Ex parte Madison County Department of Human Resources and Tyron Newton (In re: The matter of C.C., a minor child)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 07/12/2013 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 the 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 , Alabama 36104-3741 ((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 be 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 SPECIAL TERM, 2013 2111200 Ex p a r t e Madison County Department of Human Resources and Tyron Newton ( I n r e : The matter of C.C., a minor c h i l d ) Appeal from Madison J u v e n i l e Court (JU-07-1522.10) PITTMAN, J u d g e . The M a d i s o n C o u n t y D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s ("DHR") and i t s assistant September 13, 2012, director, order Tyron Newton, of Madison Juvenile Court finding court f o r t h e i r w i l l f u l disobedience of a court order. sanction, Judge i n criminal from C l a u d e E. H u n d l e y I I I , contempt them appeal a Judge contempt of As a H u n d l e y s e n t e n c e d Newton t o p a y a 2111200 f i n e o f $2,000 b y 9:00 a.m. on himself into the f i n e . the j a i l S e p t e m b e r 17, 2012, o r t o t u r n forfive days' i n c a r c e r a t i o n p l u s pay DHR a n d Newton s o u g h t a w r i t o f mandamus f r o m this c o u r t , d i r e c t i n g Judge H u n d l e y t o v a c a t e h i s o r d e r (a) h o l d i n g Newton a n d DHR appeal from 70A(g)(2), contempt. The i n contempt. an a d j u d i c a t i o n We treat the p e t i t i o n o f contempt, A l a . R. C i v . P., a n d we pursuant as an t o Rule reverse the finding of 1 underlying action i s a dependency a c t i o n involving 1 3 - y e a r - o l d C.C., who h a d been i n t h e c u s t o d y o f h i s m a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s w h i l e h i s p a r e n t s were i n c a r c e r a t e d . 30, 2012, a f t e r t h e m o t h e r was r e l e a s e d f r o m On J a n u a r y incarceration, she a n d t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r p e t i t i o n e d t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t to transfer c u s t o d y back t o t h e mother. The j u v e n i l e court r e q u e s t e d t h a t DHR p e r f o r m a home s t u d y . Judge H u n d l e y he received h e l d a h e a r i n g on June 1 1 , 2 0 1 2 , a t w h i c h evidence indicating that the maternal To t h e e x t e n t DHR a n d Newton s e e k r e l i e f f r o m t h a t p a r t of Judge H u n d l e y ' s o r d e r commanding DHR t o r e s c i n d a d i r e c t i v e t o i t s c a s e w o r k e r s , i n s t r u c t i n g them t o c o m m u n i c a t e w i t h t h e g u a r d i a n a d l i t e m i n t h e u n d e r l y i n g a c t i o n o n l y t h r o u g h DHR's a t t o r n e y s , such r e l i e f i s n o t a v a i l a b l e by a p p e a l under Rule 7 0 ( A ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. 1 2 2111200 grandmother's residence dogs k e p t i n s i d e t h e and unsanitary; that r e s i d e n c e ; and l i v i n g i n the maternal 2012, was were t h a t t h e m o t h e r had when she had t e s t e d p o s i t i v e f o r t h e p r e s e n c e o f marijuana and DHR had r e q u i r e d t h a t she I n a d d i t i o n , t h e c o u r t was indicating t h a t the been maternal incarcerated school. immediate drug (and At were illegal the testing m o t h e r , and C.C. The who c u r r e n t l y on probation) hearing, of the maternal regarding the had recently for Hundley a and ordered grandmother, the m o t h e r ' s and C.C.'s t e s t s were p o s i t i v e grandmother's t e s t i n d i c a t e d t h e p r e s e n c e o f numerous m e d i c a t i o n s . 