Ex parte N.M. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: N.M. v. K.M. and J.H.)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL: 06/14/2013 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 , 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 OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 2120594 Ex p a r t e N.M. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In r e : N.M. v. K.M. and J.H.) (Etowah J u v e n i l e Court, JU-09-200.02 & JU-09-201.02) THOMAS, J u d g e . K.M. divorced ("the m o t h e r " ) parents a n d J.H. ("the f a t h e r " ) o f L.H. a n d B.H. are ("the c h i l d r e n " ) . the The 2120594 mother and t h e f a t h e r were divorced i n St. Clair County i n F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 9 ; t h e m o t h e r was a w a r d e d c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d r e n , and she a n d t h e c h i l d r e n thereafter. moved I n May 2009, Human R e s o u r c e s ("Etowah t o Etowah t h e Etowah County shortly County Department o f DHR") removed t h e c h i l d r e n from the c u s t o d y o f t h e m o t h e r b a s e d on a l l e g a t i o n s o f p h y s i c a l of the children by t h e mother's b o y f r i e n d m o t h e r ' s c o c a i n e u s e . E t o w a h DHR f i l e d regarding petitions the children were JU-09-201.01. i n t h e Etowah assigned case abuse a n d b a s e d on t h e dependency p e t i t i o n s Juvenile numbers Court; those JU-09-200.01 and The c h i l d r e n were f o u n d t o be d e p e n d e n t b y t h a t c o u r t i n June 2009, a n d t h e f a t h e r was a w a r d e d c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d r e n i n M a r c h 2010. In December 2011, t h e mother Juvenile Court a m o d i f i c a t i o n father custody; standard petitions were JU-09-201.02. 1 with assigned i n the Etowah o f t h e judgments awarding the i n her p e t i t i o n s , visitation sought t h e mother the children. case numbers Those requested modification JU-09-200.02 and The p a r t i e s r e a c h e d an a g r e e m e n t r e g a r d i n g t h e T h e p l e a d i n g s , m o t i o n s , a n d o r d e r s i n c l u d e d as e x h i b i t s t o t h e mandamus p e t i t i o n c o n t a i n b o t h c a s e numbers, i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e a c t i o n s were c o n s o l i d a t e d o r t h a t t h e p l e a d i n g s , m o t i o n s , a n d o r d e r s were f i l e d i n b o t h a c t i o n s . F o r ease o f 1 2 2120594 m o t h e r ' s v i s i t a t i o n , w h i c h was i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o a judgment i n November 2 012. Sometime in November or December 2012, N.M. ("the p a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r " ) r e p o r t e d s e e i n g b r u i s e s on B.H. to St. DHR"), Clair Department of Human R e s o u r c e s ("St. Clair the w h i c h o p e n e d an i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o t h e a l l e g a t i o n s . S t . C l a i r DHR entered children resides into were a safety placed i n St. C l a i r plan with the paternal with County. The the the grandmother, who p a t e r n a l grandmother filed dependency p e t i t i o n s r e g a r d i n g the Clair Circuit Court f a t h e r , and i n December 2012. also c h i l d r e n i n the No proceedings St. have b e e n h e l d on t h o s e p e t i t i o n s , p r e s u m a b l y b e c a u s e t h e y were n o t filed i n the a p p r o p r i a t e 114(a) original (providing that jurisdiction a l l e g e d t o be The court. the See A l a . Code 1975, j u v e n i l e courts over proceedings § 12-15- have e x c l u s i v e , i n which a child is 2013 in the dependent). mother filed a petition Etowah J u v e n i l e C o u r t s e e k i n g in February to h o l d the f a t h e r i n contempt f o r f a i l i n g to permit her to v i s i t w i t h the c h i l d r e n . At that r e a d i n g and s i m p l i c i t y , we w i l l h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r t o t h e p l e a d i n g s , m o t i o n s , and o r d e r s f i l e d i n t h e p r o c e e d i n g s b e l o w as i f t h e y were f i l e d i n a s i n g l e p r o c e e d i n g . 