Kenneth Eugene Gray v. Jenifer Lee Gray

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 2120225 Kenneth Eugene Gray v. J e n i f e r Lee Gray Appeal from T a l l a p o o s a C i r c u i t Court (DR-10-97) THOMAS, J u d g e . K e n n e t h Eugene G r a y ("the f a t h e r " ) a n d J e n i f e r L e e G r a y ("the m o t h e r " ) were m a r r i e d i n F l o r i d a i n J a n u a r y moved t o Alabama mother l e f t i n January 2010. On J u l y 2009. They 25, 2010, the t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e and r e l o c a t e d t o M i c h i g a n ; 2120225 s h e was p r e g n a n t w i t h t h e p a r t i e s ' c h i l d . action i n the Tallapoosa C i r c u i t court") 2010. seeking a divorce from Court The f a t h e r f i l e d an ("the A l a b a m a t h e mother trial on S e p t e m b e r 3, The m o t h e r d e l i v e r e d t h e p a r t i e s ' c h i l d i n M i c h i g a n on O c t o b e r 26, 2010. On June the 13, 2 0 1 1 , t h e m o t h e r f i l e d father's action, Alabama custody trial lacked determination Jurisdiction Code court alleging, a motion to dismiss among o t h e r t h i n g s , jurisdiction under the t o make Uniform that the a Child childCustody a n d E n f o r c e m e n t A c t ("UCCJEA"), c o d i f i e d a t A l a . 1975, § 30-3B-101 et seq. The m o t h e r s u b m i t t e d an a f f i d a v i t i n support of her motion t o d i s m i s s ; she s t a t e d that she born had l e f t Alabama i n J u l y i n Michigan, Alabama. and 2010, t h a t the c h i l d had been the c h i l d had never been t o that A f t e r a h e a r i n g on t h e m o t h e r ' s m o t i o n , t h e A l a b a m a t r i a l c o u r t d e n i e d h e r motion by o r d e r d a t e d August The mother filed Alabama t r i a l the a motion seeking reconsideration c o u r t ' s d e n i a l of her motion t o d i s m i s s , of the which A l a b a m a t r i a l c o u r t d e n i e d i n November 2 0 1 1 . The c a s e p r o c e e d e d t o a t r i a l the 1, 2 0 1 1 . mother appeared only i n November 2012, a t w h i c h through counsel. 2 Only the father 2120225 t e s t i f i e d at t r i a l . According t o the f a t h e r , the mother had s t o l e n c e r t a i n i t e m s when s h e l e f t t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e . also stated that the mother was addicted He to narcotic pain m e d i c a t i o n and o p i n e d t h a t s h e was u n f i t t o r e a r t h e p a r t i e s ' child. Upon q u e s t i o n i n g by t h e m o t h e r ' s c o u n s e l , a d m i t t e d t h a t he h a d s o u g h t m e n t a l - h e a l t h the father treatment during the p a r t i e s ' m a r r i a g e and t h a t he h a d , a t one t i m e , taken c e r t a i n m e d i c a t i o n s a s a r e s u l t ; he d i d n o t s t a t e h i s d i a g n o s i s , he s a i d t h a t he no l o n g e r t r i a l court entered it divorced the p a r t i e s , awarded the p a r t i e s timely Alabama joint legal awarded t h e mother p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y o f awarded t h e f a t h e r c e r t a i n v i s i t a t i o n p r i v i l e g e s , and o r d e r e d t h e f a t h e r t o p a y c h i l d s u p p o r t . a The a j u d g m e n t on November 19, 2012, i n w h i c h custody of the c h i l d , the c h i l d , took the medications. and notice of appeal. He The f a t h e r challenges the filed award of p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y t o the mother. Neither party has raised of this However, court's over jurisdictional m a t t e r s are of such magnitude, t h i s c o u r t i s mero motu. appeal. issue jurisdiction permitted this the to notice a lack of subject-matter See W i l l i a m s v. W i l l i a m s , 3 because jurisdiction ex 70 So. 3d 332, 333 ( A l a . 