2012, of obey t h e i r r u l e s Judge 9, with evidence grandparents, d r u g s ; the maternal s h e l t e r - c a r e custody been cocaine move o u t presented t r u a n c y o f f e n s e , were u n a b l e t o make C.C. attend 16 grandmother's r e s i d e n c e u n t i l March residence. for there of legal C.C. The court granted and s e t a h e a r i n g f o r A u g u s t custody. DHR placed C.C. DHR 16, in foster care. On June determine the two weeks 21, 2012, Judge Hundley w h e r e a b o u t s o f C.C., after having run who away held had hearing to been m i s s i n g for from g r a n d m o t h e r ' s home when he l e a r n e d t h a t he was 3 a the maternal t o be p l a c e d i n 2111200 foster care. The m o t h e r a n d t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s k n o w i n g C.C.'s w h e r e a b o u t s . However, a f t e r great that grandfather t e s t i f i e d grandmother's C.C.'s denied maternal C.C. was a t t h e m a t e r n a l r e s i d e n c e , Judge Hundley o r d e r e d t h a t t h e mother and t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s be j a i l e d u n t i l C.C. was f o u n d . When C.C. was l o c a t e d two d a y s l a t e r , the presence At counsel of drugs. the beginning f o r DHR proclivity he t e s t e d p o s i t i v e f o r of the hearing informed on A u g u s t the court that, 16, 2012, because o f C.C.'s t o r u n away, DHR h a d made a t t e m p t s t o p l a c e h i m i n five different secure f a c i l i t i e s , but a l l the f a c i l i t i e s had d e c l i n e d t o a c c e p t h i m , b a s e d on h i s b e h a v i o r , h i s a g e , o r , i n t h e c a s e o f The B r i d g e facility b e c a u s e C.C.'s most r e c e n t d r u g t e s t on J u l y 19, 2012, h a d been n e g a t i v e a n d he was n o t , t h e r e f o r e , crisis" so as t o meet t h e a d m i s s i o n Langford, C.C.'s diagnosed as s u f f e r i n g had an i n p a t i e n t d r u g - t r e a t m e n t caseworker, from County that a generalized c o u n s e l e d by Jose R i v e r a , a c h i l d the Madison criteria. testified been t a k i n g m e d i c a t i o n f o r t h a t Karnetris C.C. had been anxiety disorder, condition, a n d h a d been and a d o l e s c e n t t h e r a p i s t a t Mental Health Center. 4 deemed t o be " i n 2111200 L a n g f o r d had r e c e i v e d a r e p o r t from t h e c o u n s e l o r s a t t h e H a r r i s Home f o r Boys (a p l a c e m e n t away) i n d i c a t i n g come i n t o basis. f r o m w h i c h C.C. h a d a l s o r u n t h a t C.C. h a d a d m i t t e d t h a t , DHR's c u s t o d y , b e f o r e he h a d he h a d b e e n u s i n g d r u g s on a d a i l y L a n g f o r d s t a t e d t h a t R i v e r a h a d recommended t h a t DHR e n r o l l C.C. i n an i n t e n s i v e o u t p a t i e n t d r u g - t r e a t m e n t Carolyn H a r r i s , Langford's remain s u p e r v i s o r , recommended t h a t C.C. i n DHR's c u s t o d y so t h a t DHR " c o u l d c o n t i n u e t o s e e k a treatment When program. facility the guardian f o r h i m as d i r e c t e d b y [Judge ad l i t e m asked Harris Hundley]." whether DHR 2 was w i l l i n g t o p a y f o r d r u g t r e a t m e n t f o r C.C., H a r r i s s t a t e d t h a t DHR w o u l d look f o r a f a c i l i t y guardian ad l i t e m argued that accepted Medicaid. The t o t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t t h a t C.C. was "a v i c t i m o f DHR's b u d g e t a r y c u t s " a n d i n f o r m e d t h e c o u r t t h a t Bradford Health Services ("Bradford") operated a local a d o l e s c e n t d r u g - t r e a t m e n t f a c i l i t y t o w h i c h C.C. c o u l d be s e n t and f o r which, t h e g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m m a i n t a i n e d , DHR should pay. Judge Hundley had not e n t e r e d a w r i t t e n treatment order b u t h a d s t a t e d d u r i n g a p r e v i o u s h e a r i n g t h a t C.C. n e e d e d t o be " i n t r e a t m e n t . " 2 5 2111200 At the stated c o n c l u s i o n of t h a t he w a n t e d C.C. substance abuse and litem participate to the Judge H u n d l e y i n p a t i e n t treatment ordered DHR an and the Individualized treatment plan f o r C.C. Judge Service Hundley for guardian ("ISP") m e e t i n g t h e f o l l o w i n g day, A u g u s t 17, 2012, a orally t o have orally in hearing, ad Program to discuss d i d not enter w r i t t e n order m e m o r i a l i z i n g h i s o r a l r u l i n g s at the August 2012, and t h e g u a r d i a n Two 16, hearing. A t t h e A u g u s t 17, C.C. a 2012, ISP m e e t i n g , DHR ad l i t e m d i s c u s s e d t h e p o s s i b l e p l a c e m e n t o f a t two r e s i d e n t i a l f a c i l i t i e s i n d e p e n d e n t a s s e s s m e n t s had eligible for nonetheless, representatives The B r i d g e and Bradford. i n d i c a t e d t h a t C.C. i n p a t i e n t treatment at a t t e m p t e d t o have C.C. either was not facility; a d m i t t e d t o The DHR, Bridge B r a d f o r d b e c a u s e Judge H u n d l e y had s a i d t h a t he w a n t e d C.C. or to have i n p a t i e n t t r e a t m e n t . The B r i d g e i n d i c a t e d t h a t i t d i d n o t have a bed a v a i l a b l e for C.C. Bradford, however, that i n p a t i e n t treatment to a d m i t him provide accepted on A u g u s t 21, i t with for was written admission after initially informing n o t a p p r o p r i a t e f o r C.C., 2012. DHR then confirmation for agreed asked Bradford that C.C. i n p a t i e n t treatment. 