K.F.P. v. R.A.P. and R.J.P.

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL: 05/10/2013 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 2110752 K.F.P. v. R.A.P. and R.J.P. Appeal from Walker J u v e n i l e Court (JU-08-455.02) On A p p l i c a t i o n f o r R e h e a r i n g THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e . The o p i n i o n o f F e b r u a r y 15, 2 0 1 3 , i s w i t h d r a w n , a n d t h e following i s substituted therefor. 2110752 M.D.P. ("the f a t h e r " ) and N.B. child") i s the ("the mother"). c h i l d s p e n t any s i g n i f i c a n t following his birth response to a grandmother"), court") to of G.W.P. I I I ("the I t does n o t a p p e a r t h a t t h e time i n the custody of h i s p a r e n t s i n August petition the child 2008. filed Walker In by K.F.P. ("the paternal Court ("the juvenile Juvenile February 2009, f o u n d t h e c h i l d d e p e n d e n t and a w a r d e d c u s t o d y o f in him the p a t e r n a l grandmother. On A p r i l ("the 13, 2011, great-aunt") R.A.P. ("the g r e a t - u n c l e " ) and filed a petition i n the s e e k i n g 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 . R.J.P. juvenile In t h e i r court petition, t h e g r e a t - a u n t and t h e g r e a t - u n c l e a l l e g e d t h a t t h e c h i l d was dependent had and that a material change i n circumstances o c c u r r e d w a r r a n t i n g a m o d i f i c a t i o n of custody. The juvenile c o u r t a w a r d e d t h e g r e a t - a u n t and t h e g r e a t - u n c l e p e n d e n t e custody of the In June paternal setting and child. 2011, in grandmother, response the to juvenile a motion court the g r e a t - u n c l e custody of the c h i l d . o r d e r , the j u v e n i l e filed entered a s i d e the pendente l i t e order awarding June 2011 lite by an the order the great-aunt However, i n t h a t c o u r t ordered t h a t the g r e a t - 2 2110752 a u n t and t h e g r e a t - u n c l e r e c e i v e v i s i t a t i o n w i t h the c h i l d a l t e r n a t i n g w e e k s ; t h u s , t h e e f f e c t o f t h e June 2011 to a w a r d t h e p a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r and great-uncle child. We a l t e r n a t i n g weekly of the A f t e r conducting child dependent court and ordered to great-aunt child, the and "directly R. i t by The the by filed was the i n which i t found custody the of parties great-uncle. that the that the child. The share joint legal physical The was a postjudgment motion, court with grandmother. the to be The that o p e r a t i o n of law p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 59.1, p a t e r n a l grandmother t i m e l y appealed. r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e m o t h e r and born. custody juvenile visitation paternal the and l i v i n g w i t h the great-aunt child 2012, i t awarded p r i m a r y specified denied C i v . P. The with a l t e r n a t i n g weekend v i s i t a t i o n grandmother m o t i o n was Ala. and father that and supervised" paternal the child. modified of the c h i l d , awarded and an o r e t e n u s h e a r i n g , t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t custody the was the great-aunt custodial periods a j u d g m e n t on M a r c h 27, juvenile order note t h a t n e i t h e r the f a t h e r nor the mother sought an a w a r d o f c u s t o d y entered on According t h e f a t h e r were and t h e g r e a t - u n c l e a t t h e t i m e t h e to the 3 great-aunt, f o l l o w i n g the 2110752 b i r t h of the c h i l d , great-aunt t h e p a r e n t s and t h e c h i l d r e t u r n e d t o t h e a n d t h e g r e a t - u n c l e ' s home. however, t h e c h i l d , Shortly thereafter, a n d p e r h a p s one o r b o t h of the parents, began r e s i d i n g w i t h t h e p a t e r n a l grandmother. The birth, great-aunt the p a t e r n a l grandmother had l e f t great-aunt week. and t h e g r e a t - u n c l e The g r e