2120225 Civ. App. 2009). "[J]urisdiction determination [under jurisdiction," A l a . Code 1975, The of what the UCCJEA p r o v i d e s state may regarding a child. the enter to UCCJEA] make a is child custody subject matter § 30-3B-201, O f f i c i a l Comment. framework f o r the determination a determination child-custody S e c t i o n 30-3B-201 p r o v i d e s : "(a) E x c e p t as o t h e r w i s e p r o v i d e d i n S e c t i o n 30-3B-204, a c o u r t o f t h i s s t a t e has j u r i s d i c t i o n t o make an i n i t i a l c h i l d c u s t o d y d e t e r m i n a t i o n o n l y i f : "(1) T h i s s t a t e i s t h e home s t a t e o f t h e c h i l d on t h e d a t e o f t h e commencement o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g , o r was t h e home s t a t e o f t h e c h i l d w i t h i n s i x months b e f o r e the commencement o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g and the c h i l d i s absent from t h i s s t a t e but a parent or person a c t i n g as a parent continues to l i v e i n t h i s state; "(2) A c o u r t o f a n o t h e r s t a t e does n o t have j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r s u b d i v i s i o n ( 1 ) , o r a c o u r t o f t h e home s t a t e o f t h e c h i l d has d e c l i n e d t o e x e r c i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n on t h e ground that this state is the more a p p r o p r i a t e f o r u m u n d e r S e c t i o n 30-3B-207 o r 30-3B-208, and: "a. The child and the c h i l d ' s p a r e n t s , o r t h e c h i l d and a t l e a s t one p a r e n t o r a p e r s o n acting as a parent, have a s i g n i f i c a n t connection with this s t a t e o t h e r t h a n mere p h y s i c a l presence; and 4 2120225 "b. S u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e i s available in this state concerning the child's care, protection, training, and personal r e l a t i o n s h i p s ; "(3) A l l c o u r t s h a v i n g jurisdiction u n d e r s u b d i v i s i o n (1) o r (2) have d e c l i n e d t o e x e r c i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n on t h e g r o u n d t h a t a court of this state is the more a p p r o p r i a t e forum t o determine the custody o f t h e c h i l d u n d e r S e c t i o n 30-3B-207 o r 30-3B-208; o r "(4) No c o u r t o f any o t h e r s t a t e w o u l d have jurisdiction under the criteria s p e c i f i e d i n s u b d i v i s i o n (1), (2), or (3). "(b) Subsection (a) is the exclusive j u r i s d i c t i o n a l b a s i s f o r making a c h i l d custody d e t e r m i n a t i o n by a c o u r t o f t h i s s t a t e . "(c) P h y s i c a l presence of a necessary or s u f f i c i e n t t o make a determination." The child child is not custody UCCJEA d e f i n e s "home s t a t e " i n § 3 0 - 3 B - 1 0 2 ( 7 ) , w h i c h reads i n i t s e n t i r e t y : "The s t a t e i n w h i c h a c h i l d l i v e d w i t h a p a r e n t o r a p e r s o n a c t i n g as a p a r e n t f o r at l e a s t s i x consecutive months immediately before the commencement o f a c h i l d c u s t o d y p r o c e e d i n g . I n t h e c a s e o f a c h i l d l e s s t h a n s i x months o f age, the t e r m means t h e s t a t e i n w h i c h t h e c h i l d l i v e d f r o m b i r t h w i t h any o f t h e p e r s o n s m e n t i o n e d . A p e r i o d o f temporary absence of the child o r any of the mentioned persons i s p a r t of the p e r i o d . " 5 2120225 The e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d