6 DHR had to been Bradford 2111200 i n i t i a l l y r e f u s e d , a n d DHR d e c l i n e d t o p l a c e C.C. a t B r a d f o r d without the w r i t t e n confirmation. On August petition 23, seeking 2012, t h e g u a r d i a n t o have the j u v e n i l e Newton i n c o n t e m p t due t o t h e i r failure inpatient The treatment program. ad litem court hold filed DHR a and t o e n r o l l C.C. i n an juvenile court s e t the g u a r d i a n a d l i t e m ' s c o n t e m p t p e t i t i o n f o r a h e a r i n g on A u g u s t 29, 2012. litem's The A u g u s t 29, 2012, h e a r i n g contempt p e t i t i o n was c o n t i n u e d on t h e g u a r d i a n until ad September 11, 2012, b e c a u s e DHR a n d Newton h a d n o t been s e r v e d w i t h p r o c e s s . DHR, Newton, actual notice hearing date and t h e Alabama Attorney of the guardian before properly served. General were ad l i t e m ' s p e t i t i o n t h e September 11 h e a r i n g given and t h e b u t were n o t DHR e n t e r e d a l i m i t e d a p p e a r a n c e t o o b j e c t t o t h e g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m ' s contempt p e t i t i o n . DHR o b j e c t e d on t h e g r o u n d s t h a t no w r i t t e n o r d e r r e q u i r i n g DHR t o p l a c e C.C. i n i n p a t i e n t treatment h a d e v e r been e n t e r e d a n d t h a t DHR a n d Newton h a d n o t been p r o p e r l y s e r v e d w i t h At t h e September process. 11, 2012, h e a r i n g , Newton testified t h a t , when B r a d f o r d a g r e e d t o a d m i t C.C. on A u g u s t 2 1 , 2012, he h a d d e c i d e d t o p u t C.C.'s p l a c e m e n t a t B r a d f o r d on " h o l d " 7 2111200 and t o e x h a u s t a l l r e s o u r c e s f o r p l a c i n g C.C. Newton s t a t e d t h a t he h a d d e c i d e d further Bridge's t o p u r s u e The B r i d g e more c o m p r e h e n s i v e , and, he t h o u g h t , more a p p r o p r i a t e f o r C.C. treatment treatment program. program option longer, Bradford's The Bridge. was than because a t The He explained that the B r a d f o r d p r o g r a m l a s t e d 21 d a y s and was l i m i t e d t o s u b s t a n c e abuse treatment, last up to 60 whereas, days and substance-abuse i s s u e s . to Rivera Bridge" up to concerning he s a i d , The Bridge program addressed behavioral as well Newton t e s t i f i e d t h a t he h a d "what was as spoken [C.C.] i n t o The and t h a t R i v e r a h a d t o l d Newton t h a t t h e d e c i s i o n was the clinical certificate needed t o g e t could o f need. On director, cross-examination, who would have to sign a Newton a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t , when he a s k e d B r a d f o r d f o r c o n f i r m a t i o n o f C.C.'s a c c e p t a n c e on A u g u s t 21, 2012, he knew t h a t a b e d a t B r a d f o r d available also did f o r C.C. a f t e r he acknowledged t h a t not accept received the c o n f i r m a t i o n . an i n p a t i e n t s t a y Medicaid, would cost might not s t i l l DHR at Bradford, $6,000, be p a i d by Medicaid. 