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

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 02/15/2013 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 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) THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g M.D.P. Judge. ("the c h i l d " ) i s the child f a t h e r " ) a n d N.B. ("the m o t h e r " ) . o f 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 c h i l d spent any s i g n i f i c a n t time i n t h e custody o f h i s p a r e n t s following hisbirth i n August 2008. In February 2009, i n 2110752 response to a petition grandmother"), court") to found the filed Walker by K.F.P. ("the paternal Court ("the juvenile Juvenile t h e c h i l d d e p e n d e n t and awarded c u s t o d y of him the p a t e r n a l grandmother. On A p r i l 13, ("the 2011, great-aunt") R.A.P. ("the filed a g r e a t - u n c l e " ) and 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 m a t e r i a l change in 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 In of the June paternal child. 2011, in grandmother, response the to a juvenile motion court filed entered s e t t i n g a s i d e the pendente l i t e order awarding the and the g r e a t - u n c l e June 2011 lite order, custody of the the j u v e n i l e child. by an the order great-aunt However, i n t h a t court ordered t h a t the great- 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 t h e 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 alternating weekly 2 order the great-aunt custodial periods on was and the with the 2110752 child. an We note t h a t n e i t h e r the award of c u s t o d y of the f a t h e r nor child. A f t e r c o n d u c t i n g an o r e t e n u s h e a r i n g , entered child a j u d g m e n t on dependent juvenile court M a r c h 27, and modified ordered custody of the c h i l d , to the great-aunt awarded child, the and "directly specified d e n i e d by Civ. The P. The i n which i t found custody the of parties great-uncle. by filed that that the child. The share joint legal The b i r t h of the great-aunt child, and however, the the child, that 59.1, grandmother t i m e l y began r e s i d i n g w i t h to the great-aunt, t h e p a r e n t s and great-uncle's and The o f law p u r s u a n t t o R u l e operation According be and l i v i n g w i t h 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 born. the to grandmother. 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 c h i l d was court with was a postjudgment motion, paternal custody juvenile visitation paternal the the 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 R. i t 2012, the j u v e n i l e c o u r t i t awarded p r i m a r y p h y s i c a l the supervised" paternal Ala. and father that and the mother sought home. p e r h a p s one the p a t e r n a l 3 the the appealed. f a t h e r were at the time the following the c h i l d returned Shortly the thereafter, or b o t h of the grandmother. to parents, 2110752 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 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. the and y e l l conversations the c h i l d with 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 presence. heard and become 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 life. The great-uncle 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 June 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 , 2010, t h e p a r e n t s had a daughter 4 and t h a t , shortly 2110752 thereafter, basis. the c h i l d began l i v i n g w i t h them on a 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 grandmother'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 i l l a t t h a t time. The great-aunt and t h e g r e a t - u n c l e t e s t i m o n y o f one o f t h e i r they lived are working; full time that presented the 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 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 June o r J u l y 2010. The p a t e r n a l grandmother admits the 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 a n d she n e e d e d a b r e a k . However, she 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 the testified that summer of 2010. she h a d 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 w i t h them. aunt and claimed that the c h i l d was l i v i n g f u l l time On c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n , t h e a t t o r n e y f o r t h e g r e a t the great-uncle whether, a t the times 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 a n d h a d p i c k e d up 5 2110752 the paternal appointments. "not every to accompany them to I n response, the m a t e r n a l grandmother the stated, time." According living grandmother full to the p a t e r n a l time w i t h grandmother, the c h i l d began 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 in 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 2010, 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 , t h e c h i l d r e m a i n e d w i t h the g r e a t - a u n t and t h e g r e a t - u n c l e also t e s t i f i e d that great-aunt and the c h i l d at that time. The h a d n o t gone t o l i v e w i t h the great-uncle until November 2010, a l s o s t a t e d t h a t 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 the child paternal often i n September grandmother had father and medical October tests 2010, the but he had k e p t when performed. 