establishes that the p a r t i e s ' c h i l d was b o r n i n M i c h i g a n a n d h a s n e v e r r e s i d e d i n Alabama. These f a c t s r a i s e t h e q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r A l a b a m a i s t h e c h i l d ' s home s t a t e u n d e r t h e UCCJEA. The h o m e - s t a t e d e t e r m i n a t i o n i n the p r e s e n t case i s c o m p l i c a t e d by t h e f a c t t h a t , o f t h e commencement o f t h e f a t h e r ' s had n o t y e t been b o r n . UCCJEA e x p r e s s l y divorce a t the time action, the c h i l d The d e f i n i t i o n o f "home s t a t e " i n t h e addresses a s i t u a t i o n i n v o l v i n g a c h i l d l e s s t h a n s i x months o f age a t t h e t i m e o f t h e commencement action, whose home s t a t e w o u l d be " t h e s t a t e c h i l d l i v e d from b i r t h " w i t h parent. it the of the i n which the a p a r e n t o r a p e r s o n a c t i n g as a However, t h e d e f i n i t i o n does n o t c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e how i s t o be a p p l i e d commencement t o unborn c h i l d r e n , of the action seeking who, a t t h e t i m e o f t o determine their c u s t o d y , have n o t y e t " l i v e d f r o m b i r t h " i n a n y s t a t e . A l a b a m a h a s y e t t o c o n s i d e r t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e UCCJEA to such a s i t u a t i o n . question state" requires The d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h i s j u r i s d i c t i o n a l us t o i n t e r p r e t contained within considering the t h e UCCJEA. principles construction. 6 t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f "home Thus, we w i l l applicable to b e g i n by statutory 2120225 "It i s t h i s Court's r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to give e f f e c t to the l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t whenever that i n t e n t i s m a n i f e s t e d . S t a t e v. U n i o n Tank C a r Co., 281 A l a . 246, 248, 201 So. 2d 402, 403 ( 1 9 6 7 ) . When i n t e r p r e t i n g a s t a t u t e , t h i s C o u r t must r e a d t h e statute as a w h o l e b e c a u s e s t a t u t o r y language d e p e n d s on c o n t e x t ; we w i l l presume that the L e g i s l a t u r e knew t h e m e a n i n g o f t h e words i t u s e d ^,^,.^ ^ when i t e n a c t e d t h e s t a t u t e . Ex p a r t e J a c k s o n , 614 Jackson, So. 2d 405, 406-07 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) . ... F u r t h e r m o r e , must g i v e t h e words i n a s t a t u t e t h e i r plain, o r d i n a r y , a n d commonly u n d e r s t o o d m e a n i n g , a n d where p l a i n l a n g u a g e i s u s e d we must i n t e r p r e t i t t o mean exactly what i t says. Ex p a r t e Shelby County [ H e a l t h ] C a r e A u t h . , 850 So. 2d 332 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) . " Bean D r e d g i n g , L.L.C. v. A l a b a m a Dep't o f Revenue, 855 So. 2d 513, 517 ( A l a . 2003). presumption that every s t a t u t e ] was i n t e n d e d and also In addition, word, is a or p r o v i s i o n sentence, "'"'[t]here [of a f o r some u s e f u l p u r p o s e , h a s some f o r c e e f f e c t , a n d t h a t some e f f e c t i s t o be g i v e n that no s u p e r f l u o u s S u r t e e s v. V F J V e n t u r e s , words o r p r o v i s i o n s t o each, and were used.'"'" I n c . , 8 So. 3d 950, 970 ( A l a . Civ. App. 2008) ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e U n i r o y a l T i r e Co., 779 So. 2d 227, 236 ( A l a . 