P. D. S. v. Marshall County Department of Human Resources

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 9/25/09 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 Reporter of Decisions, 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, 2009 2080507 P.D.S. v. M a r s h a l l County Department o f Human Resources Appeal from M a r s h a l l C i r c u i t (CV-08-200076) Court THOMAS, J u d g e . P.D.S. was m a r r i e d May 2004, the parties gave b i r t h t o D.A.S.S. and B.H. were t o T.S. ("the m o t h e r " ) separated. In July ("the c h i l d " ) . named as d e f e n d a n t s i n 2001. I n 2004, t h e mother I n M a r c h 2005, P.D.S. i n a paternity action i n 2080507 the M a r s h a l l Juvenile Court i n A l b e r t v i l l e j u v e n i l e court") In regarding the c h i l d the paternity action, both ("the A l b e r t v i l l e ("the p a t e r n i t y a c t i o n " ) . P.D.S. a n d B.H. themselves f o r p a t e r n i t y t e s t i n g , and t h a t submitted testing revealed t h a t P.D.S. c o u l d n o t be t h e f a t h e r o f t h e c h i l d a n d t h a t B.H. was the b i o l o g i c a l paternity father of the c h i l d . t e s t i n g , the A l b e r t v i l l e Based j u v e n i l e court on t h e dismissed t h e P.D.S. as a p a r t y i n t h e p a t e r n i t y a c t i o n a n d a d j u d i c a t e d B.H. t h e f a t h e r o f t h e c h i l d . I n December 2005, t h e c h i l d was removed f r o m t h e c u s t o d y of t h e mother adjudicated a n d B.H. father") Human R e s o u r c e s (hereinafter by t h e M a r s h a l l ("DHR"). referred County t o as " t h e Department o f A l t h o u g h s e r v i c e s were p r o v i d e d t o t h e m o t h e r , u l t i m a t e l y DHR c o n c l u d e d t h a t r e u n i t i n g t h e m o t h e r and the c h i l d petition the was n o t p o s s i b l e . to terminate adjudicated Guntersville the parental father I n J u l y 2007, DHR f i l e d a r i g h t s o f t h e mother and i n the Marshall Juvenile Court i n ("the G u n t e r s v i l l e j u v e n i l e c o u r t " ) . I n S e p t e m b e r 2007, P.D.S. a n d t h e m o t h e r were d i v o r c e d b y the Marshall Circuit Court. The d i v o r c e pleadings were on p r e p r i n t e d f o r m s c o n t a i n i n g b l a n k s t h a t h a d been c o m p l e t e d b y 2 2080507 someone other than P.D.S., because P.D.S. is illiterate. N e i t h e r t h e d i v o r c e p l e a d i n g s nor t h e d i v o r c e judgment mention the child, either address h i s custody, o r award child support t o party. According t o a n o t a t i o n on t h e c a s e - a c t i o n - s u m m a r y s h e e t pertaining to the termination action f i l e d i nthe G u n t e r s v i l l e j u v e n i l e c o u r t , P.D.S. a p p e a r e d " p r o s e " a t t h e t r i a l on DHR's termination juvenile petition. court After entered the t r i a l , an o r d e r , which the Guntersville reads, i n pertinent part: "1. The p a r e n t a l terminated. "2. "3. rights o f [P.D.S.] are not The c h i l d i s p l a c e d i n t h e c u s t o d y o f [ P . D . S . ] . The m o t h e r i s a l l o w e d ... s u p e r v i s e d visitation " B a s e d upon t h e a w a r d o f v i s i t a t i o n t o t h e m o t h e r , we c o n c l u d e that the G u n t e r s v i l l e j u v e n i l e court denied terminate v. her parental rights. A.J.T., See S t a t e Dep't o f Human R e s . 939 So. 2d 46, 47 judgment terminating parental rights DHR's p e t i t i o n t o parental ( A l a . C i v . App. 2006) rights but reserving t o the parent 3 ("[A] certain i s contradictory."). The 2080507 Guntersville juvenile court's order does n o t r e f e r a t any point t o the parental r i g h t s of the adjudicated father. DHR a p p e a l e d t h e G u n t e r s v i l l e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s to the M a r s h a l l C i r c u i t Court. judgment P.D.S. f i l e d what he t e r m e d as "a m o t i o n t o a d d a p a r t y , " b y w h i c h he s o u g h t t o have h i m s e l f made a p a r t y seeking t o the appeal custody P.D.S.'s as an a p p e l l e e , of the c h i l d . "motion t o add a p a r t y " which the c i r c u i t court granted. circuit The court considered petition court treated circuit as a m o t i o n to intervene, After a