Amy Miller Winford v. John Alexander Winford

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 08/02/2013 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 SPECIAL TERM, 2013 2120097 Amy M i l l e r Winford v. John Alexander Winford Appeal from J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t (DR-04-68.02) Court DONALDSON, J u d g e . Amy M i l l e r W i n f o r d judgment e n t e r e d ("the from a d e f a u l t against h e r by t h e J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t t r i a l court") Winford ("the m o t h e r " ) a p p e a l s i n an a c t i o n i n i t i a t e d b y J o h n ("the f a t h e r " ) seeking t o modify custody Court Alexander ofthe 2120097 parties' court's minor children subsequent ("the denial of children"), the and the trial to alter, mother's motion amend, o r v a c a t e t h a t j u d g m e n t , w h i c h a w a r d e d s o l e c u s t o d y t o t h e f a t h e r and v i s i t a t i o n t o the mother. F a c t s and The The f a t h e r and t h e m o t h e r were m a r r i e d on June 17, marriage produced these proceedings. a Procedural History two The j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d by children who are the 2000. subject of f a t h e r and t h e m o t h e r were d i v o r c e d by the trial c o u r t on May 25, 2004, the terms of which g r a n t e d c u s t o d y of the c h i l d r e n t o the mother and v i s i t a t i o n to the father. On November 1, 2011, in the Jefferson the mother's p a r e n t s f i l e d Juvenile Court ("the juvenile petitions court") a l l e g i n g t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n were d e p e n d e n t and s e e k i n g c u s t o d y of the c h i l d r e n . petitions On The r e c o r d i n t h i s c a s e does n o t c o n t a i n t h e f i l e d by t h e m a t e r n a l January 26, 2012, the grandparents. father filed a petition for m o d i f i c a t i o n of custody i n the t r i a l c o u r t a l l e g i n g a m a t e r i a l change of abdicated circumstances. her grandparents parenting and h a d He alleged that responsibilities the to mother the maternal " f a i l e d to provide proper medical 2 had care, 2120097 financial resources children." and emotional In his petition, support the f a t h e r for the stated alleged: "5. T h a t on o r a b o u t t h e day o f November [ 1 ] , 2011, t h e M o t h e r ' s p a r e n t s f i l e d two V e r i f i e d P e t i t i o n s f o r Dependency and C u s t o d y and E x P a r t e M o t i o n f o r Temporary Custody f o r b o t h minor c h i l d r e n i n the F a m i l y C o u r t o f J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y , c a s e numbers J U - 1 l 52645 and JU-11-52175. 6. T h a t t h e c a s e f i l e d by t h e g r a n d p a r e n t s i s i n t h e n a t u r e o f a c u s t o d y c a s e and as s u c h t h e F a m i l y C o u r t o f J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y does n o t have j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r s a i d c l a i m . The s t a t e d c h i l d r e n have a p a r e n t who i s a b l e and w i l l i n g t o c a r e f o r them, n a m e l y t h e F a t h e r . The F a t h e r has n o t n e g l e c t e d , a b u s e d , f a i l e d t o p r o t e c t , abandoned nor r e l i n q u i s h e d c u s t o d y o f s a i d c h i l d r e n . Due t o t h e l a c k o f j u r i s d i c t i o n , any o r d e r s e n t e r e d by t h e F a m i l y C o u r t o f J e f f e r s o n County are v o i d . " T h e r e i s no i n d i c a t i o n i n t h e r e c o r d t h a t t h e f a t h e r attempted t o have t h e d e p e n d e n c y c a s e s d i s m i s s e d i n t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t or o t h e r w i s e c h a l l e n g e d the a l l e g a t i o n s of dependency i n t h a t court. with 2012, On F e b r u a r y 1, 2012, the father's the f a t h e r petition filed t h e m o t h e r was to modify personally custody. an a p p l i c a t i o n w i t h On served March 20, the c l e r k of the t r i a l c o u r t f o r an e n t r y o f d e f a u l t a g a i n s t t h e m o t h e r b e c a u s e the mother had 2012, not responded to h i s p e t i t i o n . On March t h e m o t h e r f i l e d a p r o se answer t o t h e p e t i t i o n , included a general denial of 3 the matters alleged 21, which in the 2120097 petition