a t - a u n t kept the c h i l d aunt stated stressed The t e s t i f i e d that, s h o r t l y a f t e r the c h i l d ' s that great-uncle grandmother f o r two t o t h r e e with the days each t e s t i f i e d t h a t she a n d t h e g r e a t - u n c l e t o h e l p t h e p a t e r n a l grandmother. and y e l l conversations the c h i l d the paternal at the c h i l d testified between i n which grandmother he had great-aunt the would or i n the c h i l d ' s that the The g r e a t - paternal heard and become presence. telephone the grandmother paternal would be " c u r s i n g and h o l l e r i n g " a t o r about t h e c h i l d and s t a t i n g t h a t t h e c h i l d ' s c r y i n g was " d r i v i n g h e r c r a z y . " hearing, both the great-aunt t h a t t h e y were c o n c e r n e d The and t h e g r e a t - u n c l e about t h a t testified conduct. g r e a t - u n c l e a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t the c h i l d had s t a y e d w i t h him and t h e g r e a t - a u n t the A t the ore tenus first two y e a r s f o r two t o t h r e e d a y s a week f o r of the c h i l d ' s 4 life. The great-uncle 2110752 s t a t e d t h a t t h e c h i l d s t a y e d i n t h e i r home w h e n e v e r he o r t h e great-aunt The in h a d a d a y o f f f r o m work. great-aunt and t h e g r e a t - u n c l e each t e s t i f i e d t h a t , June 2010, t h e p a r e n t s thereafter, the c h i l d basis. had a daughter and t h a t , b e g a n l i v i n g w i t h them on a shortly full-time They a l s o e x p l a i n e d t h a t t h e p a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r ' s b o y f r i e n d , who was l i v i n g i n h e r home, was v e r y time. The great-aunt and t h e g r e a t - u n c l e i l l at that presented the t e s t i m o n y o f one o f t h e i r f r i e n d s who b a b y s i t s t h e c h i l d w h i l e they are working; lived full time that friend testified i n the great-aunt t h a t the c h i l d had a n d t h e g r e a t - u n c l e ' s home s i n c e J u n e o r J u l y 2010. The the p a t e r n a l grandmother admits g r e a t - u n c l e had i n i t i a l l y e a c h week, m a i n l y kept t h a t t h e g r e a t - a u n t and the c h i l d f o r two n i g h t s on t h e weekends, b e c a u s e t h e c h i l d d i d n o t s l e e p w e l l and she needed a break. However, s h e d i s p u t e s t h a t she a l l o w e d t h e c h i l d t o b e g i n l i v i n g w i t h t h e g r e a t - a u n t a n d the great-uncle grandmother i n t h e summer testified that of 2010. she had t a k e n The the c h i l d paternal to the d o c t o r s e v e r a l times d u r i n g t h e time t h a t t h e g r e a t - a u n t and the g r e a t - u n c l e claimed that the c h i l d 5 was l i v i n g f u l l time 2110752 w i t h them. aunt and On c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n , the great-uncle whether, a t the times the a t t o r n e y f o r the g r e a t - asked the paternal she c l a i m e d t o have t a k e n grandmother the c h i l d to t h e d o c t o r , t h e g r e a t - a u n t h a d h a d t h e c h i l d and h a d p i c k e d up the paternal appointments. "not every I n response, to accompany the maternal them to the grandmother s t a t e d , time." According living grandmother full t o the p a t e r n a l grandmother, time w i t h the great-aunt the c h i l d began and t h e g r e a t - u n c l e i n November 2010, when t h e p a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r h a d s u r g e r y . The paternal her grandmother stated that, i n December b o y f r i e n d d i e d and t h a t , as a r e s u l t , the great-aunt also great-aunt and the c h i l d remained w i t h and t h e g r e a t - u n c l e a t t h a t t i m e . t e s t i f i e d t h a t the c h i l d 2010, The father h a d n o t gone t o l i v e w i t h t h e the great-uncle until November 2010, but a l s o s t a t e d t h a t the great-aunt and t h e g r e a t - u n c l e h a d the and child paternal often i n September grandmother had medical October tests 2010, when performed. he kept the The p a t e r n a l grandmother a l s o p r e s e n t e d the t e s t i m o n y of her m a i l c a r r i e r and h e r n e i g h b o r , e a c h o f whom b e l i e v e d t h a t t h e c h i l d had been l i v i n g w i t h t h e p a t e r n a l grandmother. 