V.L. v. T.T.L.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 03/01/2013 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 2110832 V.L. v. T.T.L. Appeal from Lawrence C i r c u i t (DR-11-213) Court MOORE, J u d g e . V.L. Lawrence modify ("the m o t h e r " ) Circuit custody children"). Court appeals from ("the c i r c u i t of her c h i l d r e n , a judgment court") L.M.L. of the declining to a n d M.L.L. ("the 2110832 Procedural On October stepfather, 23, filed History 2009, in T.T.L., the the Lawrence children's Juvenile former Court ("the j u v e n i l e c o u r t " ) s e p a r a t e p e t i t i o n s a l l e g i n g t h a t L.M.L. ( c a s e no. JU-09-152.01) dependent petitions, and he and M.L.L. requesting (case custody specifically s u p p o r t of h i s a l l e g a t i o n s of alleged that the no. JU-09-153.01) were the children. In both the following facts children in were d e p e n d e n t : "The c h i l d ' s m o t h e r has a h i s t o r y o f a l c o h o l and d r u g a b u s e . The c h i l d ' s m o t h e r has m a i n t a i n e d no s t e a d y employment. The c h i l d has r e s i d e d i n numerous l o c a t i o n s w h i l e i n t h e c u s t o d y o f h e r m o t h e r . The child's mother has had numerous arrests and convictions. The c h i l d ' s mother withdrew herself f r o m a r e h a b [ i l i t a t i o n ] c e n t e r i n mid-May, 2009, a f t e r two (2) months o f t r e a t m e n t , i n a p r o g r a m w h i c h was d e s i g n e d t o l a s t f o r a p e r i o d o f e i g h t (8) months. The L a w r e n c e C o u n t y DHR [ D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s ] has i n v e s t i g a t e d t h e home o f t h e c h i l d ' s m o t h e r , and she gave DHR l e g a l permission to take c u s t o d y o f t h e s a i d c h i l d , i f t h e y e l e c t e d t o do so. The c h i l d ' s m o t h e r l i v e s w i t h a man t o whom she i s n o t m a r r i e d . The c h i l d ' s m o t h e r has no driver's license. The child's m o t h e r has a history of d o m e s t i c v i o l e n c e . The c h i l d ' s mother m a i n t a i n s a l i f e s t y l e which i s d e t r i m e n t a l to the w e l f a r e of the s a i d minor c h i l d . " T h a t same day, the juvenile c o u r t e n t e r e d s e p a r a t e ex o r d e r s a w a r d i n g T.T.L. p e n d e n t e l i t e After a pendente lite hearing, 2 the c u s t o d y of the juvenile court parte children. entered 2110832 separate orders on November 12, 2009, by agreement p a r t i e s , c o n t i n u i n g c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d r e n w i t h T.T.L. of the After a f i n a l 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 j u d g m e n t s on May 27, 2010, a w a r d i n g custody of the children awarding t h e mother s t a n d a r d v i s i t a t i o n . the j u v e n i l e c o u r t s p e c i f i c a l l y " I t i s hereby follows: stated, 1 t o T.T.L. a n d I n those judgments, i n pertinent part: ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED as "The p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y o f t h e m i n o r c h i l d s h a l l r e m a i n w i t h [ T . T . L . ] . The C o u r t r e a l i z e s t h e g r e a t s t r i d e s t h e [ m o t h e r ] h a s made i n r e c e n t months i n g a i n i n g h e r i n d e p e n d e n c e b y g e t t i n g h e r own home, car, d r i v e r ' s l i c e n s e , a n d two j o b s . The C o u r t commends t h e [ m o t h e r ] on t h i s and r e a l i z e s t h e amount o f w o r k a n d c o u r a g e i t h a s t a k e n f o r h e r . However, t h e [ m o t h e r ' s ] h i s t o r y w i t h a l c o h o l i s m i s s u c h t h a t t h e s h o r t p e r i o d o f t i m e w h e r e i n she h a s done t h e s e a c c o m p l i s h m e n t s i s n o t s u f f i c i e n t f o r h e r to r e c e i v e the p h y s i c a l custody of the c h i l d r e n . "The [mother] has t w i c e l e f t a treatment f a c i l i t y w i t h o u t f i n i s h i n g t r e a t m e n t . A l t h o u g h she t e s t i f i e d she d i d c o m p l e t e t h e [ i n t e n s i v e o u t p a t i e n t program], she h a