to modify custody. On March 27, 2012, the trial c o u r t i s s u e d o r d e r s e t t i n g a d e f a u l t h e a r i n g f o r May 7, 2012. The t r i a l date to court subsequently t o May 21, 2012. N o t i c e o f t h e h e a r i n g was t h e same a d d r e s s other filings much. On May mother the held discovery that t h a t the "matter 21, 2 0 1 2 . " On May motion by May to 25, 2012. an o r e t e n u s appear dates, and the mother admits as 4, 2012, t h e f a t h e r f i l e d a m o t i o n t o c o m p e l t h e father's respond sent by m a i l where t h e m o t h e r r e c e i v e d n o t i c e o f a l l and h e a r i n g t o answer motion noted on May i s s u e d o r d e r s moving the h e a r i n g h a d been propounded. i s currently set f o r a hearing 14, 2012, t h e t r i a l compel On and May ordered 21, 2012, court the On May 30, 2012, granted mother the t r i a l d e f a u l t h e a r i n g b u t t h e mother f o r that hearing. The court failed the t r i a l to to court e n t e r e d a judgment g r a n t i n g s o l e c u s t o d y t o the f a t h e r , w h i c h contained a including a number of restriction "standard" against visitation either parent conditions, allowing a d u l t o f t h e o p p o s i t e s e x w i t h whom t h e p a r e n t has a an "romantic and/or s e x u a l r e l a t i o n s h i p " t o s t a y o v e r n i g h t a t the p a r e n t ' s home w h i l e t h e c h i l d r e n a r e p r e s e n t . that t h e May 21 hearing had been 4 The May 30 o r d e r s t a t e d conducted as a "Default 2120097 Hearing" about and t h a t the t h e mother, 7 t h day "being of February, 2012 s e r v e r [ ] has f a i l e d t o appear b e f o r e On June 28, 2012, l e s s the judgment, t h e mother, than properly served by private on o r process the Court." 30 d a y s a f t e r represented the entry of by c o u n s e l , filed a m o t i o n t o a l t e r , amend, o r v a c a t e . The m o t h e r c o n t e n d e d , among other t h i n g s , t h a t s h e d i d n o t r e c e i v e n o t i c e o f t h e May 21 hearing could i n sufficient n o t be deprived time to attend of custody a d e q u a t e n o t i c e a n d an o p p o r t u n i t y restrictions visiting the hearing, t h a t she of the c h i l d r e n without t o be h e a r d , a n d t h a t t h e on h e r a b i l i t y t o l i v e w i t h h e r b o y f r i e n d with t h e c h i l d r e n were n o t a p p r o p r i a t e . while The trial c o u r t s e t t h e m o t h e r ' s m o t i o n f o r a h e a r i n g d a t e o f A u g u s t 28, 2012. On J u l y 11, 2012, t h e f a t h e r f i l e d a r e s p o n s e t o t h e mother's motion t o a l t e r , other things, hearing mother that amend, o r v a c a t e , t h e mother had been and h a d f a i l e d to attend. f i l e d an amended m o t i o n alleging that jurisdiction the over trial the matter sent On A u g u s t to alter, court a s s e r t i n g , among notices 27, 2012, t h e amend, o r lacked and had f a i l e d of the vacate, subject-matter t o apply the f a c t o r s a n n o u n c e d i n K i r t l a n d v. F o r t Morgan A u t h o r i t y Sewer 5 2120097 Service, I n c . , 524 motion t o a l t e r , So. 2d 600 ( A l a . 1988). amend, o r v a c a t e was d e n i e d The mother's by o p e r a t i o n of l a w on September 26, 2012, and t h e m o t h e r t i m e l y a p p e a l e d t h e trial c o u r t ' s judgment. On a p p e a l , t h e mother argues t h a t t h e t r i a l court lacked j u r i s d i c t i o n t o modify custody of the c h i l d r e n because of the pending dependency entering a c t i o n s ; that a default judgment p e t i t i o n ; that the t r i a l the default ordering after court the mother erred in answered the court erred i n refusing to set aside j u d g m e n t ; and restrictions the t r i a l that the on o v e r n i g h t trial court guests during erred in visitation. Discussion As a threshold matter, a l l e g a t i o n that the t r i a l we court first address the mother's lacked j u r i s d i c t i o n to enter a j u d g m e n t on t h e f a t h e r ' s p e t i t i o n t o m o d i f y c u s t o d y o f t h e children while d e p e n d e n c y p e t i t i o n s were p e n d i n g i n j u v e n i l e c o u r t on r e l a t e d f a c t s . A trial court's j u r i s d i c t i o n i s s t r i c t l y a l e g a l matter. a de novo s t a n d a r d 932, 936 of review. ( A l a . 