Ex parte Cristy Bullard. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: Lee Walker v. Cristy Bullard)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 06/21/2013 Notice: This o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 2120392 Ex p a r t e C r i s t y Bullard PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In r e : Lee Walker v. Cristy Bullard) (Coffee C i r c u i t Court, DR-12-140) MOORE, J u d g e . Cristy Bullard ("the m o t h e r " ) p e t i t i o n s t h i s c o u r t f o r a w r i t o f mandamus d i r e c t i n g t h e C o f f e e C i r c u i t C o u r t t o grant 2120392 her motion to dismiss ("the father"). We deny t h e Facts The that a custody p e t i t i o n and f i l e d by Lee Walker petition. Procedural History a t t a c h m e n t s t o t h e m o t h e r ' s mandamus p e t i t i o n the parties' Louisiana on child, F.W. November 10, d i s t r i c t attorney's ("the 2008. office On child"), was S e p t e m b e r 29, reveal born 2009, in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, in the on b e h a l f of the mother, i n i t i a t e d a p r o c e e d i n g under the U n i f o r m I n t e r s t a t e Family S u p p o r t A c t , § 30-3A-101 e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1975, seeking e s t a b l i s h the paternity of the child child support. The attached to the to affidavit "request" i n i t i a t i n g t h e p r o c e e d i n g i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e c h i l d had in Louisiana to the Juvenile resides, entered the and Court of The p r o c e e d i n g was transferred County, Coffee on December 18, resided the 2009, t h e where Coffee Juvenile father Court a judgment t h a t e s t a b l i s h e d the f a t h e r ' s p a t e r n i t y of child On s i n c e her b i r t h . and and July o r d e r e d him 11, 2012, t o pay the child father support. filed a petition C o f f e e C i r c u i t C o u r t ("the Alabama c o u r t " ) , s e e k i n g the that child. Louisiana He and alleged that there i s "an 2 the child "has in the custody of resided" in o n g o i n g i n v e s t i g a t i o n by the 2120392 New O r l e a n s abuse P o l i c e Department of the minor child i n regard while to possible sexual r e s i d i n g i n [ t h e mother's] home, a n d [ t h a t ] t h e D e t e c t i v e h e a d i n g up t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t h e New O r l e a n s not P o l i c e Department has i n s t r u c t e d [ t h e t o return the c h i l d [ t o the mother]." the mother f i l e d a p e t i t i o n Judicial f o r custody father] On J u l y 17, 2012, i n the 24th Court of J e f f e r s o n P a r i s h , Louisiana District ("the L o u i s i a n a C o u r t " ) ; t h e m o t h e r ' s p e t i t i o n was s e t f o r a h e a r i n g . On J u l y 27, 2012, t h e A l a b a m a c o u r t a w a r d e d " t e m p o r a r y " c u s t o d y child to the father. On A u g u s t 8, 2012, t h e L o u i s i a n a o r d e r e d t h e c h i l d t o be r e t u r n e d t o t h e c u s t o d y On S e p t e m b e r 10, 2012, t h e m o t h e r f i l e d a motion to dismiss the father's j u r i s d i c t i o n ; t h e Alabama c o u r t d e n i e d 29, 2013. of the o f t h e mother. i n t h e Alabama petition f o r lack relief. S t a n d a r d f o r I s s u i n g a W r i t o f Mandamus "The d e n i a l o f a m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s f o r l a c k o f jurisdiction i s reviewable upon a t i m e l y filed p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus. Ex p a r t e F l i n t Constr. Co., 775 So. 2d 805, 808 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) ; Drummond Co. v. A l a b a m a Dep't o f T r a n s p . , 937 So. 2d 56, 57 ( A l a . 