3 2120594 time, in she her f i l e d an affidavit l i s t e d her the i n support on the testified custody of a d d r e s s , w h i c h was hearing father a p p l i c a t i o n t o p r o c e e d i n forma and a p p l i c a t i o n , the the they grandmother pursuant to a on been March 7, were children had no longer with the placed safety plan p h y s i c a l abuse were made a g a i n s t him. b a s e d on the information p h y s i c a l l y abusing the seeking The Juvenile f a t h e r at the The in the Etowah A l s o on M a r c h 7, a petition paternal who the to 2013, been a c c u s e d of "motion" testimony Court. of was not filed to the have a the party the a to motion 2013. grandmother's The to Juvenile children declared Etowah Etowah J u v e n i l e motion the St. C l a i r grandparent v i s i t a t i o n i n the 4 of 2013. Court, actions seeking J u v e n i l e C o u r t on M a r c h 21, the on his awarded the mother temporary Juvenile or t o t r a n s f e r the and based grandmother, dependent and/or s e e k i n g denied in after allegations f a t h e r had c h i l d r e n on M a r c h 7, paternal actions Court, the paternal c h i l d r e n , the mother f i l e d a contempt h e a r i n g , custody of the Court t h a t the At 2013, c u s t o d y of the c h i l d r e n i n the Etowah J u v e n i l e Etowah dismiss mother l o c a t e d i n Madison County. mother's p e t i t i o n that that her pauperis; to transfer Court the 2120594 a c t i o n s , n o t i n g t h a t t h e p a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r was n o t a p a r t y to the actions. intervene The p a t e r n a l i n t h e Etowah determination grandmother Juvenile o f dependency then Court actions, a n d an a w a r d sought a transfer Juvenile Court. paternal grandmother seeking April of the actions The E t o w a h Juvenile to intervene, seeking a of custody of the c h i l d r e n ; i nher motion t o intervene, the p a t e r n a l again moved t o grandmother to the St. C l a i r Court permitted the but i t denied her motion t o t r a n s f e r t h e a c t i o n s t o S t . C l a i r J u v e n i l e C o u r t on 15, 2 0 1 3 . The p a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r the w r i t of mandamus i n t h i s c o u r t on A p r i l 18, 2 0 1 3 . She a r g u e s t h a t t h e E t o w a h J u v e n i l e C o u r t was r e q u i r e d t o t r a n s f e r t h e a c t i o n s t o the St. Clair Juvenile C o u r t b e c a u s e none o f t h e p a r t i e s o r t h e c h i l d r e n r e s i d e i n E t o w a h C o u n t y and, t h u s , venue i s no l o n g e r We will proper there. first jurisdiction over petition. she c o n t e n d s , address Generally, the t h e mother's paternal a petition a j u v e n i l e c a s e must be f i l e d the e n t r y o f t h e order challenge grandmother's t o our mandamus f o r t h e w r i t o f mandamus i n w i t h i n 14 d a y s o f t h e d a t e o f from which t h e p e t i t i o n e r seeks r e l i e f . 