2000), q u o t i n g A fair reading conclusion that Generally, a state i n turn other of § 30-3B-102(7) an u n b o r n c h i l d secures cases)). cannot the status results have a home i n the state. o f "home s t a t e " i fa c h i l d has l i v e d i n t h a t s t a t e w i t h a p a r e n t o r a p e r s o n a c t i n g 7 2120225 as a parent for a period of s i x months commencement o f a c h i l d - c u s t o d y p r o c e e d i n g . preceding the § 30-3B-102(7). Pursuant t o i t s d e f i n i t i o n , t h e t e r m "home s t a t e " i s e x p r e s s l y applied than to children less requirement that the c h i l d months preceding proceeding the live o f age, and t h e i n a state f o rat least s i x commencement of a child-custody i s r e l a x e d t o make t h e home s t a t e t h a t which the c h i l d lived a c t i n g as a p a r e n t ] . " from b i r t h with state" i n [a p a r e n t o r a p e r s o n I d . An u n b o r n c h i l d , h o w e v e r , h a s n o t " l i v e d from b i r t h " i n any s t a t e . the s i x months UCCJEA d o e s n o t p r o v i d e child-custody proceeding 1 Thus, we a r e c o n v i n c e d a basis forjurisdiction i n v o l v i n g an u n b o r n that over a child. Such a c o n s t r u c t i o n c o m p o r t s w i t h t h e c o n c l u s i o n o f t h r e e of our s i s t e r question under states their that have versions directly considered o f t h e UCCJEA. 2 the See, e.g., T h i s c o n s t r u c t i o n o f § 3 0 - 3 B - 1 0 2 ( 7 ) , r e s t i n g as i t does on t h e m o d i f y i n g p h r a s e " l i v e d f r o m b i r t h , " does n o t r u n a f o u l o f o u r supreme c o u r t ' s r e c e n t p r o n o u n c e m e n t i n Ex p a r t e Ankrom, [Ms. 1110176, J a n u a r y 11, 2013] So. 3d , (Ala. 2013), t h a t t h e term " c h i l d " i n c l u d e s both unborn c h i l d r e n and l i v i n g c h i l d r e n . 1 O t h e r s t a t e s have c o n s i d e r e d t h e q u e s t i o n i n t h e c o n t e x t o f t h e p r e d e c e s s o r s t a t u t e t o t h e UCCJEA, t h e U n i f o r m C h i l d Custody Jurisdiction A c t ("the U C C J A " ) , which d i d not p r i o r i t i z e home-state j u r i s d i c t i o n . See, e . g . , S t e w a r t v . 2 8 2120225 Arnold v. Price, 365 S.W.3d 455, 461 (Tex. App. 2012) (concluding t h a t a home-state d e t e r m i n a t i o n at t h e commencement c o u l d n o t be made of a child-custody proceeding when t h e c h i l d was y e t u n b o r n a n d t h a t t h e s t a t e i n w h i c h t h e c h i l d was later born birth); w o u l d become h i s home s t a t e a t the time of h i s B.B. v . A.B., 31 M i s c . 3d 608, 916 N.Y.S.2d 920 (Sup. C t . 2011) ( d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t t h e home s t a t e o f a c h i l d b o r n i n M i n n e s o t a a f t e r t h e mother d e c i d e d n o t t o r e t u r n t o New Y o r k V u l l i e t , 888 N.E.2d 7 6 1 , 765 ( I n d . 2008) ( c o n c l u d i n g t h a t an u n b o r n c h i l d h a s no home s t a t e u n d e r t h e UCCJA a n d t h a t , b e c a u s e no s t a t e h a d h o m e - s t a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n , t h e I n d i a n a court could exercise j u r i s d i c t i o n over the custody issue because t h e unborn c h i l d ' s p a r e n t s had r e s i d e d i n I n d i a n a and because i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e unborn c h i l d ' s p a r e n t s and o t h e r f a m i l y members was a v a i l a b l e i n I n d i a n a ) ; Haywood v. S u p e r i o r C o u r t o f L o s A n g e l e s , 77 C a l . App. 4 t h 949, 955-56, 92 C a l . R p t r . 