8 He which whereas s u b s t a n t i a l p o r t i o n o f t h e i n p a t i e n t s t a y a t The B r i d g e be a would 2111200 Rivera t e s t i f i e d t h a t , on J u l y 19, 2012, he substance-abuse assessment o f C.C. t h a t C.C. h a d f a i l e d a c o u r t - o r d e r e d after performed a receiving reports d r u g t e s t i n June 2012. R i v e r a s a i d t h a t , b e c a u s e C.C.'s J u l y 19, 2012, d r u g t e s t was negative a n d C.C. d i d not q u a l i f y f o r i n p a t i e n t u n d e r an e i g h t - p o i n t treatment enrolled facilities, criterion he u s e d b y The B r i d g e recommended i n an i n t e n s i v e o u t p a t i e n t t h a t C.C. n e e d e d " b e h a v i o r a l substance-abuse components treatment t o DHR program. and that Rivera other C.C. opined i n t e r v e n t i o n and t r e a t m e n t attached to i t . But be with [C.C.'s] p r i m a r y i s s u e ... [ i s ] n o t s u b s t a n c e a b u s e ; i t [ i s ] b e h a v i o r a l as a r e s u l t of h i s mental illness ... he was n o t on h i s m e d i c a t i o n a n d as a r e s u l t he was o u t o f c o n t r o l . " Rivera s t a t e d t h a t , a l t h o u g h he n o r m a l l y s u b m i t t e d an a p p l i c a t i o n t h a t w o u l d n o t have d i d n o t meet t h e c r i t e r i a f o r i n p a t i e n t a d m i s s i o n , he s u b m i t t e d an a p p l i c a t i o n t o The B r i d g e for C.C.'s informed inpatient admission because "DHR [him] t h a t t h e y were b e i n g p r e s s u r e d make t h i s h a p p e n . " personnel] that personnel by t h e c o u r t t o Newton s a i d t h a t he h a d " e x p l a i n e d [C.C.] d o e s n ' t meet c r i t e r i a t r e a t m e n t ] was i n a p p r o p r i a t e , t o [DHR and [ i n p a t i e n t a n d [DHR p e r s o n n e l ] 9 had [had] s a i d 2111200 'this On i s what t h e j u d g e w a n t s ; make i t happen i f you c a n . ' " Monday, August 27, 2012, Newton B r i d g e had a b e d a v a i l a b l e f o r C.C. B r i d g e on A u g u s t 28, At was C.C. willful i t s rulings contempt contempt of of court that The was a d m i t t e d t o The 2012. t h e c o n c l u s i o n o f t h e September c o u r t announced notified court, and fined 11, 2012, h e a r i n g , t h e from the bench. I t f o u n d DHR and i t f o u n d Newton him $250 f o r e a c h in in willful of the eight d a y s , i n c l u s i v e , between September 21, 2012, when a b e d became available C.C. f o r C.C. a t B r a d f o r d , and September was a d m i t t e d t o The B r i d g e . p a y a f i n e t o t a l i n g $2,000 by 9:00 or to turn plus 2012, pay himself the Judge fine. into the j a i l In a w r i t t e n 28, 2012, when The c o u r t o r d e r e d Newton t o a.m. on September f o r 5 days' order H u n d l e y made t h e f o l l o w i n g 17, incarceration d a t e d September finding of f a c t s c o n c l u s i o n s of law: "2. T h a t as O r d e r e d by t h i s C o u r t on A u g u s t 16, 2012, an I S P was h e l d i n r e g a r d t o t h e m i n o r , [ C . C . ] , on A u g u s t 17, 2012, a t w h i c h t i m e t h e p a r t i e s w o r k e d on t h e p r o b l e m s w h i c h h a d p r e v e n t e d the minor child from getting into a secure r e s i d e n t i a l f a c i l i t y t o a d d r e s s h i s p r o b l e m s , and the c a s e w o r k e r a s s i g n e d d i d as r e q u e s t e d and o b t a i n e d a placement f o r the minor at B r a d f o r d ; s a i d a s s e s s m e n t b e i n g done a t B r a d f o r d on A u g u s t 20, 10 2012, 13, and 2111200 2012, w i t h a bed b e c o m i n g a v a i l a b l e a t B r a d f o r d A u g u s t 21, 2012. on "3. T h a t T y r o n Newton, A s s i s t a n t D i r e c t o r o f C h i l d Welfare and A d u l t S e r v i c e s a t t h e M a d i s o n C o u n t y D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s , a f t e r h e a r i n g t h a t a bed was a v a i l a b l e a t B r a d f o r d f o r [C.C.] on A u g u s t 21, 2012 i n t e n t i o n a l l y f a i l e d and r e f u s e d t o f o l l o w t h i s c o u r t ' s o r d e r and p l a c e t h e c h i l d i n s u c h f a c i l i t y . T h a t he i n s e r t e d h i m s e l f i n t o t h e p r o c e s s , and r a t h e r t h a n w o r k i n g t o f a c i l i t a t e the o r d e r o f t h e c o u r t , he, on h i s own, d e c i d e d n o t t o a l l o w t h e m i n o r t o go t o t h e f a c i l i t y as o r d e r e d by t h e c o u r t and a g r e e d upon by t h e p a r t i e s a t t h e ISP and a r r a n g e d by t h e w o r k e r . T h a t [DHR's] p r i o r p r a c t i c e had been f o r p l a c e m e n t t o o c c u r once a v e r b a l [ a c c e p t a n c e o f a d m i s s i o n ] had been r e c e i v e d and approved by a supervisor and program c o o r d i n a t o r . H a v i n g u n d e r s t o o d and b e i n g f u l l y aware o f t h e c o u r t ' s o r d e r , Mr. Newton s i m p l y s