6 2110752 The 2010, grandmother that, after t h a t t h e c h i l d be r e t u r n e d t o c h i l d was d o i n g w e l l w i t h The outstanding April father i n January that he was custody of the p a t e r n a l and transfers, on 2011 a n d i n c a r c e r a t e d f o r returned the c h i l d grandmother. to the paternal be r e t u r n e d the great-uncle's while i n dispute, d i s p o s i t i o n of t h i s appeal. the great-uncle home; filed are to the I t i s undisputed grandmother's a p p r o x i m a t e l y a week a n d t h a t he t h e n r e t u r n e d aunt arrested When t h e f a t h e r was r e l e a s e d f r o m j a i l i n e a r l y 2 0 1 1 , he demanded t h a t child that t h e g r e a t - a u n t and t h e g r e a t - testified warrants t h r e e months. and December She s t a t e d t h a t t h e g r e a t - a u n t r e s p o n d e d b y s t a t i n g uncle. the stated s h e h a d begun r e q u e s t i n g her. the paternal home f o r t o the great- the d e t a i l s not that of relevant those t o the On A p r i l 13, 2 0 1 1 , t h e g r e a t - a u n t their petition f o r custody of the child. It i s undisputed that both t h e home of the paternal g r a n d m o t h e r a n d t h e home o f t h e g r e a t - a u n t a n d t h e are adequate f o r t h e c h i l d . great-uncle The p a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r a d m i t t e d t h a t she h a d no c o n c e r n s a b o u t t h e c h i l d ' s s a f e t y o r w e l f a r e when he was w i t h t h e g r e a t - a u n t a n d t h e g r e a t - u n c l e , 7 although 2110752 she thought the c h i l d should l i v e w i t h h e r b e c a u s e she i s h i s grandmother. The g r e a t - a u n t t e s t i f i e d t h a t she was c o n c e r n e d t h a t t h e paternal grandmother has "bad n e r v e s " and t h a t c h i l d i s t o o much f o r h e r . also expressed record including various the p a r e n t s . concern about the paternal contains references under grandmother's with the c h i l d . by the witnesses, f a m i l y members, t o a p a t t e r n o f d r u g u s e b y The f a m i l y members a g r e e d t h a t t h e c h i l d n o t be i n t h e p r e s e n c e o f e i t h e r p a r e n t u n l e s s not the The g r e a t - a u n t a n d t h e g r e a t - u n c l e allowing the parents unsupervised contact The raising the influence o f an i n t o x i c a t i n g should t h a t p a r e n t was substance. The f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t the p a t e r n a l grandmother had not p l a c e d any restrictions often The visited on h i 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 t h a t he the c h i l d at the paternal grandmother's home. f a t h e r s t a t e d t h a t he a n d t h e m o t h e r h a d l e f t t h e p a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r ' s home a c c o m p a n i e d b y t h e c h i l d a c o u p l e o f t i m e s . The great-aunt indicating parents to that have and t h e g r e a t - u n c l e the paternal grandmother unsupervised M.L.P., t h e c h i l d ' s p a t e r n a l presented has visitation with evidence allowed the the child. g r e a t - g r a n d m o t h e r , t e s t i f i e d as 8 2110752 a hostile witness that she h a d o b s e r v e d t h e m o t h e r a n d t h e f a t h e r a l o n e w i t h t h e c h i l d i n t h e p a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r ' s home on m u l t i p l e o c c a s i o n s ; t h e most r e c e n t of those occasions was i n J a n u a r y 2012. M.L.P. a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t she h a d s e e n t h e p a r e