2006) . W i t h r e g a r d t o an a p p e l l a t e court's consideration of a p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t of mandamus, o u r supreme c o u r t h a s s t a t e d : Court has 3 court of t h a t m o t i o n on J a n u a r y The m o t h e r t i m e l y s o u g h t mandamus "'This court consistently held 2120392 that the writ of mandamus i s an e x t r a o r d i n a r y and d r a s t i c w r i t and t h a t a p a r t y s e e k i n g s u c h a w r i t must meet c e r t a i n criteria. We will issue the w r i t of mandamus o n l y when (1) t h e p e t i t i o n e r h a s a c l e a r l e g a l r i g h t t o t h e r e l i e f sought; (2) t h e r e s p o n d e n t h a s an i m p e r a t i v e d u t y t o p e r f o r m a n d h a s r e f u s e d t o do s o ; (3) the petitioner h a s no o t h e r adequate remedy; a n d (4) t h i s C o u r t ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n i s p r o p e r l y i n v o k e d . Ex p a r t e M e r c u r y F i n . C o r p . , 715 So. 2d 196, 198 ( A l a . 1997) . Because mandamus i s an e x t r a o r d i n a r y remedy, t h e s t a n d a r d b y w h i c h t h i s C o u r t r e v i e w s a p e t i t i o n f o r t h e w r i t o f mandamus i s t o determine whether t h e t r i a l c o u r t has c l e a r l y a b u s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n . See Ex p a r t e R u d o l p h , 515 So. 2d 704, 706 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) . ' "Ex p a r t e F l i n t C o n s t r . Co., 775 So. 2d a t 808. I n d i s c u s s i n g the review of a d e n i a l of a motion t o dismiss f o r lack of subject-matter j u r i s d i c t i o n , the court further explained: " ' " I n Newman v . S a v a s , 878 So. 2d 1147 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) , this Court s e t out the standard of r e v i e w o f a r u l i n g on a m o t i o n t o d i smi ss for la ck of subject-matter j u r i s d i c t i o n : "'"'A ruling on a motion to dismiss i s reviewed without a p re sump tion of correctness. Nance v. Matthews, 622 So. 2d 297, 299 ( A l a . 1993) . T h i s C o u r t must a c c e p t the a l l e g a t i o n s of the complaint as true. C r e o l a L a n d Dev., I n c . 4 2120392 v. B e n t b r o o k e H o u s i n g , L.L.C., 828 So. 2d 285, 288 (Ala. 2002) . F u r th e rm o r e , in r e v i e w i n g a r u l i n g on a motion to dismiss we will not consider whether the pleader will ultimately prevail but whether the p l e a d e r may p o s s i b l y prevail. Nance, 622 So. 2d a t 299.' "'"878 So. 2d a t 1148-49."' "Ex p a r t e A l a b a m a Dep't o f T r a n s p . , 978 So. 2d 17, 21 ( A l a . 2007) ( q u o t i n g P o n t i u s v. S t a t e Farm Mut. Ex parte Diefenbach, 64 So. 3d 1091, 1093 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2010). Discussion In h e r mandamus Alabama Court "temporary" lacked custody Code 1975, a p a r t and t h e mother jurisdiction of the c h i l d . to § 30-3B-101 argues award Section of the Uniform C h i l d Enforcement Act, provides, petition, that the the father 30-3B-201, A l a . Custody Jurisdiction e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1975, i n pertinent part: "(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 l a . Code 1975,] 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 custody determination only i f : 5 2120392 "(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 t h e commencement o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g a n d t h e c h i l d i s absent from t h i s state but a parent or person acting as a p a r e n t 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 h a s 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 i s t h e more appropriate 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, [ A l a . Code 1975,] a n d : "a. The child and t h e 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 p a r e n t , have a s i g n i f i c a n t connection with t h i s s t a t e o t h e r t h a n mere p h y s i c a l p r e s e n c e ; and "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 relationships; "(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 i s t h e more a p p r o p r i a t e forum t o determine t h e c u s t o d y 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 have "(4) No c o u r t o f a n y o t h e r s t a t e w o u l d jurisdiction under the criteria 6 2120392 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)." S e c t i o n 30-3B-202, A l a . Code 1975, 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 l a . Code 1975,] a c o u r t o f t h i s s t a t e