t r i a l , P.D.S.'s r e q u e s t the d i s p o s i t i o n a l phase o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g completion and a at which the f o r custody during that occurred after o f t h e 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 phase o f t h e proceeding, the c i r c u i t court entered 2008, 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 an o r d e r on O c t o b e r 16, o f t h e mother and t h e a d j u d i c a t e d f a t h e r ; t h e o r d e r f u r t h e r awarded f u l l custody o f t h e c h i l d t o DHR a n d g r a n t e d DHR p e r m i s s i o n for adoption. The o r d e r t o place the c h i l d d i d not s p e c i f i c a l l y address the c u s t o d y p e t i t i o n f i l e d b y P.D.S.; h o w e v e r , t h e o r d e r d i d s t a t e that DHR was considering " n o t ... [P.D.S.] placement, or adoption limit[ed] when making matters." 4 or forbid[den] decisions on ... from visitation, 2080507 On November 14, 2008, DHR filed what i t styled " m o t i o n t o a l t e r o r amend" t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s DHR requested specific finding presumed f a t h e r 5(a)(1). that 1 the c i r c u i t regarding of the c h i l d court order, as a i n which add t o t h e o r d e r P.D.S.'s c l a i m that a he was t h e u n d e r A l a . Code 1975, § 2 6 - 1 7 - On November 24, 2008, P.D.S. f i l e d a response t o DHR's m o t i o n , i n w h i c h P.D.S. a g r e e d w i t h DHR t h a t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t s h o u l d a d d r e s s w h e t h e r he was t h e p r e s u m e d f a t h e r o f t h e child a n d w h e t h e r he s h o u l d be a w a r d e d c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d . S e c t i o n 26-17-5 was r e p e a l e d b y A c t No. 2008-376, A l a . A c t s 2008. S e c t i o n 2 6 - 1 7 - 5 ( a ) r e a d , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : 1 "(a) A man i s p r e s u m e d t o be t h e n a t u r a l of a c h i l d i f . . . : father "(1) He a n d t h e c h i l d ' s n a t u r a l m o t h e r a r e o r have been m a r r i e d t o e a c h o t h e r a n d the c h i l d i s born d u r i n g t h e marriage " P.D.S. m a i n t a i n s t h a t he i s t h e c h i l d ' s p r e s u m e d f a t h e r . However, § 2 6 - 1 7 - 5 ( b ) c l e a r l y s t a t e d , i n p a r t , t h a t " [ t ] h e presumption of p a t e r n i t y i s rebutted by a c o u r t decree e s t a b l i s h i n g p a t e r n i t y o f t h e c h i l d b y a n o t h e r man." As p r e v i o u s l y n o t e d i n t h e t e x t o f t h i s o p i n i o n , P.D.S. a n d B.H. were p a r t i e s t o t h e p a t e r n i t y a c t i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e c h i l d i n which the A l b e r t v i l l e j u v e n i l e court e n t e r e d a judgment a d j u d i c a t i n g B.H. t h e f a t h e r o f t h e c h i l d . From o u r r e v i e w o f the r e c o r d o f t h e a c t i o n i n t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t , however, i t a p p e a r s t h a t P.D.S. m i g h t a t t e m p t t o r a i s e t h e i s s u e o f f a i l u r e of service i n the paternity action. Thus, i t i s u n c l e a r a t t h i s t i m e w h e t h e r P.D.S. may be t h e p r e s u m e d f a t h e r of t h e c h i l d . 5 2080507 The circuit 30, 2009. court P.D.S. f i l e d DHR f i l e d the court filing after a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l on M a r c h 6, 2009. a motion t o dismiss postjudgment circuit d e n i e d t h e p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n s on J a n u a r y motions were u n t i m e l y an a p p e a l b e c a u s e the entry order, filed see "[p]rocedure by t h e y were appeal, DHR and f a i l e d of the c i r c u i t Rule this a n d P.D.S. to t o l l filed court's 1 ( B ) , A l a . R. arguing i n the the time f o r more t h a n October J u v . P. 14 d a y s 16, 2008, (stating s h a l l be u n i f o r m i n a l l j u v e n i l e c o u r t s , trial juvenile the de novo" and t h a t c a s e s must be f i l e d a l l postjudgment court motions i n w i t h i n 14 d a y s o f t h e e n t r y o f judgment), and, t h e r e f o r e , appeal, that whether at the c i r c u i t or d i s t r i c t court l e v e l or i n the c i r c u i t by that that P.D.S.'s