5 2120594 Ex p a r t e Rule A.E.Q., 102 So. 3d 388, 391 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 2 ) ; 21(a)(3), timeliness denial actions. The m o t h e r grandmother's t h e p e t i t i o n was f i l e d of her i n i t i a l motion However, when she f i l e d transfer party R. App. P. of the paternal arguing that the Ala. of the actions, to the actions. challenges mandamus petition, more t h a n 14 days seeking the a transfer after of the her f i r s t motion seeking a the paternal grandmother was n o t a As a n o n p a r t y , she h a d no s t a n d i n g t o seek a t r a n s f e r o f t h e a c t i o n s . See A l a . Code 1975, § 6-3-21 ( p e r m i t t i n g a d e f e n d a n t i n a c i v i l a c t i o n t o move f o r a change of venue); Rule 82(d)(1), A l a . R. C i v . P. (permitting a d e f e n d a n t t o s e e k t h e t r a n s f e r o f an a c t i o n f i l e d i n t h e wrong venue t o a p r o p e r v e n u e ) . permitted the to intervene, actions. April she h a d s t a n d i n g grandmother was t o seek a t r a n s f e r o f Thus, she t i m e l y b r o u g h t h e r p e t i t i o n on A p r i l 18, 2 0 1 3 , t h r e e its Once t h e p a t e r n a l days a f t e r t h e E t o w a h J u v e n i l e 15, 2 0 1 3 , o r d e r permitting Court entered her to intervene but denying her motion seeking t o t r a n s f e r the a c t i o n s . We begin our a n a l y s i s p e t i t i o n by r e c o g n i z i n g of the paternal grandmother's that "'[a] petition for mandamus i s t h e a p p r o p r i a t e 6 the w r i t of means b y w h i c h 2120594 to challenge a trial court's order r e g a r d i n g a change o f v e n u e . Ex p a r t e Sawyer, 892 So. 2d 898, 901 ( A l a . 2004) . The w r i t o f mandamus i s an e x t r a o r d i n a r y remedy; i t w i l l n o t be i s s u e d u n l e s s t h e p e t i t i o n e r shows " ' " ( 1 ) a c l e a r l e g a l r i g h t i n t h e p e t i t i o n e r t o t h e o r d e r s o u g h t ; (2) an i m p e r a t i v e d u t y upon t h e r e s p o n d e n t t o p e r f o r m , a c c o m p a n i e d b y a r e f u s a l t o do s o ; (3) t h e l a c k o f a n o t h e r a d e q u a t e remedy; and (4) p r o p e r l y i n v o k e d j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e c o u r t . " ' " Ex p a r t e I n v e r n e s s C o n s t r . Co. , 775 So. 2d 153, 156 ( A l a . 2000) ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e G a t e s , 675 So. 2d 3 7 1 , 374 ( A l a . 1 9 9 6 ) ) ; Ex p a r t e P f i z e r , I n c . , 746 So. 2d 960, 962 ( A l a . 1 9 9 9 ) . ' " Ex parte Vest, 68 So. 3d 881, 884 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2011) ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e C h i l d r e n ' s Hosp. o f A l a b a m a , 931 So. 2d 1, 5-6 (Ala. 2005)). for an action action.' the ... action, Further, " ' [ t ] h e question of proper i s determined at t h e commencement ' I f venue i s n o t p r o p e r then, upon m o t i o n venue of the a t t h e commencement o f of the defendant, the a c t i o n must be t r a n s f e r r e d t o a c o u r t where venue w o u l d be p r o p e r . ' " Ex p a r t e P i k e F a b r i c a t i o n , 2002) (quoting 2001), Ex p a r t e a n d Ex p a r t e I n c . , 859 So. 2d 1089, 1091 Pratt, Overstreet, 815 (Ala. So. 2d 532, 534 ( A l a . 748 So. 2d 194, 196 ( A l a . 1999)). The Court p a t e r n a l grandmother argues t h a t t h e Etowah J u v e n i l e i s not the proper venue 7 f o r t h e mother's custody- 2120594 modification action. She c o n t e n d s t h a t , p u r s u a n t t o A l a . Code 1975, § 1 2 - 1 5 - 3 0 2 ( c ) , t h e m o t h e r ' s c u s t o d y - m o d i f i c a t i o n a c t i o n s h o u l d have b e e n f i l e d statute governing i n the St. C l a i r venue in Juvenile Court. dependency p a r e n t a l - r i g h t s a c t i o n s r e a d s as or termination-of- follows: " ( a ) Dependency p r o c e e d i n g s s h a l l be commenced i n t h e c o u n t y where t h e c h i l d r e s i d e s , i n t h e c o u n t y where t h e c h i l d i s p r e s e n t when t h e p r o c e e d i n g s a r e commenced, o r i n t h e c o u n t y where t h e a c t s t h a t a r e the b a s i s of t h e dependency p e t i t i o n o c c u r r e d . "(b) R e g a r d l e s s o f t h e c o u n t y where t h e c h i l d c u r r e n t l y r e s i d e s , when a p e t i t