i v e l y r e a s o n a b l e t i m e p e r i o d t h a t a p a r t y has t o p e t i t i o n an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t f o r a w r i t o f mandamus."). "Even i f we were t o t r e a t [S.W.'s] a p p e a l as a p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus, t h i s c o u r t c o u l d n o t h e a r t h e m a t t e r b e c a u s e i t was n o t t i m e l y f i l e d . " Norman, 984 So. 2d a t 429. 5 2111009 S.W.'s m o t i o n writ to treat the appeal as a p e t i t i o n for a o f mandamus i s d e n i e d . APPEAL DISMISSED. Thompson, P . J . , and Pittman, concur. 6 Bryan, and Thomas, 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.