2008)." "determination Therefore, See Ex p a r t e M o r r i s , J.L.L. 6 v. Jefferson Cnty. we as t o apply 999 So. 2d Dep't of 2120097 Human Res., ___ [Ms. 2110517, O c t o b e r 26, ( A l a . C i v . App. T h e r e i s no court indication The So. 3d , 2012). conducted a hearing were d e p e n d e n t . 2012] i n the record t h a t the j u v e n i l e t o determine whether the children r e c o r d shows, h o w e v e r , t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t e n t e r e d what i t t e r m e d t o be a " T e m p o r a r y O r d e r " i n t h e d e p e n d i n g a c t i o n s on June 12, any indication that the dependent, p u r p o r t e d l y children having to both the primary 2012. children granted f a t h e r and physical That o r d e r , a g a i n had "joint been legal found to be custody" of the the mother, w i t h custody. The without mother the was father provided s p e c i f i e d v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s . The j u v e n i l e c o u r t " r e s e r v e d " issue of health entered child insurance "over The support f o r the and ordered children. The father order to provide shows i t was [the mother's] o b j e c t i o n . " r e c o r d t h u s shows t h a t a t t h e his petition i n the t r i a l time the father c o u r t i n J a n u a r y 2012, p e n d i n g dependency case i n the children. the the j u v e n i l e court filed t h e r e was regarding a the "A j u v e n i l e c o u r t s h a l l e x e r c i s e e x c l u s i v e o r i g i n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n of j u v e n i l e c o u r t proceedings a l l e g e d t o have c o m m i t t e d a d e l i n q u e n t 7 i n which a c h i l d i s a c t , t o be dependent, 2120097 o r t o be not include 114(a), (Ala. i n need of s u p e r v i s i o n . a custody A l a . Code 1975. 2012), concurrent a case between I n A.G. involving jurisdiction supreme c o u r t dispute in A dependency a c t i o n v. parents." Ka.G., 114 similar So. procedural child-custody § shall 12-15- 3d 24,26 issues proceedings, held: " S u b j e c t t o two e x c e p t i o n s , when a c i r c u i t c o u r t a c q u i r e s j u r i s d i c t i o n r e g a r d i n g an i s s u e o f c h i l d custody pursuant to a divorce a c t i o n , i t r e t a i n s j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h a t i s s u e to the e x c l u s i o n of the j u v e n i l e c o u r t . C.D.S. v. K.S.S., 963 So. 2d 125, 129 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 7 ) ; Ex p a r t e K.S.G., 645 So. 2d 297, 299 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 2 ) . Those two exceptions a r e : 1) when e m e r g e n c y circumstances e x i s t t h a t t h r e a t e n the immediate w e l f a r e of the c h i l d ; and 2) when a s e p a r a t e d e p e n d e n c y a c t i o n i s i n s t i t u t e d . M.P. v. C.P., 8 So. 3d 316 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008). The second exception is clearly a p p l i c a b l e here. "The j u v e n i l e c o u r t i s a c o u r t of limited jurisdiction, exercising exclusive original jurisdiction i n proceedings i n which a c h i l d i s a l l e g e d t o be d e p e n d e n t o r i n n e e d o f s u p e r v i s i o n . § 1 2 - 1 5 - 1 1 4 ( a ) , A l a . Code 1975. Once t h e d e p e n d e n c y j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t has b e e n p r o p e r l y invoked, the j u v e n i l e c o u r t has an imperative s t a t u t o r y duty to conduct a h e a r i n g to determine the d e p e n d e n c y o f t h e c h i l d . T.K. v. M.G., 82 So. 3d 1 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 1 ) ; L.B. v. R.L.B., 53 So. 3d 969 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2010) . P u r s u a n t t o § 12-15-129, A l a . Code 1975, a h e a r i n g on t h e m e r i t s o f t h e p e t i t i o n i s r e q u i r e d to determine i f the c h i l d i s , i n f a c t , d e p e n d e n t . L.B. v. R.L.B., 53 So. 3d a t 973. 