n t s a n d t h e c h i l d a l o n e i n a v e h i c l e a n d a t a s t o r e on a t least two separate occasions. The paternal grandmother t e s t i f i e d t h a t she b e l i e v e d t h a t she was w i t h t h e p a r e n t s a n d the c h i l d on a t l e a s t one o f t h o s e o c c a s i o n s d i d n o t see her. had not b u t t h a t M.L.P. The p a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t she observed the parents acting as i n t o x i c a t e d when t h e y were a r o u n d t h e c h i l d , that she w o u l d n o t l e a v e the c h i l d b e l i e v e d t h a t t h e y were u s i n g The records. record indicates with a n d he was r e l e a s e d serving five years were a n d she s t a t e d the parents i f she drugs. that both parents The f a t h e r h a s b e e n c o n v i c t e d crimes, i f they have criminal of several property f r o m i n c a r c e r a t i o n i n 2003 i n prison f o r those convictions. after The f a t h e r a d m i t t e d t h a t he h a d b e e n c h a r g e d w i t h manufacturing methamphetamine t h r e e i n this years before the hearing b u t he d e n i e d t h a t he was g u i l t y o f t h o s e c h a r g e s . 9 case, The f a t h e r 2110752 stated that, as o f t h e t i m e t h e r e h a d b e e n no t r i a l of the hearing r e l a t e d t o those i n this matter, charges. The j u v e n i l e c o u r t o r d e r e d t h e p a r t i e s a n d t h e p a r e n t s t o submit t o drug matter. The negative. tests results used i l l e g a l taken of those facility tests methamphetamine, that the the hearing 1 after t o drug i n this f o r the p a r t i e s were f o r t h e use failed to However, inform t h a t he h a d t a k e n We n o t e the record the that testing over-the- t h a t t h e mother d i d n o t r e t u r n the break testing. a n d he s t a t e d t h a t he h a d medication. father of h i s a s s e r t i o n counter medication. submitted of the hearing A t t h e h e a r i n g , t h e f a t h e r d e n i e d t h a t he an o v e r - t h e - c o u n t e r indicates to the date The f a t h e r ' s t e s t r e s u l t was p o s i t i v e of methamphetamine. had on The during which the father t e s t i f i e d parties that the m o t h e r became u p s e t b e c a u s e she d i d n o t have t h e money t o p a y The d r u g - t e s t forms c o n t a i n a l i s t o f p r e s c r i b e d and o v e r - t h e - c o u n t e r m e d i c a t i o n s t h a t each i n d i v i d u a l informed t h e t e s t i n g f a c i l i t y he o r she h a d t a k e n i n t h e 72 h o u r s b e f o r e the drug t e s t , and each i n d i v i d u a l s i g n e d h i s o r h e r t e s t form. The f a t h e r ' s s i g n e d d r u g - t e s t f o r m i n d i c a t e s t h a t he d e n i e d h a v i n g t a k e n a n y m e d i c a t i o n s i n t h e 72 h o u r s b e f o r e t h e d r u g t e s t was c o n d u c t e d . Two h a n d w r i t t e n n o t a t i o n s a t t h e b o t t o m o f t h a t f o r m r e a d : " D e f s t a t e s t h a t he h a s n o t t a k e n a n y t h i n g " a n d " I d i d t a k e o v e r t h e c o u n t e r C l a r i t i n D." 1 10 2110752 for the t e s t and a t t e n d the On court the went home r a t h e r paternal grandmother erred i n modifying i t s March 27, 2012, standard she than return to that the hearing. appeal, juvenile that judgment, the argues custody of the custody. 