i o n i s f i l e d s e e k i n g t o m o d i f y an a w a r d o f c u s t o d y o r v i s i t a t i o n p u r s u a n t t o an a d j u d i c a t i o n o f d e p e n d e n c y , and one o f t h e individuals who was a party to the original proceeding s t i l l resides i n the county of the juvenile court of original jurisdiction, the p e t i t i o n s h a l l be f i l e d i n t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t o f t h e original jurisdiction. " ( c ) When a p e t i t i o n i s f i l e d s e e k i n g t o m o d i f y an a w a r d o f c u s t o d y o r v i s i t a t i o n p u r s u a n t t o an a d j u d i c a t i o n of dependency i n which a l l p a r t i e s t o t h e o r i g i n a l a c t i o n , i n c l u d i n g t h e c h i l d , no l o n g e r r e s i d e i n the county of o r i g i n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n , the petition s h a l l be f i l e d i n t h e c o u n t y where t h e c h i l d r e s i d e s a t t h e t i m e t h e p e t i t i o n i s f i l e d . The p e t i t i o n s h a l l be a c c o m p a n i e d by a c e r t i f i e d copy o f t h e most r e c e n t o r d e r t o be m o d i f i e d . "(d) F o r p u r p o s e s o f t h i s s e c t i o n , c o u n t y where the c h i l d r e s i d e s means t h e c o u n t y i n w h i c h t h e c h i l d and l e g a l c u s t o d i a n have e s t a b l i s h e d l e g a l r e s i d e n c e o r have r e s i d e d f o r s i x o r more months o f a calendar year. This term shall not include p l a c e m e n t s by a s t a t e d e p a r t m e n t o r a g e n c y . " 8 The 2120594 § 12-15-302. Because petition the the attachments support children to the p a t e r n a l grandmother's t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t none o f t h e p a r t i e s o r reside i n Etowah County and t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n r e s i d e i n S t . C l a i r County, i t would appear t h a t , pursuant t o § 12-15-302(c), modification Clair t h e m o t h e r ' s M a r c h 2013 " m o t i o n " r e q u e s t i n g a of custody Juvenile "motion" Court. s h o u l d have However, been filed t h e mother's i n the St. March r e q u e s t i n g a m o d i f i c a t i o n o f c u s t o d y was, i n e f f e c t , an amendment t o h e r J a n u a r y 2013 c o n t e m p t p e t i t i o n . 15(a), 2013 A l a . R. pleadings). 2 Civ. P. Furthermore, (governing based on the See R u l e amendment t h e Etowah of Juvenile Court's r e c i t a t i o n of the h i s t o r y of these proceedings i n i t s We n o t e t h a t u n d e r R u l e 1 5 ( a ) a p a r t y must s e e k l e a v e o f c o u r t t o amend a c o m p l a i n t l e s s t h a n 42 d a y s b e f o r e t r i a l . A l t h o u g h an amendment s e r v e d w i t h o u t l e a v e o f c o u r t i s w i t h o u t l e g a l e f f e c t , "'an u n t i m e l y amended p l e a d i n g s e r v e d w i t h o u t j u d i c i a l p e r m i s s i o n may be c o n s i d e r e d as p r o p e r l y i n t r o d u c e d when l e a v e t o amend w o u l d have b e e n g r a n t e d h a d i t b e e n sought.'" Image M a r k e t i n g , I n c . v. F l o r e n c e T e l e v i s i o n , L.L.C., 884 So. 2d 822, 826 ( A l a . 2003) ( q u o t i n g H o o v e r v. B l u e C r o s s & B l u e S h i e l d o f A l a b a m a , 855 F.2d 1538, 1544 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1 9 8 8 ) ) . B a s e d on t h e e x h i b i t s t o t h e mandamus p e t i t i o n , i t a p p e a r s t h a t , i f l e a v e t o amend was n o t p r o p e r l y s o u g h t b y t h e m o t h e r , t h e E t o w a h J u v e n i l e C o u r t was i n c l i n e d t o g r a n t s u c h l e a v e , a n d t h e m o t h e r ' s amendment, w h i c h was f i l e d on t h e day o f t h e c o n t e m p t h e a r i n g , was t h e r e f o r e l e g a l l y e f f e c t i v e . 