W.B.B. v. H.M.S.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 09/06/2013 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS SPECIAL TERM, 2013 2120501 W.B.B. v. H.M.S. Appeal from Limestone J u v e n i l e Court (JU-12-191) MOORE, J u d g e . W.B.B. ("the f a t h e r " ) a p p e a l s a j u d g m e n t o f t h e L i m e s t o n e J u v e n i l e C o u r t ("the j u v e n i l e c o u r t " ) t e r m i n a t i n g h i s p a r e n t a l rights being t o G.M.S. ("the c h i l d " ) . from a v o i d judgment. We d i s m i s s t h e appeal as 2120501 The r e c o r d r e v e a l s t h e f o l l o w i n g p e r t i n e n t f a c t s . H.M.S. ("the m o t h e r " ) gave b i r t h t o t h e c h i l d i n December 2007 w h i l e living in a Florida. father nonmarital After relationship t h e mother with the father ended h e r r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h a n d she a n d t h e c h i l d moved t o Alabama, Court o f Escambia County, F l o r i d a , a d j u d i c a t e d in the the C i r c u i t the father to be t h e b i o l o g i c a l f a t h e r o f t h e c h i l d a n d e s t a b l i s h e d a s h a r e d c u s t o d i a l arrangement between t h e mother and t h e f a t h e r . August 18, 2011, t h e L i m e s t o n e Circuit Court modified On the F l o r i d a c u s t o d y j u d g m e n t and a w a r d e d t h e m o t h e r s o l e l e g a l a n d physical custody of the c h i l d and suspended the father's visitation. On S e p t e m b e r 11, 2012, t h e m o t h e r f i l e d a p e t i t i o n i n t h e juvenile the court child. trial on to terminate the father's p a r e n t a l rights to On F e b r u a r y 26, 2013, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t the mother's petition to terminate the held a father's p a r e n t a l r i g h t s a t which i t r e c e i v e d ore tenus t e s t i m o n y from the p a r t i e s . a judgment child. On F e b r u a r y 27, 2013, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t terminating the father's The f a t h e r t i m e l y appealed. 2 parental entered r i g h t s to the 2120501 On appeal, the lacked subject-matter that the f a t h e r contends juvenile court j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e a c t i o n and, thus, juvenile court's parental rights i s void. that judgment t e r m i n a t i n g We seq., J u s t i c e Act A l a . Code 1975, of the father's agree. S e c t i o n 12-15-114, A l a . Code 1975, Juvenile the 2008 ("the provides, a p a r t of the Alabama AJJA"), § 12-15-101 et in pertinent part: "(a) 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 court proceedings i n w h i c h a c h i l d i s 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 a c t , t o be d e p e n d e n t , o r t o be i n n e e d o f s u p e r v i s i o n . A dependency a c t i o n s h a l l not i n c l u d e a custody d i s p u t e between p a r e n t s . J u v e n i l e cases b e f o r e t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t s h a l l be i n i t i a t e d t h r o u g h the j u v e n i l e court i n t a k e o f f i c e pursuant to t h i s chapter. II "(c) A j u v e n i l e court shall also exercise exclusive original jurisdiction of proceedings a r i s i n g o u t o f t h e above j u v e n i l e c o u r t p r o c e e d i n g s , including, but not limited to, each of the following: II "(2) P r o c e e d i n g s f o r t e r m i n a t i o n of p a r e n t a l r i g h t s , as t h i s t e r m i s d e f i n e d i n in subdivision (10) o f S e c t i o n 12-15-301 [ , of Section 12-15-301 7\i-, n^^^ i m c n ii A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 ] . " Subsection gives juvenile (c) o f § 12-12-114 c l e a r l y courts exclusive 3 original and unambiguously jurisdiction of 2120501 proceedings out of f o r the the subsection ... termination juvenile of p a r e n t a l court (a), i . e . , those proceedings" 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 or to be in need of rights "arising listed " i n which a c h i l d i s a c t , t o be supervision." Thus, dependent, unless t e r m i n a t i o n - o f - p a r e n t a l - r i g h t s c a s e a r i s e s o u t o f one enumerated proceedings i n subsection in (a), the the of the j u v e n i l e court c a n n o t e x e r c i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h a t c a s e u n l e s s some o t h e r jurisdictional s t a t u t e e x p r e s s l y so p r o