2 j u v e n i l e court applied s e t f o r t h i n Ex p a r t e McLendon, 455 1984), i n m o d i f y i n g child. So. 2d 863 In the (Ala. S p e c i f i c a l l y , the j u v e n i l e c o u r t found " t h a t s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e was p r e s e n t e d t o show t h a t t h e p o s i t i v e good t o t h e c h i l d ... b r o u g h t a b o u t by a c u s t o d y m o d i f i c a t i o n i n t h i s c a u s e w i l l more t h a t o f f s e t t h e i n h e r e n t l y d i s r u p t i v e e f f e c t c a u s e d by u p r o o t i n g the c h i l d [ , ] [ t ] h a t [the great-uncle and t h e g r e a t - a u n t ] a r e f i t and p r o p e r c u s t o d i a n s o f s a i d c h i l d and t h a t an a w a r d o f c u s t o d y t o t h e great-aunt and t h e g r e a t - u n c l e w o u l d ' m a t e r i a l l y p r o m o t e [ ] t h e c h i l d ' s b e s t i n t e r e s t and w e l f a r e . ' " See Ex p a r t e McLendon, 455 We that, note t h a t the because the dependent, the " b e s t be applied. disagree. After So. 2d a t great-aunt juvenile 865-66. and court the found i n t e r e s t s of the a A l t h o u g h the careful great-uncle child c h i l d " standard review j u v e n i l e court the contend of the found t h a t to should record, the be we child The g r e a t - a u n t and t h e g r e a t - u n c l e ' s argument on a p p e a l t h a t t h e p a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r f a i l e d t o p r e s e r v e t h i s argument f o r appeal i s not p e r s u a s i v e . 2 11 2110752 remained dependent, t h a t f i n d i n g seems t o be b a s e d upon t h e p a r e n t s ' c o n t i n u e d f a i l u r e t o s e r v e as a p p r o p r i a t e p a r e n t s f o r the c h i l d . The d i s p u t e i n t h i s or r e l a t i v e s c a s e was o v e r w h i c h should r a i s e the c h i l d . Given relative the evidence t h e n a t u r e o f t h e p a r t i e s ' a r g u m e n t s b e l o w , we c o n c l u d e although the j u v e n i l e c o u r t found the c h i l d dependent, and that, this a c t i o n i s more i n t h e n a t u r e o f a c u s t o d y d i s p u t e . See S.D.F. v. A.K., I n Ex p a r t e 875 So. 2d 326 (Ala. J.P., 641 So. 2d 276, 278-79 held that modification juvenile the McLendon action court standard correctly the j u v e n i l e has applies in a In t h i s custodycase, the standard i n 3 t h e McLendon s t a n d a r d . grandmother o u r supreme c o u r t a p p l i e d t h e McLendon The p a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r support ( A l a . 1994), between nonparents. r e a c h i n g i t s judgment. not C i v . App. 2 0 0 3 ) . relied argues that the evidence court's custody does m o d i f i c a t i o n under The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e p a t e r n a l heavily on the great-aunt and t h e Even assuming t h a t the "best i n t e r e s t s " s t a n d a r d a p p l i e s , any e r r o r w o u l d be h a r m l e s s . See R e h f e l d v. R o t h , 885 So. 2d 791 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2004) ( a f f i r m i n g a c u s t o d y m o d i f i c a t i o n i n which the t r i a l c o u r t e r r o n e o u s l y a p p l i e d t h e McLendon standard i n s t e a d of the "best i n t e r e s t s " standard, concluding t h a t t h e e r r o r was h a r m l e s s b e c a u s e t h e McLendon s t a n d a r d i s more s t r i n g e n t t h a n t h e " b e s t i n t e r e s t s " s t a n d a r d ) . 3 12 2110752 great-uncle birth. t o help her with The p a r t i e s p r e s e n t e d the c h i l d conflicting when t h e p a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r a l l o w e d time w i t h the great-aunt would support since evidence the c h i l d demanded the father that grandmother's The full record time w i t h entry the child a n d t h e g r e a t - u n c l e on released be left from returned 2011. jail, to In A p r i l the father the paternal custody. indicates that the great-aunt o f t h e June parties was full The e v i d e n c e a c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e p a t e r n a l grandmother a f u l l - t i m e b a s i s f r o m June 2010 u n t i l A p r i l when regarding to live and t h e g r e a t - u n c l e . t h e c h i l d i n t h e home o f t h e g r e a t - a u n t 2011, the c h i l d ' s alternating both lite of custody p a t e r n a l grandmother a l l o w e d t h e parents contact with the c h i l d ; the c h i l d and t h e g r e a t - u n c l e 2011 p e n d e n t e weeks before order with lived after the granting the the