s b y h e r own t e s t i m o n y r e l a p s e d three times since then. " D u r i n g t h e c h i l d r e n ' s s h o r t l i v e s t h e y have lived with [relatives o f t h e mother's former b o y f r i e n d ] f o r a l m o s t two y e a r s a n d have l i v e d w i t h [ T . T . L . ] f o r o v e r a y e a r . The [ m o t h e r ] h a s h a d h e r I n a S e p t e m b e r 24, 2010, o r d e r a s s e s s i n g g u a r d i a n a d l i t e m fees, the j u v e n i l e court s p e c i f i c a l l y stated that the 1 3 2110832 own home f o r two m o n t h s . The DHR [ D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s ] r e c o r d s r e v e a l t h a t s h e h a s l i v e d with at least two boyfriends and one male acquaintance s i n c e t h e c h i l d r e n were b o r n . Ms. Arthur[, a f r i e n d of the mother's,] t e s t i f i e d that she l i v e d w i t h h e r f o r a p e r i o d o f t i m e . She now w o r k s two j o b s t o s a v e money, b u t t h i s was a f t e r y e a r s o f no employment a n d no s t a b l e l i f e s t y l e . "The C o u r t i s aware t h a t f o r t h e p a s t month t h e [ m o t h e r ' s ] S u n d a y v i s i t s have b e e n u n s u p e r v i s e d a n d w i t h o u t i n c i d e n t . She r e q u e s t e d t h a t i f she i s n o t allowed custody of her c h i l d r e n that her v i s i t a t i o n be e x p a n d e d . [ T . T . L . ] s t a t e d t h a t he w o u l d p r e f e r more t i m e w i t h t h e v i s i t a t i o n as i s a n d t h e n g r a d u a t e i n t o more. A p p r o x i m a t e l y two (2) months have p a s s e d s i n c e t h e h e a r i n g . T h e s e months have been w i t h o u t i n c i d e n t . T h e r e f o r e , t h e [ m o t h e r ] s h a l l begin r e g u l a r v i s i t a t i o n pursuant t o the Court's S t a n d a r d V i s i t a t i o n S c h e d u l e . The C o u r t a d m o n i s h e s t h e p a r t i e s t o be f l e x i b l e w i t h t h i s s c h e d u l e t o insure that the [ c h i l d r e n ] are able to attend a l l a c t i v i t i e s , p a r t i e s , e t c . ... As no r e q u e s t f o r c h i l d s u p p o r t h a s b e e n made, no O r d e r c o n c e r n i n g same will be entered; however, the [mother] t e s t i f i e d o f h e r c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o t h e [ c h i l d r e n ] and the Court i n t e n d s f o r her t o p r o v i d e clothing, s c h o o l s u p p l i e s and o t h e r t h i n g s t h e [ c h i l d r e n ] might need t o a s s i s t [ T . T . L . ] and h i s w i f e . " On A u g u s t 12, 2 0 1 1 , t h e m o t h e r f i l e d requesting that the j u v e n i l e court vacate separate petitions i t s orders entered i n c a s e no. JU-09-152.01 a n d c a s e no. JU-09-153.01 due t o l a c k o f 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 ; t h o s e p e t i t i o n s were a s s i g n e d c a s e no. JU-09-152.03 a n d c a s e no. J U - 0 9 - 1 5 3 . 0 3 , r e s p e c t i v e l y . She also requested a m o d i f i c a t i o n of the previous 4 custody 2110832 judgments o r a v a c a t i o n o f those judgments and t h a t T.T.L. n o t be a l l o w e d t o r e l o c a t e w i t h t h e c h i l d r e n . T . T . L . r e s p o n d e d t o t h e m o t h e r ' s p e t i t i o n s on S e p t e m b e r 6, 2 0 1 1 . On September 23, 2 0 1 1 , t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t entered an o r d e r , r e f e r e n c i n g b o t h c a s e no. JU-09-152.03 a n d c a s e no. J U 09-153.03, i n w h i c h i t s t a t e d : " P u r s u a n t t o [Ex p a r t e T.C., 63 So. 3d 627] ( A l a . C i v . App. [ 2 0 1 0 ] ) , t h i s C o u r t l a c k s s u b j e c t matter j u r i s d i c t i o n t o hear t h i s cause. I t i s t h e r e f o r e ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED as f o l l o w s : "These m a t t e r s a r e t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h e C i r c u i t C o u r t o f L a w r e n c e C o u n t y , A l a b a m a where t h e y a r e t o be g i v e n a DR d e s i g n a t i o n w i t h a f i l i n g f e e f o r an o r i g i n a l DR, n o t a DR m o d i f i c a t i o n . The C l e r k i s ORDERED t o a d j u s t t h e f i l i n g f e e . " The t r a n s f e r r e d a c t i o n s were a s s i g n e d in the c i r c u i t court. entered a judgment children, denying modifying the specified that standard c a s e no. DR-11-213 On J a n u a r y 12, 2012, t h e c i r c u i t permitting T.T.L. t h e mother's mother's i t had to relocate with the request visitation. applied the court f o r custody, The circuit and court custody-modification s e t f o r t h i n Ex p a r t e McLendon, 455 So. 2d 863 ( A l a . 