v i d e s . M.D.F.H., 2120120, May Civ. App. [Ms. 2013) 17, 2013] See S.N.W. v. 3d (Ala. So. ( h o l d i n g t h a t a j u v e n i l e c o u r t may adjudicate a p e t i t i o n t o t e r m i n a t e p a r e n t a l r i g h t s u n d e r § 26-10A-3, A l a . Code 1975, a p a r t of the Alabama A d o p t i o n a c t i o n does n o t a r i s e out Code, a l t h o u g h of the proceedings listed in § the 12- 15-114(a)). Former amended and § 12-15-30(b)(6), r e n u m b e r e d as AJJA, s p e c i f i c a l l y "The Ala. Code 1975, which § 12-15-114 upon e n a c t m e n t o f provided: [juvenile] court s h a l l ... e x e r c i s e e x c l u s i v e the f o l l o w i n g proceedings, d by the laws relating thereto: "(6) Termination of p a r e n t a l 4 rights." was the 2120501 Former § 12-15-30(b)(6) clearly and unambiguously vested j u v e n i l e courts w i t h 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 over a l l actions f o r the termination v. S.D.S., 747 So. 2d of parental r i g h t s . 339 ( A l a . C i v . App. See N.W.S.S. 1999) . The l e g i s l a t u r e d i d not s i m p l y c a r r y over t h e language from former § 12-15-30(b)(6), but, rather, i t modified jurisdictional statute to i t s present the language o f the s t a t e when e n a c t i n g 12-15-114. " I t i s w e l l s e t t l e d t h a t when t h e l e g i s l a t u r e makes a ' m a t e r i a l change i n t h e l a n g u a g e o f [an] o r i g i n a l a c t , ' i t i s 'presumed t o i n d i c a t e a change i n l e g a l r i g h t s . ' 1A Norman J . S i n g e r , S t a t u t e s a n d Statutory Construction § 22:30 ( 6 t h e d . 2002) ( f o o t n o t e o m i t t e d ) . I n o t h e r w o r d s , t h e 'amendment o f an unambiguous s t a t u t e i n d i c a t e s an i n t e n t i o n t o change t h e l a w . ' I d . ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . See S t a t e v. Lammie, 164 A r i z . 377, 379, 793 P.2d 134, 136 ( A r i z . Ct. App. 1990) ('when t h e l e g i s l a t u r e amends s t a t u t o r y language, i t i s presumed t h a t i t i n t e n d s t o make a change i n e x i s t i n g l a w ' ) ; M a t t e r o f S t e i n , 31 A.D.2d 68, 72, 520 N.Y.S.2d 157, 159 (App. D i v . 1987) ('When t h e L e g i s l a t u r e amends a s t a t u t e , i t i s p r e s u m e d t h a t t h e amendment was made t o e f f e c t some p u r p o s e a n d make some change i n t h e e x i s t i n g l a w By e n a c t i n g an amendment o f a s t a t u t e and c h a n g i n g t h e l a n g u a g e t h e r e o f , t h e L e g i s l a t u r e i s deemed t o have i n t e n d e d a m a t e r i a l change i n t h e l a w M o r e o v e r , a s t a t u t e w i l l n o t be h e l d t o be a mere reenactment of a p r i o r statute i f any other reasonable interpretation i s attainable '), a p p e a l d i s m i s s e d 72 N.Y.2d 840, 530 N.Y.S.2d 555, 526 N.E.2d 46 ( 1 9 8 8 ) . " P i n i g i s v. R e g i o n s Bank, 977 So. 2d 446, 452 5 ( A l a . 2007). § 2120501 The it l e g i s l a t u r e e v i d e n t l y i n t e n d e d t o change t h e l a w when amended f o r m e r § 1 2 - 1 5 - 3 0 ( b ) ( 6 ) by giving j u v e n i l e courts j u r i s d i c t i o n p a r e n t a l - r i g h t s proceedings jurisdiction over parental-rights proceedings only e x c i s i n g the language over a l l t e r m i n a t i o n - o f - and r e p l a c i n g i t w i t h more l i m i t e d certain proceedings, types i . e . , those l i s t e d i n § 12-15-114(a). Any of termination-of- arising out of the other reading would r e n d e r s u p e r f l u o u s and m e a n i n g l e s s t h e c h a n g e s t h e legislature i n c o r p o r a t e d i n § 12-15-114. "'"A s t a t u t e s h o u l d be c o n s t r u e d so t h a t e f f e c t i s g i v e n t o a l l i t s p r o v i s i o n s , so t h a t no p a r t w i l l be inoperative or superfluous, void or i n s i g n i f i c a n t , and so t h a t one section w i l l not d e s t r o y another u n l e s s the p r o v i s i o n i s the r e s u l t of obvious mistake or e r r o r . " ' " Ex p a r t e W i l s o n , 854 So. p a r t e W e l c h , 519 So. 2d 517, 2A Norman J. Singer, C o n s t r u c t i o n § 46.06 2d 1106, 519 1110 ( A l a . 1987), q u o t i n g Sutherland ( 4 t h ed. ( A l a . 