c h i l d the t o have unsupervised the record also supports a conclusion t h a t she a l l o w e d t h e p a r e n t s t o l e a v e h e r home w i t h t h e c h i l d . The o r i g i n a l F e b r u a r y 2009 d e p e n d e n c y judgment d i d n o t p r o v i d e the parents with unsupervised. This visitation, court either recognizes, supervised or as d i d t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t , t h e p a t e r n a l grandmother's d e s i r e t o a l l o w h e r son t o 13 2110752 see his child. However, t h e g r e a t - a u n t and t h e g r e a t - u n c l e e x p r e s s e d concern about the p a r e n t s ' u n s u p e r v i s e d c o n t a c t w i t h the child given relatives the parents' history of drug use. Other s t a t e d t h a t t h e y were c o m f o r t a b l e w i t h t h e p a r e n t s ' s e e i n g t h e c h i l d o n l y i f i t was c e r t a i n t h e p a r e n t s were n o t u s i n g drugs. the c h i l d The p a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r d e n i e d h a v i n g t o be a r o u n d t h e p a r e n t s However, at the close i f t h e y were of the hearing, intoxicated. the j u v e n i l e c a u t i o n e d t h e p a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r t h a t t h e r e was the c h i l d i n having unsupervised ore tenus hearing court a risk to c o n t a c t w i t h t h e p a r e n t s and t h a t the p a r t i e s had t o a c t t o p r o t e c t the c h i l d . the allowed i n this matter, p o s i t i v e f o r t h e u s e o f methamphetamine. the Further, at father Although tested the f a t h e r d e n i e d d r u g u s e , i t was t h e p r o v i n c e o f t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t , as the trier of witnesses. fact, to witnesses' assess their the credibility of the See Ex p a r t e Fann, 810 So. 2d 631, 636 ( A l a . 2001) ("'[B]ecause the t r i a l the determine c o u r t has t h e a d v a n t a g e o f o b s e r v i n g demeanor credibility, and has this a Court superior cannot a l t e r c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t u n l e s s i t i s so u n s u p p o r t e d 14 opportunity the by t h e to trial evidence 2110752 as t o be So. 2d clearly 793, and 795 palpably wrong.' Ex parte (Ala. 1998)."). At the c l o s e of the ore tenus h e a r i n g , determined that whom tested D W W , 717 . . . the the j u v e n i l e c h i l d ' s exposure to h i s parents, hearing, c o n s t i t u t e d a m a t e r i a l change i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s . We conclude juvenile u n c l e had had evidence court's in methamphetamine of the the for one at that positive court the record finding that on the appeal supports g r e a t - a u n t and the the great- e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t a m a t e r i a l change i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s occurred s i n c e the judgment. We entry further of the conclude F e b r u a r y 2009 d e p e n d e n c y that the totality of e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l s u p p o r t s t h e j u v e n i l e determination promote the that the c h i l d ' s best change in custody i n t e r e s t s and would that the the court's materially benefits of t h e change w o u l d o f f s e t any d i s r u p t i v e e f f e c t o f t h e change i n custody. Accordingly, we cannot say that the paternal g r a n d m o t h e r has d e m o n s t r a t e d on a p p e a l t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t erred i n modifying parte McLendon, The paternal custody under the s t a n d a r d s e t f o r t h i n Ex supra. grandmother a l s o argues that the juvenile c o u r t e r r e d i n f a i l i n g t o award her v i s i t a t i o n w i t h the 15 child. 