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 h a d been l i v i n g w i t h The paternal 2010, she h a d begun her. the the p a t e r n a l grandmother grandmother. stated requesting that, after December t h a t t h e c h i l d be r e t u r n e d 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 by s t a t i n g child was doing w e l l with t h e g r e a t - a u n t and t h e 6 to that great- 2110752 uncle. The outstanding testified warrants t h r e e months. April father i n January 2 0 1 1 , he demanded t h a t child he was returned and the c h i l d grandmother. to the paternal the great-uncle's transfers, while disposition of t h i s appeal. and the great-uncle home; i n dispute, filed on 2011 a n d i n c a r c e r a t e d f o r are i n early be r e t u r n e d 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 custody of the p a t e r n a l the that home f o r t o the great- the details 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 g r e a t - u n c l e are adequate f o r t h e 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 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 safety or welfare 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 , she thought the c h i l d should although l i v e w i t h h e r because she i s h i s grandmother. The paternal g r e a t - a u n t t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e was c o n c e r n e d t h a t t h e grandmother has "bad n e r v e s " and t h a t 7 raising the 2110752 c h i l d i s t o o much f o r h e r . also expressed concern allowing the parents The record including various the p a r e n t s . The g r e a t - a u n t about the paternal unsupervised contains and t h e g r e a t - u n c l e contact references 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 by 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 should 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 t h a t p a r e n t was not under the influence o f an i n t o x i c a t i n g 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 g r a n d m o t h e r ' 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 that to have and t h e g r e a t - u n c l e presented the paternal grandmother unsupervised visitation evidence has a l l o w e d with the the child. M.L.P., t h e c h i l d ' s p a t e r n a l 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 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 o f t h o s e o c c a s i o n s 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 8 2110752 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 p a t e r n a l 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 t h e 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 b u t t h a t M.L.P. d i d n o t see h e r . had not 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 t h e c h i l d i f they were a n d she s t a t e d with the parents i f she b e l i e v e d t h a t t h e y were u s i n g d r u g s . The record records. indicates that both parents have criminal The f a t h e r h a s b e e n c o n v i c t e d o f s e v e r a l property c r i m e s , a n d he was r e l e a s e d f r o m i n c a r c e r a t i o n i n 2003 serving father five years i n prison f o r those 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 convictions. with 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 . 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 case, The f a t h e r of the hearing i n this r e l a t e d t o those The manufacturing methamphetamine t h r e e y e a r s b e f o r e t h e h e a r i n g i n t h i s stated after 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 tests results on the date of those 9 of the hearing tests i n this f o r the p a r t i e s were 2110752 negative. The f a t h e r ' s t e s t r e s u l t was of methamphetamine. had used i l l e g a l taken an that facility methamphetamine, and the to the hearing submitted We after failed t h a t he note the However, to had s t a t e d t h a t he inform taken the the that had record testing over-the- t h a t the mother d i d not r e t u r n break the that she father t e s t i f i e d parties pay and The which 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 test testing. during the the drug use that for to 1 he medication. father of h i s a s s e r t i o n counter medication. f o r the 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 over-the-counter indicates positive w e n t home r a t h e r t h a n return to a t t e n d the h e a r i n g . On appeal, the paternal grandmother j u v e n i l e court erred i n modifying custody argues that of the c h i l d . the 2 In The d r u g - t e s t f o r m s 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 the t e s t i n g f a c i l i t y he o r she had t a k e n i n 72 h o u r s b e f o r e t h e d r u g t e s t , and e a c h 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 f o r m . 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 any 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 of t h a t f o r m r e a d : "Def s t a t e s t h a t he has n o t t a k e n a n y t h i n g " and " 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 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 ' 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 for appeal i s not p e r s u a s i v e . 2 10 2110752 i t s M a r c h 27, standard 2012, judgment, the j u v e n i l e c o u r t a p p l i e d the 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 custody. found t h a t the "the about by a c u s t o d y offset the the c h i l d , So. 2d 863 (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 positive good t o the modification in this child ... brought c a u s e w i l l more t h a t inherently disruptive effect and t h a t an a w a r d o f c u s t o d y caused by uprooting to the great-aunt and the g r e a t - u n c l e would " m a t e r i a l l y promote[] the c h i l d ' s interest and welfare." See Ex p a r t e McLendon, 455 So. best 2d at 865-66. We that, note t h a t the great-aunt because the dependent, the "best be After applied. disagree. Although juvenile and court the g r e a t - u n c l e found the i n t e r e s t s of the c h i l d " a the careful review remained dependent, t h a t f i n d i n g child to standard of j u v e n i l e court contend the should record, found t h a t the seems t o be be we child b a s e d upon the 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 . or r e l a t i v e s The dispute i n this c a s e was should r a i s e the c h i l d . over which Given 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 although the j u v e n i l e court found the 11 child relative conclude dependent, and that, this 2110752 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 . v. A.K., 875 So. 2d 326 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 3 ) . J.P., 641 So. 2d 276, 278-79 held that t h e McLendon modification action juvenile court reaching i t s judgment. The not correctly paternal applies nonparents. applied in a In t h i s t h e McLendon grandmother t h e McLendon s t a n d a r d . has r e l i e d great-uncle t o help case, the standard argues t h a t the evidence custody m o d i f i c a t i o n heavily her with on t h e g r e a t - a u n t the c h i l d since in does under grandmother a l l o w e d regarding the c h i l d to l i v e 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 . would support a c o n c l u s i o n and t h e the child's The p a r t i e s p r e s e n t e d c o n f l i c t i n g e v i d e n c e time with custody- 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 grandmother when t h e p a t e r n a l court 3 support the j u v e n i l e court's birth. I n Ex p a r t e ( A l a . 