t o p p e d t h e t r a n s f e r t o t h e f a c i l i t y and had no o t h e r p l a c e m e n t a v a i l a b l e or i n the works. His a c t i o n s endangered t h e c h i l d and t h e c h i l d ' s w e l f a r e and v i o l a t e d t h e court's d i r e c t i v e . T h a t he sought to hide his a c t i o n s and o n l y compounded h i s d i s r e g a r d f o r t h e c o u r t ' s o r d e r s k e e p i n g t h e c h i l d o u t f o r up t o e i g h t (8) d a y s b e f o r e s a i d m i n o r c o u l d be p l a c e d i n another a v a i l a b l e f a c i l i t y . "4. T h a t T y r o n Newton's b e h a v i o r s u b s e q u e n t t o f i n d i n g p l a c e m e n t f o r t h e m i n o r a t B r a d f o r d was an o b s t r u c t i o n t o t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f j u s t i c e and h i s behavior was c o m m i t t e d i n s u c h a manner as to i n t e r r u p t , d i s t u r b and h i n d e r t h e c o u r t i n c a r r y i n g f o r t h t h e r u l i n g s s e t f o r t h by t h e c o u r t t o t a k e care of the best i n t e r e s t s of t h i s c h i l d . "5. T h a t T y r o n Newton's a c t i o n s have been wilfully d i s o b e d i e n t o f t h i s c o u r t ' s command and o r d e r i n t h a t he knew t h e c o u r t o r d e r e d him to a p p e a r i n c o u r t f o r a h e a r i n g on A u g u s t 29, 2012 and i n s t e a d he p u r p o s e l y t r a v e l e d t o J a c k s o n County, 11 2111200 A l a b a m a and d i d n o t a p p e a r i n c o u r t and these a c t i o n s were f r a u d u l e n t and i n b a d f a i t h d i s r e g a r d o f t h e o r d e r o f t h e c o u r t and o u t s i d e t h e n o r m a l o p e r a t i n g p r o c e d u r e i n t h e s e t y p e s i t u a t i o n s . As a r e s u l t o f s a i d a c t i o n s , T y r o n Newton i s n o t e n t i t l e d to s t a t e - a g e n t immunity." Standard of Review " [ T ] h e s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w i n an a p p e a l f r o m an a d j u d i c a t i o n of c r i m i n a l contempt o c c u r r i n g i n a civil case i s whether the o f f e n s e , i . e . , the contempt, was p r o v e d b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e doubt. H i c k s v. F e i o c k , 485 U.S. 624, 108 S. C t . 1423, 99 L. Ed. 2d 721 ( 1 9 8 8 ) ; Combs v. Ryan's C o a l Co., 785 F.2d 970 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1 9 8 6 ) ; and U n i t e d S t a t e s v. T u r n e r , 812 F.2d 1552 (11th C i r . 1987). ... In Turner, the Court, i n d i s c u s s i n g the s t a n d a r d of review i n a criminal-contempt case, s a i d : "'The essential elements of the c r i m i n a l c o n t e m p t f o r w h i c h p u n i s h m e n t has been i m p o s e d on [ t h e d e f e n d a n t ] a r e t h a t the court entered a lawful order of reasonable s p e c i f i c i t y , [the defendant] v i o l a t e d i t , and t h e v i o l a t i o n was w i l f u l . G u i l t may be d e t e r m i n e d and p u n i s h m e n t i m p o s e d o n l y i f e a c h o f t h e s e e l e m e n t s has been p r o v e d b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t . ' " T u r n e r , 812 F.2d a t 1563. The T u r n e r c o u r t s t a t e d , q u o t i n g Gordon v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 438 858, 868 n. 30 ( 5 t h C i r . 1971) : "'"The t e s t i s w h e t h e r t h e e v i d e n c e i s s u f f i c i e n t t o j u s t i f y t h e t r i a l j u d g e , as t r i e r of the f a c t s , i n c o n c l u d i n g beyond a r e a s o n a b l e doubt t h a t the defendant was guilty, and that such evidence is i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h any r e a s o n a b l e h y p o t h e s i s of h i s innocence. Such i s t h e s u b s t a n t i a l evidence t e s t . " ' 12 also F.2d 2111200 "Turner, 812 F.2d Ex p a r t e F e r g u s o n , at 819 1563." So. 2d 626, 629 ( A l a . 