2110752 In i t s March 27, 2012, judgment, joint custody of the c h i l d uncle and the p a t e r n a l the j u v e n i l e court to the great-aunt grandmother, with and t h e primary custody being awarded t o the g r e a t - a u n t and t h e However, juvenile afford the grandmother juvenile weekend court visitation ordered visitation visitation paternal It any court with that with the child "be appears c l e a r t o t h i s that, physical great-uncle. the paternal Instead, the receive alternating and directly that the father's supervised court by" the father, the the v i s i t a t i o n paternal between grandmother v i s i t a t i o n w i t h the c h i l d . would also be to and t h e afforded the f a t h e r e l e c t the p a t e r n a l grandmother, l e g a l c u s t o d i a n o f t h e c h i l d , w o u l d n o t have a of e n f o r c i n g Therefore, grandmother the c h i l d However, s h o u l d forgo h i s r i g h t s of v i s i t a t i o n , i s a joint that the j u v e n i l e court i n r e q u i r i n g the p a t e r n a l supervise method child. the f a t h e r the the c h i l d directly who with great- grandmother. anticipated to d i d not awarded a right to v i s i t a t i o n with the child. u n d e r t h e u n i q u e f a c t s o f t h i s c a s e , we r e v e r s e t h e judgment i n s o f a r as i t f a i l s t o a w a r d t h e p a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r visitation with the child and 16 remand the cause for the 2110752 juvenile court grandmother that, to enter a right an order of v i s i t a t i o n affording with the paternal the c h i l d . We note i n r e a c h i n g i t s j u d g m e n t on remand, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t may, b u t i s n o t r e q u i r e d t o , a f f o r d t h e p a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r visitation The i n addition to that of the father. motion filed by t h e g r e a t - a u n t seeking to dismiss the a p p l i c a t i o n APPLICATION OVERRULED; and t h e g r e a t - u n c l e f o r rehearing i s denied. OPINION OF FEBRUARY 15, 2 0 1 3 , WITHDRAWN; OPINION SUBSTITUTED; AFFIRMED I N PART; REVERSED I N PART; AND REMANDED. Pittman J., concurs. Thomas a n d Moore, J J . , c o n c u r i n p a r t a n d c o n c u r i n t h e result i n part, with writings. Donaldson, J . , concurs i n the r e s u l t , without 17 writing. 2110752 THOMAS, J u d g e , c o n c u r r i n g i n p a r t a n d c o n c u r r i n g i n t h e r e s u l t in part. I agree that t h e Walker Juvenile court") was c o r r e c t i n t r e a t i n g case. I cannot concludes that agree w i t h this opinion found record, i t i s my o p i n i o n t h a t R.A.P. and R.J.P. ("the sufficient great-aunt") evidence c u s t o d i a n , K.F.P. Ala. that this r e s p e c t f u l l y disagree custody 455 dispute Code ("the great-uncle") the child's 1975, a n d t h a t , is properly see § accordingly, the dependent. a dependency a n d t h a t , t h e r e f o r e , t h e Ex p a r t e The m a i n legal case, that t h i s a c t i o n i s i n the nature So. 2d 863 ( A l a . 1 9 8 4 ) , s t a n d a r d applies. A f t e r reviewing t o and f o r t h e c h i l d , juvenile court adjudicated the c h i l d Because M.D.P. ("the p a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r " ) , was n o t a b l e to perform her r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s 12-15-102(8)6., i t p r o v i d e d the j u v e n i l e c o u r t w i t h demonstrating ("the i n s o f a r as that c h i l d " ) r e m a i n e d d e p e n d e n t as t o h i s p a r e n t s . the ("the j u v e n i l e m a t t e r as a d e p e n d e n c y t h e main the j u v e n i l e court Court opinion h o l d i n g i n Ex p a r t e J.P., t h a t t h e McLendon s t a n d a r d f o r custody of a McLendon, modification relies on o u r supreme 641 So. 2d 276, 278-79 court's ( A l a . 