2d 182, 186-87 (2000) ( d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t , a t t h e t i m e t h e a c t i o n was commenced, t h e u n b o r n c h i l d d i d n o t have a home s t a t e u n d e r t h e UCCJA, b u t d e t e r m i n i n g that the California court had jurisdiction under the former s i g n i f i c a n t - c o n n e c t i o n t e s t o f t h e U C C J A ) ; a n d G u l l e t t v. Gullett, 992 S.W.2d 866, 869-70 (Ky. C t . App. 1999) ( d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t an u n b o r n c h i l d h a d no home s t a t e u n d e r t h e UCCJA a t t h e commencement o f a c h i l d - c u s t o d y p r o c e e d i n g , t h a t K e n t u c k y c o u l d t h e r e f o r e e x e r c i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n b e c a u s e no o t h e r s t a t e h a d j u r i s d i c t i o n a n d i t w o u l d be i n t h e u n b o r n c h i l d ' s b e s t i n t e r e s t t h a t Kentucky e x e r c i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n , and t h a t , upon t h e c h i l d ' s b i r t h i n O h i o , O h i o was t h e c h i l d ' s home s t a t e a n d w o u l d have c o n c u r r e n t j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e child's custody, subject to Kentucky's continuing j u r i s d i c t i o n ) . B e c a u s e t h e s e c a s e s were b a s e d on t h e l a n g u a g e o f t h e UCCJA, we do n o t f i n d them t o be p e r s u a s i v e a u t h o r i t y u n d e r t h e UCCJEA. 9 2120225 a f t e r a v i s i t t o h e r c h i l d h o o d home i n M i n n e s o t a was M i n n e s o t a and n o t New Y o r k , where t h e m o t h e r a n d f a t h e r h a d r e s i d e d as a married couple); Waltenburg 318 (Tex. App. 2008) v. W a l t e n b u r g , 270 S.W.3d 308, ( d e c i d i n g under t h e Texas v e r s i o n o f t h e UCCJEA t h a t t h e UCCJEA "does n o t a u t h o r i z e j u r i s d i c t i o n a child over custody claim concerning a c h i l d before i t s b i r t h " ) ; In r e C u s t o d y o f K a l b e s , 302 W i s . 2d 215, 733 N.W.2d 648, ( C t . App. 2007) under ( d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t I d a h o d i d n o t have jurisdiction t h e UCCJEA o f a c h i l d who was n o t b o r n a t t h e t i m e t h e Idaho action Wisconsin); was instituted see a l s o a n d who was later born I n r e M a r r i a g e o f Tonnesson, in 189 A r i z . 225, 227, 941 P.2d 237, 239 ( C t . App. 1997) ( d e t e r m i n i n g u n d e r the Uniform Arizona Child Custody was t h e home s t a t e Jurisdiction of a c h i l d A c t ("UCCJA") born that i n A r i z o n a and s t a t i n g t h a t " [ t ] h e s t a t u t e does n o t c o n t e m p l a t e t h e i n u t e r o p e r i o d o f t i m e i n d e t e r m i n i n g ... home s t a t e ; i t c o n t e m p l a t e s a p o s t n a t a l c h i l d " ) ; and I n r e M a r r i a g e o f Tonnesson, 863 (Colo. Arizona C t . App. 1996) ( c o n c l u d i n g u n d e r was t h e home s t a t e after the i n s t i t u t i o n of the children t h e UCCJA born o f an a c t i o n i n C o l o r a d o ) . 10 937 P.2d that i n Arizona 2120225 We Texas find instructive the rationale Court of Appeals i n both Waltenburg, the father h a d commenced regarding born, h i s unborn child Arnold relied upon b y t h e and Waltenburg. a custody i n Arizona before In proceeding the c h i l d was a n d t h e m o t h e r commenced an a c t i o n i n T e x a s a f t e r t h e child's b i r t h there. W a l t e n b u r g , 270 S.W.3d a t 311. When t h e Texas dismissed trial proceeding, consideration court t h e mother t h e mother's appealed. o f t h e mother's child-custody I d . a t 312. appeal, t h e Texas In Court A p p e a l s r e j e c t e d t h e f a t h e r ' s