which h a s made a child custody determination consistent with Section 30-3B-201 or Section 30-3B-203[, A l a . Code 1975,] has c o n t i n u i n g , e x c l u s i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n u n t i l : "(1) A c o u r t o f t h i s s t a t e d e t e r m i n e s t h a t n e i t h e r t h e c h i l d , n o r t h e c h i l d and one p a r e n t , n o r t h e c h i l d a n d a p e r s o n a c t i n g as a p a r e n t have a significant connection with this state and t h a t s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e i s no l o n g e r a v a i l a b l e in t h i s state concerning the c h i l d ' s care, protection, training, and personal r e l a t i o n s h i p s ; or "(2) A c o u r t o f t h i s s t a t e o r a c o u r t of another s t a t e determines t h a t t h e c h i l d , t h e c h i l d ' s p a r e n t s , a n d any p e r s o n a c t i n g as a p a r e n t do n o t p r e s e n t l y r e s i d e i n t h i s state. "(b) A c o u r t o f t h i s s t a t e w h i c h h a s made a child custody determination a n d does n o t have continuing, exclusive jurisdiction under this s e c t i o n may m o d i f y t h a t d e t e r m i n a t i o n o n l y i f i t h a s j u r i s d i c t i o n t o make an i n i t i a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n u n d e r S e c t i o n 30-3B-201." In t h e p r e s e n t to t h e mandamus case, i t i s apparent from t h e attachments petition that the Coffee Juvenile Court exercised jurisdiction t o determine the f a t h e r ' s p a t e r n i t y of the c h i l d child and t o o r d e r support 7 i n 2009. That judgment 2120392 entered by the Coffee Juvenile Court award of c u s t o d y t o the mother. So. 3d 1005, paternity the Coffee of i s no of court over state made by were no done to of sufficient See with with any does n o t the evidence argue t h a t statutory the 30-3B-202, exclusive unless one of a the there that a court Although father's The of exists; i n Alabama to modify a custody invoke that § 30-3B-204(a). court and to "a particular determination i t may petition indicating for failed that no the Alabama c o u r t requirements and 8 circuit temporary § 30-3B-204. temporary emergency m o t h e r has a determination exercise e m e r g e n c y j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r A l a . Code 1975, the that custody that 85 of t h a t j u r i s d i c t i o n so. jurisdiction in a continuing determine an A l a b a m a j u v e n i l e c o u r t , allegations D.S., attachments i n d i c a t i n g i n the has to v. pursuant to § have implied (holding award child-custody for termination state has the would R.W. support Thus, Court e.g., 2011) child recipient"). information this App. implied this conditions See, an Juvenile jurisdiction Civ. awarding constitutes to that court (Ala. judgment individual child 1007 c o n s t i t u t e d an custody The are jurisdiction. to provide this emergency exists failed comply limitations to regarding 2120392 temporary Thus, we See, emergency j u r i s d i c t i o n , have no e.g., Ex choice but see § 30-3B-204(c) t o deny t h e m o t h e r ' s parte Diefenbach, 64 So. 3d & (d). petition. a t 1095-96 ("The b u r d e n i s on t h e m o t h e r , as t h e p a r t y s e e k i n g mandamus r e l i e f , to demonstrate her submitted i n t h i s whether demonstrated to we to r e l i e f . matter, Illinois, Accordingly, ... right or another must t h a t the t r i a l consider an Florida [custody] state, has that the materials to determine jurisdiction the mother has .... not c o u r t w o u l d n o t have j u r i s d i c t i o n initial custody determination or, court l a c k e d j u r i s d i c t i o n to modify judgment under C u s t o d y J u r i s d i c t i o n and E n f o r c e m e n t Ala. Given court i s unable conclude t h e r e f o r e , t h a t the t r i a l the this ... the [Uniform Child A c t , § 30-3B-101 e t s e q . , Code 1975] . " ) . PETITION DENIED. Thompson, P . J . , and P i t t m a n and D o n a l d s o n , Thomas, J . , c o n c u r s i n t h e r e s u l t , 9 without J J . , concur. writing.

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.