2001). Discussion DHR and Newton argue, Hundley's contempt o r d e r among other o f S e p t e m b e r 13, things, 2012, that Judge i s due to r e v e r s e d b e c a u s e i t i s b a s e d on t h e a l l e g e d d i s o b e d i e n c e i n v a l i d o r a l order. Rule 58, A l a . R. C i v . P., orders and judgments, c o u r t s by v i r t u e o f R u l e and sufficiency, i s a p p l i c a b l e to 1 ( A ) , A l a . R. Juv. o f an which governs t h e r e n d i t i o n and e n t r y , as w e l l as t h e f o r m and of be the j u v e n i l e P., states: "A j u d g e may r e n d e r an o r d e r o r j u d g m e n t : (1) by executing a separate w r i t t e n document, (2) by i n c l u d i n g the order or judgment i n a judicial o p i n i o n , (3) by e n d o r s i n g upon a m o t i o n t h e words 'granted,' 'denied,' 'moot,' o r words o f s i m i l a r i m p o r t , and d a t i n g and s i g n i n g o r i n i t i a l i n g i t , (4) by m a k i n g o r c a u s i n g t o be made a n o t a t i o n i n the court records, or (5) by executing and transmitting an electronic document to the e l e c t r o n i c - f i l i n g system." Rule 58(a). orders." 54, 56 There i s no provision in I n Ex p a r t e D e p a r t m e n t o f M e n t a l ( A l a . C i v . App. 1984), t h i s Rule 58 for H e a l t h , 446 "oral So. court stated: " S e c t i o n 12-12-2, [ A l a . ] Code 1975, p r o v i d e s t h a t the d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s a c o u r t of r e c o r d . Courts of r e c o r d have been d e f i n e d as c o u r t s whose p r o c e e d i n g s a r e p e r p e t u a t e d i n w r i t i n g . B l a c k ' s Law D i c t i o n a r y 425 ( r e v . 4 t h ed. 1968) . A d d i t i o n a l l y , section 13 2d 2111200 12-15-2 p r o v i d e s that the c i r c u i t and d i s t r i c t courts s h a l l exercise o r i g i n a l concurrent j u v e n i l e j u r i s d i c t i o n s i t t i n g as t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t . Hence, s i n c e t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s a c o u r t o f r e c o r d and the j u v e n i l e c o u r t i s p a r t of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t must a l s o r e c o r d i t s p r o c e e d i n g s . "The v e r b a l o r d e r i s s u e d b y t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t on A u g u s t 19, 1983 p l a c i n g p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y o f W i l l i a m i n h i s b r o t h e r Edward and t h e g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m i s c l e a r l y i n v a l i d as a r e t h e v e r b a l orders i s s u e d b y t h e c o u r t b e t w e e n S e p t e m b e r 9, 1983 a n d S e p t e m b e r 26, 1983 r e l a t i n g t o t h e l e g a l c u s t o d y o f William and t h e r e q u i r e m e n t that a plan f o r f u r n i s h i n g c e r t a i n s e r v i c e s t o W i l l i a m be g i v e n t o the c o u r t . " See also 2010) Meek v. Meek, 54 So. 3d 389, 393 (oral Bell, orders 508 So. 2d 912, 913-914 DHR, by and judgments i n fact, placing C.C. are i n v a l i d ) ; and B e l l v. ( A l a . C i v . App. 1987) (same). complied with i n an ( A l a . C i v . App. the court's inpatient oral directive substance-abuse-treatment f a c i l i t y on A u g u s t 28, 2012 -- a r e a s o n a b l e t i m e a f t e r t h e I S P m e e t i n g 11 d a y s e a r l i e r on A u g u s t 17, 2012. oral not d i r e c t i v e contained specify that would a c c e p t him. placed there no d e a d l i n e C.C. be p l a c e d The f a c t s t h a t C.C. was n o t t h e f i r s t was an e i g h t - d a y delay Judge H u n d l e y ' s or target i n the f i r s t the f a c i l i t y facility d a t e and d i d facility i n which DHR t o a c c e p t him and t h a t following that f i r s t 14 that acceptance 2111200 until C.C. was u l t i m a t e l y p l a c e d i n a second f a c i l i t y form t h e b a s i s f o r a f i n d i n g o f contempt. the d i r e c t i v e upon w h i c h t h e c o n t e m p t i n v a l i d -its lacking cannot T h a t i s so b e c a u s e f i n d i n g was b a s e d was b o t h by v i r t u e o f i t s b e i n g o r a l and by v i r t u e o f "reasonable s p e c i f i c i t y " as t o t h e terms and c o n d i t i o n s upon w h i c h any n o n c o m p l i a n c e w o u l d be b a s e d . Ex p a r t e F e r g u s o n , 819 So. 2d a t 629 ( q u o t i n g U n i t e d Turner, Nave, 812 F.2d 1552, 1563 942 So. 2d f i n d i n g o f contempt the not 372 (11th C i r . 