argument t h a t t h e A r i z o n a had subject-matter filed i n Arizona jurisdiction because, over the father the custody contended, UCCJEA, an u n b o r n c h i l d h a d no "home s t a t e , " 11 of court proceeding under t h e stating: " [ R ] e a d i n g t h e UCCJEA t o a u t h o r i z e j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r a c u s t o d y m a t t e r c o n c e r n i n g an u n b o r n c h i l d w o u l d defeat the clear purpose underlying the legislature's enactment o f t h e UCCJEA to p r i o r i t i z e h o m e - s t a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n . See P o w e l l [ v. S t o v e r ] , 165 S.W.3d [322,] 325 [ ( T e x . 2 0 0 5 ) ] . Under such a r e a d i n g , a p a r t y c o u l d f i l e s u i t p r e - b i r t h u n d e r t h e UCCJEA p r o v i s i o n a u t h o r i z i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n when 'no o t h e r c o u r t h a s j u r i s d i c t i o n , ' a n d u s e t h e 'simultaneous proceeding' provision to control, p o s t - b i r t h , w h e t h e r t h e c h i l d ' s home s t a t e c a n e v e r e x e r c i s e t h a t ' p r i o r i t y ' j u r i s d i c t i o n . We r e j e c t t h i s r e a d i n g o f t h e UCCJEA." W a l t e n b u r g , 270 S.W.3d a t 318. i t s 2120225 The holding i n Waltenburg was applied and further e x p l a i n e d i n A r n o l d , w h i c h c o n c e r n e d whether a Texas c o u r t h a d subject-matter jurisdiction over a child-custody commenced i n T e x a s b y a f a t h e r b e f o r e despite the fact that mother i n C a l i f o r n i a . court explained typically the c h i l d Arnold, that, of h i s c h i l d h a d s i n c e been b o r n to the 365 S.W.3d a t 457. The A r n o l d although a child's home state i s d e t e r m i n e d a t t h e t i m e o f t h e commencement o f t h e child-custody proceeding, a c h i l d ' s home determined u n t i l h i s or her b i r t h . court the b i r t h proceeding stated, "subject matter state may n o t be I d . a t 461. That i s , t h e jurisdiction fora child that had n o t b e e n b o r n a t t h e t i m e o f commencement i s d e t e r m i n e d 'on the pleadings as o f t h e p a r t i e s and t h e undisputed t o t h e date and l o c a t i o n o f [the c h i l d ] ' s evidence birth.'" Id. ( q u o t i n g W a l t e n b u r g , 270 S.W.3d a t 3 1 5 ) . Because t h e f a t h e r trial court before commenced h i s a c t i o n i n t h e A l a b a m a the b i r t h conclude that the determination of the p a r t i e s ' t h e Alabama t r i a l Michigan and t h a t court the c h i l d The u n d i s p u t e d evidence i s t h a t t h e c h i l d was b o r n i n has l i v e d 12 we o f t h e c h i l d ' s home s t a t e was necessarily deferred u n t i l i t s b i r t h . before child, since birth with the 2120225 mother i n M i c h i g a n . Thus, t h e c h i l d ' s home s t a t e i s M i c h i g a n , and t h e Alabama t r i a l under § court lacks subject-matter 30-3B-201(a)(1) determination t o make initial child-custody regarding the c h i l d . We n o t e t h a t i n A r n o l d further an jurisdiction than merely t h e Texas determining C o u r t o f A p p e a l s went that California c h i l d ' s home s t a t e a n d t h a t t h e Texas t r i a l t h e r e f o r e e x e r c i s e home-state j u r i s d i c t i o n court could not t o make an i n i t i a l child-custody determination regarding the c h i l d . It also considered whether t h e Texas was t h e trial I d . a t 461. court could e x e r c i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n under any o t h e r p r o v i s i o n o f i t s v e r s i o n o f t h e UCCJEA. I d . a t 461-62. properly resolve this the Alabama exercise Section jurisdiction we, t o o , must c o n s i d e r h a d any o t h e r to make an whether basis upon w h i c h t o initial child-custody regarding the c h i l d . 