1984), i n making i t s d e t e r m i n a t i o n . On January 27, 2012, t h e m o t h e r m o t i o n ; t h a t m o t i o n was d e n i e d 5 filed by o p e r a t i o n a postjudgment o f l a w on A p r i l 2110832 26, 2012. See R u l e 5 9 . 1 , A l a . R. the mother f i l e d h e r n o t i c e C i v . P. On May 30, 2012, of appeal. Discussion On May appeal, 27, 2010, jurisdiction asserts, the mother argues that j u d g m e n t s were and were, the c i r c u i t entered without therefore, court standard custody. specifically mother void, improperly custody-modification The the j u v e n i l e to subject-matter and, applied her court's thus, the petitions argues t h a t , she McLendon to modify because the j u v e n i l e c o u r t d i d not e x p l i c i t l y f i n d the c h i l d r e n dependent in 2010, i t lacked jurisdiction to make any custodial d i s p o s i t i o n of the c h i l d r e n . T.T.L.'s p e t i t i o n s a l l e g e d facts that, s u p p o r t a f i n d i n g o f dependency. 603, 607 ( A l a . C i v . App. i n the i n i t i a l the M.W.H. v. R.W., jurisdiction of ... d e p e n d e n c y p e t i t i o n were s u f f i c i e n t the juvenile specifically proven dependent"). to be true, Further, could show the s p e c i f i c 6 that to invoke court because a l l e g e d that the c h i l d was d e p e n d e n t , and i t a l s o a l l e g e d s p e c i f i c if 100 So. 3d (holding that the a l l e g a t i o n s dependency p e t i t i o n dependency "[t]he 2012) i f proven, would the facts that, child was f i n d i n g s i n the j u v e n i l e 2110832 court's May 27, 2010, j u d g m e n t s indicate that the j u v e n i l e c o u r t made an i m p l i c i t f i n d i n g o f d e p e n d e n c y as t o e a c h c h i l d . See M.W.H., 100 So. 3 d a t 607 ( " ' [ T ] h i s when t h e evidence dependency a n d when t h e t r i a l consistent with judicial a finding economy dependency i n the record this i s implicit supports court a that finding of h a s made a d i s p o s i t i o n o f dependency, court c o u r t has h e l d may h o l d i n the t r i a l i n the i n t e r e s t of that a court's finding of judgment.'" (quoting J . P . v . S.S., 989 So. 2 d 5 9 1 , 598 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 2008))); a n d L.L.M. v . S.F., 919 So. 2 d 307, 311 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2005) judgment, ("Given t h e f a c t u a l we conclude that findings contained a finding i n t h e ... o f d e p e n d e n c y was i m p l i c i t i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t . " ) . The m o t h e r h a s n o t challenged the s u f f i c i e n c y of the evidence supporting implied f i n d i n g s o f d e p e n d e n c y , a n d , e v e n i f she d i d , s u c h a c h a l l e n g e w o u l d n o t be t i m e l y . See M.W.H., 100 So. 3 d a t 608 ("To t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h e m o t h e r , i n h e r b r i e f on a p p e a l , s u f f i c i e n c y of the evidence t o support dependency i n t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s consider that argument argument has long an i m p l i c i t Based 7 finding of ... j u d g m e n t , we w i l l n o t because the time passed."). challenges the f o r making s u c h an on t h e f o r e g o i n g , we 2110832 conclude t h a t the j u v e n i l e court i m p l i c i t l y found the c h i l d r e n dependent and t h a t i t , t h e r e f o r e , had j u r i s d i c t i o n t o enter i t s May 27, 2010, j u d g m e n t s . The mother makes no a d d i t i o n a l arguments on appeal; h o w e v e r , " [ a ] s we a r e p e