M a r c h 6, 2009, f i l e d w e l l a f t e r t h e e x p i r a t i o n o f t h e 14-day a p p e a l p e r i o d a p p l i c a b l e t o appeals from judgments i n j u v e n i l e cases, see Rule 28(c), Ala. R. J u v . P., was u n t i m e l y g e n e r a l l y , F.G. v. S t a t e Dep't o f Human Res., 557 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 7 ) . custody was, i n fact, filed. See, 988 So. 2d 555, P.D.S. r e s p o n d s t h a t h i s c l a i m f o r a compulsory counterclaim i n the j u v e n i l e c o u r t a n d a l s o t h a t i t was a c l a i m s e e k i n g t o modify the h i s claim divorce judgment; t h e r e f o r e , 6 he a s s e r t s that 2080507 was, i n a c t u a l i t y , a c i v i l and n o t a j u v e n i l e m a t t e r and t h a t , t h u s , h i s p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n c o u l d p r o p e r l y have b e e n w i t h i n 30 d a y s o f t h e e n t r y o f t h e c i r c u i t We need not decide whether because t h a t d e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h i s appeal. L.L., DHR court's o r P.D.S. i s not necessary order. i s correct to ther e s o l u t i o n As we a r e p e r m i t t e d t o do, s e e , e . g . , M.M. v. 989 So. 2d 528, 528 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 7 ) , we n o t i c e d , ex mero moto, a j u r i s d i c t i o n a l d e f e c t t h a t us to dismiss juvenile because final appeals appeal: order the appeal to the c i r c u i t See R u l e 2 8 ( B ) , to circuit court court of requires was order improper was n o t a A l a . R. J u v . P. ( p e r m i t t i n g from " f i n a l orders, judgments, o r S t a t e ex r e l . Thomas v. M i x o n , 674 So. 2d 6 1 1 , 612 C i v . App. 1995) (noting that a party j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s judgment t o t h e a p p r o p r i a t e if have of the G u n t e r s v i l l e the G u n t e r s v i l l e j u v e n i l e court's decrees"); (Ala. this court's judgment. filed t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s judgment i s a f i n a l supporting an appeal). noted appellate judgment above, court capable the j u v e n i l e seeking t h e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e p a r e n t a l r i g h t s o f t h e mother father. address a order the adjudicated t o completely appeal court's and failed As may The o n l y 7 DHR's parental petition rights the 2080507 juvenile court P.D.S.'s parental effectively parental specifically denied rights. addressed Even DHR's p e t i t i o n assuming r i g h t s by awarding her v i s i t a t i o n , termination rights unresolved. the were order t h e mother's which i n d i c a t e s s e e A . J . T . , 939 So. 2d a t the G u n t e r s v i l l e j u v e n i l e court's order seeking that t o terminate t h a t h e r r i g h t s were n o t t e r m i n a t e d , 47, i n i t s order of the adjudicated left DHR's c l a i m father's parental See G.B. v. S t a t e Dep't o f Human R e s . , 959 So. 2d 1116, 1120 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 6 ) ; P.B. v . P.C., 946 So. 2d 896, 898 (Ala. Civ. App. 2006) ("This appeal i s from a n o n f i n a l j u d g m e n t . The u n d e r l y i n g i s s u e s i n v o l v e d i n t h i s c a s e have n o t been a d j u d i c a t e d b y t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t . " ) . Thus, t h e G u n t e r s v i l l e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s o r d e r was n o t a f i n a l judgment capable of supporting an a p p e a l . Mixon, 674 So. 2d a t 612; see a l s o G.B., 959 So. 2d a t 1120; P.B. v . P.C., 946 So. 2d a t 897. We t h e r e f o r e d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n s t o t h e circuit court to dismiss the appeal from the G u n t e r s v i l l e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s o r d e r a n d t o remand t h e c a s e t o t h e j u v e n i l e court f o rf u r t h e r proceedings on DHR's 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 o f t h e a d j u d i c a t e d f a t h e r . 8 2080507 DHR's m o t i o n t o dismiss the appeal i s t h e r e f o r e denied. APPEAL DISMISSED WITH Thompson, INSTRUCTIONS. P . J . , and P i t t m a n , concur. 9 Bryan, a n d Moore, J J . ,

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.