1987). ( A l a . C i v . App. for failure applicable provision t o pay c h i l d See Nave v. (reversing respect a support because o f t h e p a r t i e s ' d i v o r c e judgment reasonably s p e c i f i c with child-support obligation 2005) S t a t e s v. t o when was the father's terminated). B a s e d on t h e f o r e g o i n g f a c t s a n d a u t h o r i t i e s , we r e v e r s e Judge Hundley's o r d e r o f September f o u n d DHR a n d Newton i n c r i m i n a l cause w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n s 13, 2012, i n s o f a r contempt, as i t a n d we remand t h e t o v a c a t e t h e contempt finding. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Thompson, P . J . , c o n c u r s . Moore, J . , concurs i n the r e s u l t , with writing, which Thomas, J . , j o i n s . Donaldson, J . , concurs i n the r e s u l t , w i t h 15 writing. 2111200 MOORE, J u d g e , c o n c u r r i n g Section i n the result. 12-15-110(a), Ala. Code 1975, g i v e s juvenile c o u r t s t h e power t o p u n i s h a p e r s o n f o r c o n t e m p t o f c o u r t " f o r disobeying an o r d e r of the j u v e n i l e court or for obstructing or i n t e r f e r i n g w i t h t h e proceedings the enforcement o f i t s o r d e r s . " s p e c i f y t h a t those of the j u v e n i l e court or S e c t i o n 1 2 - 1 5 - 1 1 0 ( a ) does n o t o r d e r s must be i n w r i t i n g i n o r d e r t o f o r m a b a s i s f o r a f i n d i n g o f contempt. also does not state contempt based only order. Section conflict with orders see court upon w i l l f u l Rule can c i t e a person f o r disobedience to a written and Rule 58, A l a . R. C i v . 70A seem P., w h i c h that conflict on o t h e r because grounds. required personnel D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s an fully complied Individualized County ("DHR") t o meet w i t h t h e o t h e r t o obtain i n p a t i e n t drug treatment representatives holding I believe the o f t h e Madison i n t e r e s t e d p a r t i e s on A u g u s t 17, 2 0 1 2 , i n o r d e r its However, I o r a l d i r e c t i v e o f t h e Madison J u v e n i l e Court i n t h i s specifically a plan t o be i n requires a l l t o be i n w r i t i n g i n o r d e r t o be e f f e c t i v e . no n e e d t o r e s o l v e The a 12-15-110(a) c a s e c a n be d e c i d e d case that R u l e 70A, A l a . R. C i v . P., Service 16 with Plan t o formulate f o r C.C. that DHR a n d directive ("ISP") by meeting 2111200 concerning C.C. and agreeing i n p a t i e n t drug treatment at that meeting to f o r C.C. a t B r a d f o r d H e a l t h ( " B r a d f o r d " ) o r The B r i d g e . pursue Services The r e c o r d c o n t a i n s no e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t DHR o r T y r o n Newton, DHR's a s s i s t a n t d i r e c t o r , w i l l f u l l y and c o n t u m a c i o u s l y disobeyed juvenile i n the t r a n s c r i p t 16, court as c o n t a i n e d t h e o r a l command o f t h e o f t h e August 2012, h e a r i n g . The place j u v e n i l e court C.C. i n any p a r t i c u l a r p l a c e m e n t must t a k e In f a c t , d i d not s p e c i f i c a l l y place facility order or advise w i t h i n any p a r t i c u l a r a t t h e A u g u s t 16, 2012, h e a r i n g , that time (Ala. C f . I n r e The M a t t e r C i v . App. provisions exercise of Morris, that such frame. i t s prior 491 So. 2d 244 separation-of-powers C o n s t i t u t i o n o f 1901 p r e c l u d e a f r o m d i r e c t i n g c h i l d - w e l f a r e a g e n c y as t o how i t s discretion provider for child evidence indicating responsibilities). i n s e l e c t i n g treatment i n need that of supervision agency abused DHR u l t i m a t e l y a r r a n g e d i n p a t i e n t drug treatment 2012, (holding o f t h e Alabama juvenile court to 1986) DHR the j u v e n i l e court i n d i c a t e d t h a t i t would a l l o w placement only w i t h approval. that or 17 i n absence of neglected i t s f o r C.C. t o o b t a i n a t The B r i d g e b e g i n n i n g 11 d a y s a f t e r t h e I S P m e e t i n g . p l a n and on A u g u s t 28, The e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e s 2111200 t h a t C.C. 2012, c o u l d have b e e n a d m i t t e d i n t o B r a d f o r d on A u g u s t 21, seven days e a r l i e r , a t a c o s t t o DHR of approximately $6,000, b u t t h a t he w o u l d n o t have r e c e i v e d t r e a t m e n t or as comprehensive accepts Medicaid. as that Nothing provided