2 9 2120594 order a denying the p a t e r n a l grandmother's f i r s t transfer relating of to the the prompted t h a t actions, abuse court that the mother's that the parties the admission allegations t o award the " m o t i o n " may had tried at motion the father contempt the by seeking hearing mother c u s t o d y , i n d i c a t i n g not the have b e e n n e c e s s a r y temporary-custody consent at the contempt h e a r i n g . and issue See R u l e 1 5 ( b ) , A l a . R. by Civ. P. ( p e r m i t t i n g amendments t o c o n f o r m t o t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d at trial). The Etowah m o t h e r ' s c o n t e m p t p e t i t i o n was Juvenile ordinarily can be Court, because instituted o r d e r w h i c h a l l e g e d l y was (2011)(footnote § 149 (2004) which contempt the other omitted); contempt court i s committed, court" accord ("Venue i s f i x e d Statutes providing "a filed in and or that issued the normally 17 C.J.S. Contempt 17 Am. J u r . 2d Contempt remains w i t h the whose a u t h o r i t y court is f o r a change o f venue i n c r i m i n a l o r civil not to apply contempt p r o c e e d i n g s . " ( f o o t n o t e s Section t h a t when none o f 10 omitted)). the p a r t i e s to the in defied. a c t i o n s or p r o c e e d i n g s are g e n e r a l l y c o n s t r u e d 302(c) s t a t e s the proceeding v i o l a t e d . Such a p r o c e e d i n g c a n n o t be e n t e r t a i n e d by any § 105 in properly to 12-15original 2120594 a c t i o n r e s i d e i n the c o u n t y i n w h i c h the o r i g i n a l judgment was e n t e r e d , an a c t i o n s e e k i n g t o m o d i f y a c u s t o d y a w a r d p u r s u a n t to a dependency a d j u d i c a t i o n i n which the an child lives. enforcement statute action governing s h o u l d be The s t a t u t e does n o t s h o u l d be venue of brought i n the brought. actions a d d r e s s where In seeking contrast, to modify c u s t o d y , c h i l d s u p p o r t , o r v i s i t a t i o n , A l a . Code 1975, 5, includes actions enforcement a c t i o n s whose venue is proper either i n which the c u s t o d i a l parent in the court and the child by apply actions. See ("When t h e in this Ex p a r t e T.B., case, courts and 698 So. only 2d must e n f o r c e t h e 127, thus give to effect that the reside. actions, modification 130 (Ala. 1997) unambiguous, statute statute their ordinary t h e y must i n t e r p r e t t h a t says can l a n g u a g e o f a s t a t u t e i s p l a i n and g i v i n g the words of the i t those located in mention enforcement language § 30-3¬ court B e c a u s e § 1 2 - 1 5 - 3 0 2 ( c ) does n o t i t s plain the child i n i t s d e s c r i p t i o n of r e n d e r e d the o r i g i n a l judgment or i n the county county as written plain as by meaning l a n g u a g e t o mean e x a c t l y what i t to Legislature."). 11 the apparent intent of the 2120594 Although no A l a b a m a c a s e h a s s p e c i f i c a l l y d e c i d e d venue l i e s f o r a c o n t e m p t a c t i o n , o t h e r s t a t e s have t h e i s s u e a n d have c o n c l u d e d C u l p e p p e r v. S t a t e , Ogletree (1967); v. Watson , and p u n i s h t h e contemnor. 516 So. 2d 485, 487 (Miss. 223 Ga. 618, 619, 157 S.E.2d a n d Mayhew v. Mayhew, S.W.2d 324, 328 (1963). considered t h a t o n l y t h e c o n t e m n e d c o u r t may conduct a contempt p r o c e e d i n g e.g., where See, 1987); 464, 465 52 Tenn. App. 459, 468, 376 The r e a s o n i n g behind this r u l e has been e x p l a i n e d t h u s l y : "A p r o c e e d i n g f o r contempt springs out of a l i t i g a t i o n i n s t i t u t e d i n a p a r t i c u l a r court. I t s p r i n c i p a l o b j e c t i s t o secure obedience t o the o r d e r s o f t h a t c o u r t , b y p u n i s h i n g as