30-3B-201(a)(2) p r o v i d e s jurisdiction determination of court jurisdiction determination has trial appeal, We b e l i e v e t h a t , i n o r d e r t o when to make either an (1) no that an A l a b a m a initial other court child-custody state court has u n d e r t h e h o m e - s t a t e p r o v i s i o n o r (2) t h e c o u r t the child's home state has 13 declined to exercise i t s 2120225 jurisdiction on t h e g r o u n d t h a t A l a b a m a i s a more c o n v e n i e n t forum § under seeking to 30-3B-207 invoke unjustifiable significant or its conduct" connection on the ground jurisdiction under § that has 30-2B-208, person engaged and e x i s t s between t h e c h i l d "a in (3) when and a t l e a s t one p a r e n t and A l a b a m a and s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e c o n c e r n i n g relating have to the c h i l d concluded that i s a v a i l a b l e i n Alabama. Michigan i s the a n o t h e r s t a t e c o u r t has j u r i s d i c t i o n child's a and Because home we state, under § 30-3B-201(a)(1). No M i c h i g a n c o u r t has d e c l i n e d t o e x e r c i s e i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n . Thus, t h e A l a b a m a t r i a l c o u r t does n o t have j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r § 30-3B-201(a)(2). Similarly, having § jurisdiction 30-3B-201(a)(3) r e q u i r e s that any court u n d e r e i t h e r § 3 0 - 3 B - 2 0 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) o r (2) t o have d e c l i n e d t o e x e r c i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r § 30-3B-207 o r § 30-3B-208 b e f o r e exercise an A l a b a m a c o u r t may jurisdiction. As we have m e n t i o n e d , a M i c h i g a n c o u r t w o u l d have h o m e - s t a t e jurisdiction, and no M i c h i g a n c o u r t has d e c l i n e d t o e x e r c i s e that j u r i s d i c t i o n . not have subsection As a r e s u l t , t h e A l a b a m a t r i a l jurisdiction under § 30-3B-201(a)(3). providing for jurisdiction 14 court does The final o v e r an i n i t i a l child- 2120225 custody determination, § 30-3B-201(a)(4), court to exercise j u r i s d i c t i o n jurisdiction under any o t h e r permits i f no o t h e r subsection an A l a b a m a s t a t e w o u l d have of § 30-3B-201(a). B e c a u s e we have d e t e r m i n e d t h a t M i c h i g a n i s t h e home s t a t e o f the could child, jurisdiction The its 961, under § Alabama jurisdiction initial t h e Alabama and court d i d n o t have judgment i s t h e r e f o r e v o i d . 966 we instruct exercise subject-matter t o make an r e g a r d i n g t h e c h i l d , and F u l l e r v. F u l l e r , ( A l a . C i v . App. 2012) . App. 2 0 0 3 ) . not any p r o v i s i o n i n t h e UCCJEA child-custody determination s u p p o r t an a p p e a l . Civ. court 30-3B-201(a)(4). trial under trial A void 93 So. 3d judgment w i l l n o t C . J . L . v . M.W.B., 868 So.2d 451, 454 ( A l a . We t h e r e f o r e d i s m i s s t h e Alabama trial the father's court appeal, to s e t aside that p o r t i o n o f i t s d i v o r c e judgment c o n t a i n i n g t h e c h i l d - c u s t o d y determination regarding the parties' child. APPEAL DISMISSED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, P . J . , a n d P i t t m a n , concur. 15 Moore, a n d D o n a l d s o n , JJ.,

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.