1 9 9 4 ) , o u r supreme standard between See S.D.F. full The e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e p a t e r n a l grandmother 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 a n d t h e g r e a t - u n c l e left on Even assuming t h a t t h e "best i n t e r e s t s " standard 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 court erroneously 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 a f u l l - t i m e b a s i s f r o m June 2010 2011, when demanded the The full the be the child from returned 2011. jail, to In the the April father paternal custody. i n d i c a t e s that both w i t h the of parties released record time entry f a t h e r was that grandmother's until April great-aunt June alternating 2011 and pendente weeks of before the child the g r e a t - u n c l e a f t e r lite custody order with granting the 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 t h e p a r e n t s t o have c o n t a c t w i t h the c h i l d ; lived child the the the unsupervised the r e c o r d a l s o supports a c o n c l u s i o n 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 child. 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 j u d g m e n t d i d n o t p r o v i d e the parents with unsupervised. This visitation, court either recognizes, supervised as did the juvenile c o u r t , the p a t e r n a l grandmother's d e s i r e to a l l o w her see his child. However, t h e great-aunt and the or son to great-uncle expressed 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 the parents' history of drug use. Other r e l a t i v e s 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 u s i n g drugs. The c e r t a i n t h e p a r e n t s were p a t e r n a l grandmother d e n i e d having 13 not allowed 2110752 the c h i l d t o be However, at cautioned around the parents the the close of the i f t h e y were i n t o x i c a t e d . hearing, the juvenile p a t e r n a l grandmother t h a t there the c h i l d i n having unsupervised was ore tenus hearing p o s i t i v e f o r t h e use d e n i e d drug use, the trier of witnesses. to their t o be So. determine See Ex p a r t e Fann, 810 trial and credibility, clearly 2d 793, c o u r t has demeanor c o u r t ' s judgment u n l e s s as matter, 795 and the Further, father Although has this the So. 2d 631, the advantage of a superior father parte as the 2001) observing opportunity i t i s so u n s u p p o r t e d by Ex of (Ala. Court cannot a l t e r p a l p a b l y wrong.' (Ala. 636 at tested the credibility to and the p r o v i n c e of the j u v e n i l e c o u r t , fact, witnesses' assess this o f methamphetamine. i t was ("'[B]ecause the the in a risk c o n t a c t w i t h the parents t h a t t h e p a r t i e s had t o a c t t o p r o t e c t t h e c h i l d . the court the the to trial evidence D W W , 717 . . . 1998)."). At the c l o s e of the ore tenus h e a r i n g , the j u v e n i l e c o u r t determined t h a t the whom 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 in the methamphetamine of hearing, evidence for one the the positive exposure to h i s parents, at that tested child's record 14 on appeal supports the 2110752 juvenile court's finding that the great-aunt and t h e u n c l e h a d 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 had o c c u r r e d judgment. circumstances s i n c e t h e e n t r y o f t h e F e b r u a r y 2009 Accordingly, we cannot say that great- dependency 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 The paternal custody. grandmother also argues t h a t the j u v e n i l e c o u r t e r r e d i n f a i l i n g t o award h e r v i s i t a t i o n w i t h t h e c h i l d . 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 It ordered with d i d not with that with the c h i l d the child. the f a t h e r the child "be great- physical great-uncle. the paternal Instead, the receive alternating and directly that the supervised father's by" the grandmother. appears c l e a r t o t h i s anticipated directly visitation visitation visitation paternal any court awarded that, supervise court that the j u v e n i l e i n r e q u i r i n g the p a t e r n a l the v i s i t a t i o n 15 between court grandmother the c h i l d to and t h e 2110752 father, the paternal visitation grandmother with the c h i l d . method legal custodian of enforcing Therefore, also However, s h o u l d to forgo h i s r i g h t s of v i s i t a t i o n , who i s a j o i n t would to visitation grandmother, w o u l d n o t have a with visitation with court grandmother that, the c h i l d to enter a right i n reaching and an remand child. order of v i s i t a t i o n i t s judgment affording with grandmother t h e cause the the c h i l d . f o r the paternal We on remand, t h e j u v e n i l e 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 visitation the 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 juvenile afforded the father e l e c t the p a t e r n a l of the c h i l d , a right be note court grandmother i n addition to that of the father. AFFIRMED I N PART; REVERSED I N PART; AND REMANDED. P i t t m a n and Donaldson, J J . , c o n c u r . Thomas a n d Moore, J J . , concur i n part result i n part, with writings. 16 and c o n c u r i n t h e 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 with 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 17 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 . 18 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 19 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 20 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.