2002) ( q u o t i n g Statutes 1984)). and Ex i n turn Statutory 1 We have r e p e a t e d l y h e l d t h a t j u v e n i l e c o u r t s , as p u r e l y s t a t u t o r y c r e a t u r e s , have o n l y s u c h j u r i s d i c t i o n as t h e i r jurisdictional statute explicitly grants. See, e.g., 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, 457 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 1 ) . Thus, we r e j e c t any n o t i o n t h a t § 12-15-114 o r any o t h e r p a r t o f t h e A J J A i m p l i e d l y bestows j u r i s d i c t i o n over a l l t e r m i n a t i o n - o f - p a r e n t a l - r i g h t s c a s e s on t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t s . 1 6 2120501 In this case, the mother filed a petition to terminate the p a r e n t a l r i g h t s of the f a t h e r to the c h i l d i n the court. separate The petition proceeding dependent, to supervision. have arise i n which the committed a out of child was delinquent any earlier alleged act, or or to to be need f a c t s show t h a t , b e f o r e t h e m o t h e r f i l e d her p e t i t i o n t o t e r m i n a t e the p a r e n t a l r i g h t s of the f a t h e r , the custody of The d i d not juvenile the child had been a d j u d i c a t e d through ordinary d o m e s t i c - r e l a t i o n s c a s e s i n E s c a m b i a C o u n t y , F l o r i d a , and Limestone Circuit Court. Moreover, the p e t i t i o n d i d not i n i t i a t e of p r o c e e d i n g s the juvenile c o u r t d i d not a c q u i r e j u r i s d i c t i o n over the p e t i t i o n pursuant § 12-15-114(c). i n § 12-15-114(a). types Hence, t h e to listed any o f t h e The 2 mother d i d not s e e k i n g t o have t h e c h i l d a d o p t e d allege t h a t she without the consent of was the I n h e r p e t i t i o n , t h e m o t h e r a l l e g e d t h a t she was the l e g a l c u s t o d i a n o f t h e c h i l d ; she d i d n o t a l l e g e t h a t she was i n c a p a b l e o f p r o v i d i n g a d e q u a t e c a r e and s u p e r v i s i o n o f t h e c h i l d . A l t h o u g h t h e m o t h e r s o u g h t t o have t h e c h i l d d e c l a r e d d e p e n d e n t as t o t h e f a t h e r , t h e A J J A does n o t r e c o g n i z e s u c h a p r o c e e d i n g ; r a t h e r , i t o n l y a u t h o r i z e s dependency p e t i t i o n s by noncustodial parents against abusive or neglectful custodial parents. See T.K. v. M.G., 82 So. 3d 1 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 1 ) . A d d i t i o n a l l y , the j u v e n i l e c o u r t d i d not t r e a t t h e m a t t e r as a d e p e n d e n c y p r o c e e d i n g . 2 7 2120501 father, as would u n d e r § 26-10A-3. invoke the juvenile court's jurisdiction A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h e m o t h e r does n o t c i t e any other j u r i s d i c t i o n a l s t a t u t e a u t h o r i z i n g the j u v e n i l e court to adjudicate her terminating the father's p a r e n t a l juvenile court petition. without Consequently, r i g h t s was subject-matter t h e r e f o r e v o i d ; a v o i d judgment w i l l See g e n e r a l l y A.C. App. the judgment entered by t h e jurisdiction and i s n o t s u p p o r t an appeal. v. I n r e E.C.N., 89 So. 3d 777 3 (Ala. Civ. 2012). The a p p e a l i s d i s m i s s e d , a l b e i t w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r the j u v e n i l e c o u r t t o v a c a t e i t s judgment t e r m i n a t i n g t h e p a r e n t a l r i g h t s of the f a t h e r . APPEAL DISMISSED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thomas and D o n a l d s o n , J J . , c o n c u r . Pittman, P.J., J., dissents, with w r i t i n g , which Thompson, joins. B e c a u s e we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t lacked subject-matter j u r i s d i c t i o n over the mother's p e t i t i o n , we f i n d no n e e d t o a d d r e s s t h e f a t h e r ' s o t h e r argument t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t d i d n o t have t e r r i t o r i a l j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e petition. 3 8 2120501 PITTMAN, J u d g e , d i s s e n t i n g . Consistent dissenting 2013] with opinion So. 3d the views i n C.C. , I have expressed v. L . J . , [Ms. 2120534, in my Sept. 6, ( A l a . C i v . App. 2013) ( P i t t m a n , J . , d i s s e n t i n g ) , I r e s p e c t f u l l y d i s s e n t from t h e d i s m i s s a l o f t h e appeal. Thompson, P . J . , c o n c u r s . 9

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.