a c o n t e m p t d i s o b e d i e n c e t h e r e o f . I t i s t h e c o u r t whose j u d g m e n t o r o r d e r h a s b e e n d e f i e d w h i c h must t r y t h e c o n t e m p t and p r o n o u n c e j u d g m e n t . ... " I f the place of the t r i a l for a criminal c o n t e m p t must be i n t h e d i s t r i c t where t h e a c t s c o n s t i t u t i n g i t were c o m m i t t e d , t h e n where s u c h a c t s were c o m m i t t e d i n a d i f f e r e n t d i s t r i c t t h a n t h a t o f t h e c o u r t whose o r d e r h a d b e e n contemned, s u c h c o u r t w o u l d be p o w e r l e s s t o d e a l p u n i t i v e l y w i t h t h e v i o l a t i o n o f i t s i n j u n c t i v e o r d e r s , and t h e t r i a l and p u n i s h m e n t o f s u c h c o n t e m p t w o u l d have t o be b y a d i f f e r e n t c o u r t f r o m t h a t whose o r d e r h a d b e e n d e f i e d . T h i s w o u l d c l e a r l y be an a l t e r a t i o n o f t h e e n t i r e i d e a o f a contempt, and i n d e r o g a t i o n o f t h e power o f a c o u r t t o d e a l w i t h v i o l a t o r s o f i t s orders. The e s s e n t i a l a c t o f contempt i s t h e d i s r e s p e c t shown t o t h e o r d e r o f t h e c o u r t a n d t h e disobedience thereof." 12 2120594 Dunham v. U n i t e d 376, 378 S t a t e s ex r e l . K a n s a s C i t y S. Ry. Co., 289 F. (5th C i r . 1923). B e c a u s e we have f o u n d no g o v e r n i n g venue o f c o n t e m p t p e t i t i o n s , the absence of a c o n t r a r y venue o f a c o n t e m p t a c t i o n i n the court j u d g m e n t s o u g h t t o be e n f o r c e d was Because contempt we claim have determined was p r o p e r we c o n c l u d e t h a t , i n statutory provision like lies statute § 30-3-5, from which the issued. that venue i n t h e Etowah o f the mother's Juvenile Court, we must now d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e amendment t o a d d h e r c u s t o d y modification Ala. claim c o m p e l s a change R. C i v . P., p r o v i d e s o f venue. Rule 82(c), that, " [ w ] h e r e s e v e r a l c l a i m s o r p a r t i e s have been j o i n e d , t h e ssuuiitt may be b r o u g h t i n any c o u n t y i n w h i c h any one o f t h e c l a i m s c o u l d p r o p e r l y have b e e n b r o u g h t . Whenever an a c t i o n h a s been commenced i n a p r o p e r c o u n t y , a d d i t i o n a l c l a i m s a n d p a r t i e s may be j o i n e d , p u r s u a n t t o R u l e s 13, 14, 22, a n d 24, [ A l a . R. C i v . P.,] as a n c i l l a r y t h e r e t o , w i t h o u t r e g a r d t o w h e t h e r that county w o u l d be a p r o p e r venue f o r an i n d e p e n d e n t a c t i o n on s u c h c l a i m s o r a g a i n s t s u c h parties." As n o t e d a b o v e , venue i s d e t e r m i n e d a t t h e commencement o f an action, and the mother's January 2013 properly i n s t i t u t e d t h e a c t i o n i n t h e Etowah J u v e n i l e Venue was p r o p e r i n t h e Etowah J u v e n i l e the court contempt Court. C o u r t b e c a u s e i t was whose j u d g m e n t t h e m o t h e r a l l e g e d 13 petition the father had 2120594 violated. B e c a u s e R u l e 82 p r o v i d e s t h a t venue r e m a i n s i f i t i s p r o p e r as t o one c l a i m made i n t h e a c t i o n , of whether venue i s proper the as to paternal additional grandmother proper regardless claims has or additional parties, not established a clear l e g a l r i g h t to a t r a n s f e r of the actions. Accordingly, we deny h e r p e t i t i o n f o r t h e w r i t o f mandamus. PETITION DENIED. Thompson, P . J . , a n d P i t t m a n a n d D o n a l d s o n , J J . , concur. Moore, J . , c o n c u r s i n t h e r e s u l t , w i t h o u t w r i t i n g . 14

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.