Ex parte Monica Hall. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: Monica Hall v. Honorable Calvin Williams) (Montgomery Circuit Court: DR-10-900003) Petition Denied - No Opinion.

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 , 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 2120661 Ex p a r t e Monica Hall PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In r e : Monica Hall v. Honorable Calvin Williams) (Montgomery C i r c u i t Court, DR-10-900003) PER CURIAM. PETITION DENIED. NO OPINION. Thompson, P . J . , a n d P i t t m a n , Thomas, a n d D o n a l d s o n , J J . , concur. Moore, J . , d i s s e n t s , w i t h writing. 2120661 MOORE, J u d g e , d i s s e n t i n g . Monica H a l l ("the mother") p e t i t i o n s t h i s court to a w r i t o f mandamus o r p r o h i b i t i o n t o t h e C o u r t ("the trial pendente l i t e custody order and t r a n s f e r r i n g the J.H. ("the B r i e f l y , t h e m i n o r c h i l d was mother and B.H. ("the paternal custody of 26, 2010. her grandparents"). born o f the m a r r i a g e between father"), which marriage d i s s o l v e d by a d i v o r c e judgment e n t e r e d by the t r i a l May Circuit court") r e q u i r i n g that court to vacate i t s m i n o r c h i l d t o D.H. the Montgomery issue was court P u r s u a n t t o t h a t j u d g m e n t , t h e m o t h e r and on the f a t h e r s h a r e d j o i n t l e g a l c u s t o d y o f the c h i l d w i t h the mother having primary p h y s i c a l custody subject v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s of the f a t h e r . filed a petition to modify to c e r t a i n s p e c i f i e d On A p r i l 4, the custody 2012, the mother and visitation p r o v i s i o n s o f the d i v o r c e judgment, a l l e g i n g t h a t the had become m e n t a l l y mental-health with pursuant unstable due treatment plan to the mother subsequently abused the child terms alleged during court held hearings a to h i s f a i l u r e to f o l l o w t h a t he of the that November was required divorce the had visit. 28, to judgment. father 2012 on t h e m a t t e r on May 2 father 2012, the comply The sexually The trial and April 2120661 10, 2013, a t w h i c h t h e p a r t i e s and t h e p a t e r n a l among o t h e r s , t e s t i f i e d . entered the a pendente l i t e child lite basis to exercise divorce award c u s t o d y judgment, t h e t r i a l against more the child than counseling the s t a b i l i t y child. n o t award grandparents a finding that on a s h e was awarded t o h e r i n t h e R.H.M. v. S t a t e Dep't o f o f c h i l d from a n a t u r a l parent and However, i n i t s April court s p e c i f i c a l l y the father, appointed could final dispute. t o a n o n p a r e n t , t h e c o u r t must make an of unfitness). made a of 648 So. 2d 614, 616 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1994) ( b e f o r e a c o u r t c a n remove c u s t o d y finding court rights See g e n e r a l l y pending and v i s i t a t i o n making the custody judgment. Human Res., disrupt grandparents to the paternal without court awarding temporary custody o f the p a r t i e s ' custody of the c h i l d pendente had 12, 2 0 1 3 , t h e t r i a l mother argues t h a t t h e t r i a l custody unfit order to the paternal determination The On A p r i l grandparents, The t r i a l one u n f o u n d e d f o r the c h i l d , of the c h i l d , court does n o t have a p a r e n t of sexual discontinued and had a c t e d abuse court- so as t o a l l to the detriment t h e r e a f t e r concluded t o adequately 3 12, 2013, found t h a t t h e mother report had u n i l a t e r a l l y express of that "the provide f o r her 2120661 n e e d s and c a r e . " word "unfit" findings not Although when describing court t h e mother, amounting t o a d e t e r m i n a t i o n properly care f o r the c h i l d , f i n d i n g of u n f i t n e s s . Civ. the t r i a l App. 2010) J.W. (Moore, i t made factual t h a t t h e mother which v. T.D., d i d not use t h e could i s tantamount to a 58 So. 3d 782, 793 J . , dissenting) (citing Ex (Ala. parte A.R.S., 980 So. 2d 4 0 1 , 404 ( A l a . 2 0 0 7 ) , Ex p a r t e T e r r y , So. 2d 628 ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) , and C h a n d l e r v. W h a t l e y , 238 A l a . 206, 208-09, 189 So. 751, 753-54 (1939)) ( " S i n c e S t r i p l i n 36 A l a . 87 (1860)], consistently context as the appellate courts of t h i s considered a shorthand 'unfitness' way of 494 i n the referring [ v . Ware, s t a t e have child-custody to the parent's i n a b i l i t y to discharge the basic parental r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of p r o p e r l y p r o v i d i n g c h i l d r e n food, care, education, nurturing, clothing, shelter, and p r o t e c t i o n . " ) . Thus, t h e mother i s i n c o r r e c t i n h e r premise t h a t t h e t r i a l n o t make an e x p r e s s custody The had of the c h i l d t o the p a t e r n a l court d i d transferring grandparents. more f u n d a m e n t a l q u e s t i o n i s w h e t h e r t h e t r i a l subject-matter order. f i n d i n g of u n f i t n e s s before medical Although jurisdiction to enter the pendente that question i s not addressed 4 court lite by t h e mother 2120661 in her p e t i t i o n , to assure See 2d that this the c o u r t has trial a d u t y t o i n q u i r e sua court acted within g e n e r a l l y Stamps v. J e f f e r s o n C n t y . Bd. 941, 945 n.2 custody of a i t s authority. o f E d u c . , 642 So. ( A l a . 