8 of our 2120097 "'The [Alabama J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e A c t , § 12-15-101 e t s e q . , A l a . C o d e 1975,] s p e c i f i c a l l y p r o v i d e s t h a t the dependency j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t i s t r i g g e r e d by t h e f i l i n g of a p e t i t i o n with a juvenile-court intake officer alleging facts s u f f i c i e n t t o p r o v e t h e d e p e n d e n c y o f t h e c h i l d . See §§ 1 2 - 1 5 - 1 1 4 ( a ) a n d 1 2 - 1 5 - 1 2 0 ( a ) . ' Montgomery C n t y . Dep't o f Human Res. v. M c D e r m o t t , 74 So. 3d 455, 458 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 1 ) . 'A c h i l d i s d e p e n d e n t i f , a t the time a p e t i t i o n i s f i l e d i n t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t a l l e g i n g d e p e n d e n c y , t h e c h i l d meets t h e s t a t u t o r y d e f i n i t i o n o f a d e p e n d e n t c h i l d . ' Ex p a r t e L.E.O., 61 So. 3d 1042, 1046 ( A l a . 2 0 1 0 ) . ... I f t h e a l l e g a t i o n s i n t h e dependency p e t i t i o n a r e d e n i e d by the parent o r i f t h e parent f a i l s t o respond, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t s h a l l h e a r e v i d e n c e on t h e p e t i t i o n , and, i f t h e c o u r t f i n d s t h a t t h e a l l e g a t i o n s i n t h e petition have n o t been proven by c l e a r and convincing evidence, the j u v e n i l e court shall dismiss the p e t i t i o n . § 1 2 - 1 5 - 3 1 0 ( b ) , A l a . Code 1975." In C.D.S. v. K.S.S., 963 So. 2d 125 (Ala. C i v . App. 2007), t h i s c o u r t h e l d t h a t t h e f i l i n g o f dependency p e t i t i o n s with the j u v e n i l e continuing court jurisdiction divorce judgement c o n f e r original subject-matter proceedings upon while over child court custody court jurisdiction over petitions subject-matter retains arising "upon t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t i n i t i a t e d by those the juvenile the c i r c u i t the but also from a exclusive dependency confer[s] jurisdiction over custody issues that i s concurrent with the continuing subject- matter jurisdiction over custody 9 issues conferred upon t h e 2120097 c i r c u i t c o u r t by t h e p a r t i e s ' 2d a t d i v o r c e a c t i o n . " C.D.S., 963 So. 129-30. In the present case, the dependency petitions were pending i n the j u v e n i l e c o u r t at the time the f a t h e r f i l e d custody-modification petition apparent that the depending petitions have not been in record, then, and dismissed and court. It sufficiently the juvenile is the court the judgment t h a t forms the e n t e r e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t . From t h e i t a p p e a r s t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t had original exclusive jurisdiction shared trial petitions entered a "temporary order" a f t e r b a s i s o f t h i s a p p e a l was the the concurrent over the jurisdiction over dependency p e t i t i o n child custody with but the t r i a l c o u r t , w h i c h had c o n t i n u i n g s u b j e c t - m a t t e r jurisdiction of the c h i l d - c u s t o d y d i s p u t e between the p a r e n t s b a s e d on i t s r e s o l u t i o n of custody Therefore, i s s u e s i n the p a r e n t s ' d i v o r c e judgment. i n the absence of a c o n f l i c t i n g juvenile court entered the trial court was judgment from on t h e b a s i s o f a d e p e n d e n c y not deprived of its parents. 10 finding, continuing j u r i s d i c t i o n to enter orders p e r t a i n i n g to the custody between the the dispute 2120097 N e x t , we a d d r e s s t h e m o t h e r ' s a l l e g a t i o n that the t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n h o l d i n g a d e f a u l t a n d e n t e r i n g a j u d g m e n t when the mother had filed an answer modification p e t i t i o n before to the father's that hearing. custody- I n TA F i n a n c i a l , I n c . v. D i s c o v e r Bank, 967 So. 2d 90 ( A l a . 