r m i t t e d t o do, ... we have n o t i c e d , e x mero motu, a j u r i s d i c t i o n a l d e f e c t t h a t r e q u i r e s us t o d i s m i s s this appeal." P.D.S. v . M a r s h a l l C n t y . Dep't o f Human R e s . , 32 So. 3d 1288, 1290 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 9 ) . I n J.W. v. C.B., 68 So. 3d 878, 880 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 1 ) , t h i s c o u r t r e a s o n e d : "Because t h e c h i l d i n t h e p r e s e n t case had been p r e v i o u s l y a d j u d i c a t e d dependent by t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t i n J u l y 2008, § 1 2 - 1 5 - 1 1 7 ( a ) [ , A l a . Code 1975,] afforded the j u v e n i l e court continuing j u r i s d i c t i o n over the c h i l d u n t i l the c h i l d a t t a i n e d t h e age o f 21 o r u n t i l t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t t e r m i n a t e d i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h e case i n v o l v i n g t h e c h i l d b e f o r e t h e c h i l d ' s a t t a i n m e n t o f t h e age o f 2 1 . The r e c o r d demonstrates t h a t , a t t h e time t h e mother f i l e d h e r c u s t o d y - m o d i f i c a t i o n p e t i t i o n i n June 2009, t h e c h i l d h a d n o t y e t a t t a i n e d t h e age o f 21 and the j u v e n i l e court had not terminated i t s jurisdiction over t h e case i n v o l v i n g t h e c h i l d . A c c o r d i n g l y , we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t h a d 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 h i l d , and, thus, it had c o n t i n u i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n to consider the mother's c u s t o d y - m o d i f i c a t i o n p e t i t i o n . Therefore, we c o n c l u d e that the j u v e n i l e court erred i n determining t h a t i t d i d n o t have subject-matter j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h e mother's c u s t o d y - m o d i f i c a t i o n petition." 8 2110832 Similarly, i n the p r e s e n t case, because the j u v e n i l e c o u r t had implicitly adjudicated the c h i l d r e n d e p e n d e n t i n i t s May 2010, j u d g m e n t s , "§ 1 2 - 1 5 - 1 1 7 ( a ) [ , A l a . Code 1975,] the j u v e n i l e c o u r t c o n t i n u i n g until the juvenile child[ren] court afforded j u r i s d i c t i o n over the c h i l d [ r e n ] attained terminated 27, the age of 21 i t s jurisdiction or until over the the case[s] i n v o l v i n g the c h i l d [ r e n ] before the c h i l d [ r e n ] ' s attainment of the age o f 2 1 . " J.W., 68 So. 3d a t 880. In t h i s case, the c h i l d r e n h a d n o t a t t a i n e d t h e age o f 21 and t h e j u v e n i l e had not t e r m i n a t e d i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n the children. erred Thus, just like i n determining that jurisdiction over the petition[s]." Id. Because over the cases i n J.W., i t d i d not mother's court involving "the j u v e n i l e have court subject-matter custody-modification the j u v e n i l e court and n o t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t had j u r i s d i c t i o n over the mother's p e t i t i o n s f o r c u s t o d y and o b j e c t i n g circuit court's pendente l i t e A void v. (Ala. January 12, 2012, of the c h i l d r e n , judgment, as w e l l o r d e r s e n t e r e d by t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t , judgment w i l l Hall, to the r e l o c a t i o n [Ms. C i v . App. n o t s u p p o r t an a p p e a l . 2110943, 2013). J a n . 11, 2013] So. any are void. See, e.g., Thus, we d i s m i s s t h i s 9 as the 3d appeal, Hall , albeit 2110832 with instructions judgment custody unless Ala. to the c i r c u i t and o r d e r s . Id. court A l l matters to vacate i t s void pertaining o f t h e c h i l d r e n s h o u l d be h e a r d b y t h e j u v e n i l e and u n t i l the exceptions to the court s e t f o r t h i n § 12-15-117(a), Code 1975, a r e met. APPEAL DISMISSED WITH Thompson, INSTRUCTIONS. P . J . , and P i t t m a n , concur. 10 Thomas, and Donaldson, 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.