1994), i s a p p l i c a b l e i n a custody 18 I dispute 2110752 b e t w e e n n o n p a r e n t s . However, J . P . i s f a c t u a l l y d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from the present case because the party seeking the m o d i f i c a t i o n o f c u s t o d y i n J.P. d i d n o t a l l e g e t h a t t h e c h i l d was dependent; consequently, child i n J . P . was custodian. t h e r e was no finding dependent w h i l e i n the care t h a t the of the legal In the present case, the j u v e n i l e c o u r t found t h a t t h e c h i l d was d e p e n d e n t w h i l e i n t h e c u s t o d y o f t h e p a t e r n a l grandmother. After juvenile may court an adjudication "[m]ake any ... of order dependency, as [it] in i t s d i s c r e t i o n s h a l l deem t o be f o r t h e w e l f a r e and b e s t of the c h i l d . " § 12-15-314(a)(4), the interests A l a . Code 1975. I a g r e e t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f t h e c h i l d a r e s e r v e d by t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s judgment a w a r d i n g p r i m a r y p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y t o t h e g r e a t - a u n t and t h e g r e a t - u n c l e and j o i n t l e g a l c u s t o d y t o both the great-aunt grandmother. and For these the great-uncle reasons, I concur a s p e c t o f t h e j u d g m e n t s h o u l d be a f f i r m e d . concur t o r e v e r s e t h e judgment i n s o f a r the p a t e r n a l grandmother v i s i t a t i o n . 19 and the p a t e r n a l t h a t the custody Additionally, as i t f a i l s I t o award 2110752 MOORE, J u d g e , c o n c u r r i n g i n p a r t a n d c o n c u r r i n g i n t h e r e s u l t in part. I b e l i e v e t h a t t h e Walker J u v e n i l e Court court") properly According treated this matter ("the j u v e n i l e as a dependency case. t o o u r supreme c o u r t , a c h i l d i s d e p e n d e n t i f he o r she i s n o t " 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 f r o m persons l e g a l l y child." 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 Ex p a r t e L.E.O., (some e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . ("the great-aunt") court's judgment, 61 So. 3d 1042, 1047 ( A l a . 2010) R.A.P. ("the g r e a t - u n c l e " ) clearly convinced ("the p a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r " ) , M.D.P. ("the c h i l d " ) , h a d n o t been b e t w e e n June 2010 a n d A p r i l petition was f i l e d . a n d R.J.P. a l l e g e d a n d , i n my r e a d i n g o f t h e j u v e n i l e K.F.P. child those the j u v e n i l e court the legal providing that custodian of care f o r the 2 0 1 1 , when t h e d e p e n d e n c y Those f a c t s i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e c h i l d was dependent, as t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t adjudicated. When a c h i l d i s f o u n d t o be d e p e n d e n t , t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t may dispose of the custody determination 1975, of the best § 12-15-314(a)(4). great-aunt of the c h i l d according interests of the c h i l d . The j u v e n i l e c o u r t and t h e g r e a t - u n c l e 20 t o meet to i t s A l a . Code required the the standard f o r 2110752 custody m o d i f i c a t i o n So. 2d 863 established i n Ex p a r t e ( A l a . 1 9 8 4 ) ; however, McLendon, t h a t e r r o r d i d n o t harm t h e p a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r b e c a u s e t h e McLendon s t a n d a r d more s t r i n g e n t and i n c o r p o r a t e s See Rehfeld v. R o t h , The evidence determination served by child, with fully that 885 So. the best the the p a r t i e s ' sharing Additionally, fails juvenile court's joint legal primary p h y s i c a l custody being aspect of the I concur t o reverse t o award the p a t e r n a l Therefore, judgment 2004) . custody would custody exercised of be the by t h e I concur that the should t h e judgment grandmother 21 standard. ( A l a . C i v . App. i n t e r e s t s of the c h i l d g r e a t - a u n t and t h e g r e a t - u n c l e . custody i s actually the b e s t - i n t e r e s t s 2d 791 supports 455 be affirmed. i n s o f a r as i t visitation.

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.