1994). Traditionally, jurisdiction, sponte a could circuit divest child and a court, natural award c u s t o d y exercising parent to of a third equitable his or her party upon f i n d i n g t h a t the n a t u r a l p a r e n t c o u l d not a d e q u a t e l y care for t h e c h i l d and t h a t t h e c h a n g e d c u s t o d y a r r a n g e m e n t w o u l d s e r v e the best interests However, i n Ex p a r t e supreme c o u r t held of the child. L.E.O., 61 that a child So. See 3d our becomes d e p e n d e n t when the r e c e i v i n g a d e q u a t e c a r e and or her custodians, are legal unfit provide by for virtue the Murdock i n h i s d i s s e n t s u p e r v i s i o n from h i s i . e . , when t h e p a r e n t s o f t h e of needs supra. (Ala. 2010), c h i l d i s not 1042 Striplin, their of the being child. i n Ex p a r t e unable As to noted L.E.O., t h a t adequately by Justice holding " b l u r [ s ] , i n d e e d l a r g e l y r e m o v e [ s ] , the l i n e between true dependency cases, which fall within the limited, exclusive jurisdiction of the juvenile court and which are g o v e r n e d by the statutory d e p e n d e n c y scheme, ... and mere t h i r d - p a r t y c u s t o d y c a s e s , w h i c h a r e g o v e r n e d by t h e s t a n d a r d a n n o u n c e d i n Ex p a r t e T e r r y , 494 So. 2d 628 ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) , and which f a l l w i t h i n the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the j u v e n i l e 5 child 2120661 c o u r t o n l y i f some o t h e r jurisdiction exists." 61 So. 3d a t 1055. basis for juvenile-court I n o t h e r w o r d s , b a s e d on t h e change i n t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f d e p e n d e n c y e s t a b l i s h e d b y t h e m a i n o p i n i o n i n Ex parte L.E.O., a c i r c u i t award c u s t o d y of a c h i l d court no l o n g e r holds of u n f i t parents t h e power t o to a third party. Only a j u v e n i l e c o u r t , e x e r c i s i n g i t s dependency j u r i s d i c t i o n , and subject to l e g i s l a t e d r e s t r i c t i o n s on t h a t power, may do so. Section custody 12-15-114(a), dispute A l a . Code s o l e l y between p a r e n t s 1975, d e c l a r e s does n o t f a l l 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 s . L . R . J . v. C.F., 75 So. 3d 685 case nominally between two pendente l i t e presents natural as a parents; that within See a l s o ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 1 ) . custody-modification however, by o r d e r , t h i s c a s e h a s now e v o l v e d virtue a This action of the i n t o an a c t u a l d i s p u t e b e t w e e n t h e m o t h e r a n d t h e p a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s as t o the dependency and c u s t o d y of the c h i l d . 1 See B.R.G. v. I n h e r p e t i t i o n , t h e mother notes t h a t t h e p a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s h a d n o t i n t e r v e n e d o r b e e n j o i n e d as f o r m a l parties i n the underlying action; rather, they merely t e s t i f i e d as w i t n e s s e s i n t h e c a s e . However, t h e m o t h e r does n o t make any l e g a l argument t h a t , b e c a u s e t h e p a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s were n o t f o r m a l p a r t i e s t o t h e c a s e , t h e t r i a l 1 6 2120661 G.L.M., 57 So. 3d 137, 140 n.3 t h a t d i s p u t e among p a r e n t s child fell and r e l a t i v e s within juvenile court's fact that original the "parental pleadings custody dependency j u r i s d i c t i o n this ( A l a . C i v . App. 2010) ( n o t i n g as t o d e p e n d e n c y o f jurisdiction despite the involved only parents). dispute" exception to the Thus, general o f j u v e n i l e c o u r t s does n o t a p p l y t o case. Like J u s t i c e Murdock, I b e l i e v e t h e l e g i s l a t u r e d i d not i n t e n d t o remove f r o m c i r c u i t c o u r t s t h e i r h i s t o r i c a l power t o p r o t e c t c h i l d r e n i n t h i s and s i m i l a r c o n t e x t s , and I m a i n t a i n t h a t Ex p a r t e L.E.O. was w r o n g l y d e c i d e d , 61 So. 3d 1058, 1059-67 concurring s e e L.E.O. v . A.L., ( A l a . C i v . App. 2010) i n the r e s u l t ) , and G.H. v. (Moore, J . , Cleburne County D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s , 62 So. 3d 540, 551 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2010) (Moore, J . , c o n c u r r i n g this court court. parents i s constrained See § 12-3-16, t o be u n f i t i n the r e s u l t ) . by t h e d e c i s i o n s A l a . Code 1975. and p l a c i n g t h e c h i l d However, o f o u r supreme By finding both i n the temporary c o u r t c o u l d n o t award pendente l i t e c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d t o them. T h e r e f o r e , t h a t i s s u e i s w a i v e d . Ex p a r t e S i m p s o n , 36 So. 3d 15, 25 ( A l a . 2009) ("Arguments n o t made as a b a s i s f o r mandamus r e l i e f a r e w a i v e d . " ) . 7 2120661 protective custody of the p a t e r n a l court, effect, impermissibly in grandparents, exercised the the trial exclusive d e p e n d e n c y j u r i s d i c t i o n o f a j u v e n i l e c o u r t , as d e f i n e d by Ex p a r t e L.E.O. is due voted Accordingly, t o be v a c a t e d . i t s p e n d e n t e l i t e o r d e r i s v o i d and Because a m a j o r i t y t o deny t h e p e t i t i o n , I respectfully 8 of the court dissent. has

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.