i n the by The Bridge, A u g u s t 16, DHR that which the letter, of the j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s o r a l d i r e c t i v e s on 2012. and the Newton d i d n o t August 16, argue b e f o r e 2012, order the j u v e n i l e court lacked "reasonable s p e c i f i c i t y , " see Ex p a r t e F e r g u s o n , 819 So. 2d 626, 2001) long record indicates that c h o i c e of f a c i l i t y or the seven-day d e l a y v i o l a t e d the or even the s p i r i t , as (holding that person cannot be held 629 (Ala. i n contempt for v i o l a t i n g c o u r t o r d e r t h a t i s n o t r e a s o n a b l y s p e c i f i c so as t o i n f o r m person of conduct p r o h i b i t e d or r e q u i r e d ) , thus that issue. 990 So. consider review See 2d 887, S.K. 895 v. M a d i s o n C n t y . Dep't o f Human ( A l a . C i v . App. arguments r a i s e d f o r the is restricted waiving to 2008) ("This c o u r t time evidence the first and on Res., cannot appeal. the Our arguments c o n s i d e r e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t . " ) . However, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t e n t e r e d d e t a i l e d f i n d i n g s of f a c t s e t t i n g out the a c t i o n s of DHR and violations Newton that i t o f i t s A u g u s t 16, considered 2012, 18 to order. be contemptuous Pursuant to Rule 2111200 5 2 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., postjudgment DHR and Newton d i d n o t have t o f i l e motion i n order to preserve f o r a p p e l l a t e the i s s u e whether s u f f i c i e n t evidence supported the findings. The f i n d i n g t h a t DHR evidence i n the r e c o r d does o r Newton c o m m i t t e d t o be r e v e r s e d . Thomas, J . , c o n c u r s . 19 review contempt support a any c o n d u c t i n b r e a c h o f t h e o r a l commands o f t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t . t h e j u d g m e n t i s due not a Thus, I c o n c u r that 2111200 DONALDSON, J u d g e , c o n c u r r i n g I concur t o reverse i n the r e s u l t . o f t h e judgment f i n d i n g C o u n t y D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s to the Madison ("DHR") a n d T y r o n Newton be i n c r i m i n a l c o n t e m p t . I w o u l d make no f a c t u a l f i n d i n g s regarding w h e t h e r DHR o r Mr. Newton c o m p l i e d with the t r i a l c o u r t ' s o r d e r . I w o u l d h o l d t h a t t h e j u d g m e n t o f c o n t e m p t must be reversed because the record does n o t c o n t a i n sufficient e v i d e n c e o f a s p e c i f i c o r d e r o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t r e q u i r i n g C.C. to undergo i n p a t i e n t substance-abuse t r e a t m e n t not support and thus cannot a f i n d i n g o f contempt. W h i l e I r e c o g n i z e t h a t R u l e 5 8 ( a ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., "does not allow parte f o r an o r a l Chamblee, believe 899 So. 2d 244, 248 that this r u l e prevents command o r d i r e c t i v e contempt p r o c e e d i n g s . Civ. P., d e f i n e s disobedience rule, r e n d i t i o n o f a judgment o r o r d e r , " I do n o t the enforcement of a v e r b a l of a t r i a l court, F o r example, Rule c r i m i n a l contempt or "order," 70A(a)(2), as i n c l u d i n g through Ala. R. "[w]illful o r r e s i s t a n c e ... t o a c o u r t ' s l a w f u l ... o r d e r , o r command," a n d c i v i l continuing ( A l a . 2004), Ex failure c o n t e m p t as i n c l u d i n g " w i l l f u l , or r e f u s a l ... t o c o m p l y w i t h a court's l a w f u l ... o r d e r , r u l e , o r command." (Emphasis added.) T h i s i s consistent with the general nature 20 o f contempt proceedings: 2111200 "In o r d e r f o r t h e mandate o f a c o u r t t o be i n e f f e c t , i t need n o t be a f o r m a l w r i t t e n o r d e r o f t h e c o u r t , a n d p e r s o n s knowing of o r a l held been liable decisions, violate f o r contempt, a l t h o u g h formulated into an order or their provisions, who, may be t h e d e c i s i o n has n o t y e t writ." 17 Am. J u r . 2d Contempt § 113 (2004) ( f o o t n o t e s o m i t t e d ) . T h e r e f o r e , I c o n c u r in the r e s u l t . 21

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.