2 0 0 7 ) , t h e supreme court reversed a d e f a u l t judgment e n t e r e d by t h e t r i a l when t h e d e f e n d a n t h a d f i l e d i t s answer b e f o r e on t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s "'the filing court to the hearing m o t i o n f o r a d e f a u l t judgment, h o l d i n g t h a t of that answer cured the default before any d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t was e n t e r e d Thus, t h e d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t s h o u l d not this have been e n t e r e d . ' " case that default hearing. I d . a t 91. T h e r e i s no d i s p u t e i n t h e mother filed h e r answer prior to the Further, " [ t ] h e c o u r t s o f A l a b a m a have o f t e n held: " ' I n d e a l i n g w i t h such a d e l i c a t e and d i f f i c u l t question--the w e l f a r e of a minor child--due process of law in legal proceedings should be o b s e r v e d . These settled courses of procedure, as e s t a b l i s h e d b y o u r l a w , i n c l u d e due n o t i c e , a h e a r i n g o r o p p o r t u n i t y t o be h e a r d b e f o r e a c o u r t o f competent j u r i s d i c t i o n . T i l l m a n v. Walters, 214 A l a . 71, 108 So. 62 [1925].' " D a n f o r d v. D u p r e e , 272 A l a . 517, 132 So. 2d 734 ( 1 9 6 1 ) . T h o r n e v. T h o r n e , 344 So. 2d 165 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1977) . The p a r e n t a l r i g h t t o due p r o c e s s f a r 11 2120097 o u t w e i g h s any b u r d e n t h a t w o u l d be p l a c e d on t h e proceeding t o determine that right. Thorne v. Thorne, s u p r a . " Lamoreaux v. Schadt, 442 So. 2d 117, 118 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1983). Therefore, we r e v e r s e t h e d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t and remand t h i s m a t t e r f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s . we reverse t h e judgment of the t r i a l court, further d i s c u s s i o n of the r u l i n g s contained The mother's request f o r attorney's we Because pretermit therein. fees is denied. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Thompson, P . J . , c o n c u r s . Thomas, J . , c o n c u r s Moore, J . , c o n c u r s Pittman, specially. i n the r e s u l t , J . , recuses himself. 12 without writing. 2120097 THOMAS, Judge, I agree entertain concurring that the dependency p e t i t i o n s the circuit the p e t i t i o n John A l e x a n d e r W i n f o r d circuit court specially. court had jurisdiction f o r m o d i f i c a t i o n of custody to filed by ("the f a t h e r " ) d e s p i t e t h e p e n d e n c y o f i n t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t , and I a g r e e erred in holding h e a r i n g a f t e r Amy M i l l e r W i n f o r d the that default-judgment ("the m o t h e r " ) h a d f i l e d h e r answer t o t h e f a t h e r ' s p e t i t i o n . I write specially to point o u t t h a t t h i s c o u r t has h i s t o r i c a l l y v i e w e d t h e f a i l u r e t o s e t aside a default reversible Our whether judgment in a domestic-relations case as error. supreme court to set aside has e x p l a i n e d a default that a court reviewing j u d g m e n t must b e g i n w i t h "a s t r o n g b i a s t o w a r d a l l o w i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t t o have h i s [ o r h e r ] day i n court," Inc., 524 So. Kirtland 2d 600, v. 605 Fort Morgan ( A l a . 1988) . Auth. As Sewer this Serv., court has s t a t e d , " [ t ] h e s t r o n g b i a s i n f a v o r o f d e c i d i n g c a s e s upon t h e m e r i t s i d e n t i f i e d by t h e K i r t l a n d c o u r t i s p a r t i c u l a r l y in domestic-relations 285, 289 So. cases." Fuller v. F u l l e r , strong 991 So. 2d ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 8 ) ; see a l s o S u m l i n v. S u m l i n , 931 2d 40, 44 ( A l a . C i v . App. 13 2005) ("[W]e c a n e n v i s i o n no 2120097 species of case in reaching which the m e r i t s ... the c o u l d be s u c h as t h i s i n v o l v i n g c u s t o d y v. Evans, that, 441 So. 2d 948, " e s p e c i a l l y i n the particularly thereby reluctant deprive a divorce to stronger in favor context, uphold a h i s day 1983) a court default I (stating should i n court) further Evans judgment i s s u e s as c h i l d c u s t o d y Thus, of than i n a case ( A l a . C i v . App. l i t i g a n t of resolved"). any bias' o f a m i n o r c h i l d . " ) ; and 950 means t h a t s u c h i m p o r t a n t summarily 'strong be (and because i t ... conclude will that be the c i r c u i t c o u r t e r r e d i n a l l o w i n g the mother's Rule 5 5 ( c ) , A l a . R. Civ. P., motion to set aside the d e f a u l t judgment t o d e n i e d by o p e r a t i o n o f l a w p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 59.1, P. 14 A l a . R. be Civ.

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.