K.C. v. R.L.P.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Rel: 01/14/2011 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 o f Decisions, 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, 2010-2011 2090797 K.C. v. R.L.P. Appeal from Elmore J u v e n i l e Court (JU-04-43.03) PITTMAN, Judge. K.C. Juvenile by ("the mother") appeals Court purporting R.L.P. visitation t omodify, ("the f a t h e r " ) , exchange with from a judgment o f t h e Elmore i nresponse t o a visitation respect request and t h e place t o t h ep a r t i e s ' son of ("the 2090797 child"). the The j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t o s t e n s i b l y r e i n s t a t e d father's v i s i t a t i o n rights, suspended pending a h e a r i n g w h i c h had been temporarily on t h e m o t h e r ' s e x p a r t e m o t i o n c l a i m i n g t h a t t h e f a t h e r and h i s c u r r e n t w i f e were p h y s i c a l l y and v e r b a l l y a b u s i n g t h e c h i l d . We d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l as b e i n g from a v o i d judgment. The married. record reveals that the p a r t i e s have never The c h i l d has l i v e d w i t h t h e m o t h e r s i n c e he was b o r n i n 2002. The j u v e n i l e c o u r t f i r s t e x e r c i s e d j u r i s d i c t i o n the parties with respect to custody of the c h i l d a father v i s i t a t i o n paternity judgment. The and r i g h t s i n 2006, p r e s u m a b l y i n c i d e n t t o judgment; father over when i t awarded t h e mother p r i m a r y p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d the been in 2008, i t modified initiated the present i t s previous action i n the j u v e n i l e c o u r t i n S e p t e m b e r 2009. I n h i s p e t i t i o n , t h e f a t h e r s o u g h t t o m o d i f y v i s i t a t i o n , t o change t h e p l a c e o f v i s i t a t i o n exchange, and t o h o l d t h e mother i n contempt f o r a l l e g e d l y i n t e r f e r i n g with the father's exercise of v i s i t a t i o n relationship with the c h i l d . I n December 2009, and h i s t h e mother f i l e d an a n s w e r and s u b m i t t e d a c o u n t e r c l a i m s e e k i n g t o r e d u c e the father's v i s i t a t i o n rights. 2 I n J a n u a r y 2010, t h e m o t h e r 2090797 filed an rights. ex p a r t e m o t i o n t o s u s p e n d t h e The father's j u v e n i l e c o u r t p u r p o r t e d t o grant the mother's parte motion pending i t s f i n a l determination of the and t h e m o t h e r ' s c l a i m s . A f t e r h e a r i n g e v i d e n c e tenus, visitation the juvenile reinstate the court issued an father's v i s i t a t i o n l o c a t i o n o f e x c h a n g e . The order rights and ex father's presented ore purporting to changing the mother t h e r e a f t e r appealed to this c o u r t , a s s e r t i n g t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t had a c t e d o u t s i d e i t s d i s c r e t i o n by r e i n s t a t i n g the f a t h e r ' s v i s i t a t i o n by certain excluding parts of the child's rights and psychologist's t e s t i m o n y . However, r a t h e r t h a n a d d r e s s i n g t h o s e q u e s t i o n s , are required to dismiss c o u r t ' s judgment i n t h i s matter this appeal the juvenile a c t i o n i s v o i d f o r l a c k of s u b j e c t - jurisdiction. " [ A ] l a c k of subject-matter to because we waiver by the p a r t i e s , and i t i s our lack of s u b j e c t - m a t t e r T.C. [Ms. 2090433, June 18, 2010] Civ. App. 2010) parte Co., 31 So. 3d (citing 661, 662 jurisdiction jurisdiction Ex n. 1 duty i s not subject to consider ex mero m o t u E x So. 3d Progessive (Ala. 2009)). , parte (Ala. S p e c i a l t y Ins. I n Ex p a r t e s u p r a , we e x p l a i n e d t h e r e c e n t change i n t h e l a w r e g a r d i n g 3 a T.C., the 2090797 j u v e n i l e court's e x e r c i s e of r e t a i n e d j u r i s d i c t i o n over c h i l d custody determinations dependent, d e l i n q u e n t , when a c h i l d h a s n o t b e e n f o u n d t o b e o r i n need o f s u p e r v i s i o n : "Under f o r m e r l a w , 'once a j u v e n i l e c o u r t obtain[ed] jurisdiction i n any case i n v o l v i n g a child,' ... , ' t h a t c o u r t r e t a i n [ e d ] jurisdiction o v e r t h a t c a s e u n t i l t h e c h i l d r e a c h e [ d ] t h e age o f 21 y e a r s o r u n t i l t h e c o u r t , b y i t s own o r d e r , t e r m i n a t e [ d ] t h a t j u r i s d i c t i o n . ' W.B.G.M. v . P.S.T., 999 So. 2 d 971, 973 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 2008) ( c i t i n g f o r m e r §§ 1 2 - 1 5 - 3 2 ( a ) & 2 6 - 1 7 - 1 0 ( e ) , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 ) . Thus, u n d e r f o r m e r l a w , '[w]hen a j u v e n i l e c o u r t h a [ d ] 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, i t retain[ed] jurisdiction over a p e t i t i o n t o m o d i f y t h a t c u s t o d y judgment t o the e x c l u s i o n o f any o t h e r s t a t e c o u r t u n t i l t h e c h i l d r e a c h e [ d ] 21 y e a r s o f age o r t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t t e r m i n a t e [ d ] i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n . ' I d . a t 974.... "However, .. . t h e L e g i s l a t u r e h a s m a n d a t e d a c o n t r a r y r u l e as t o custody cases f i l e d after J a n u a r y 1, 2009: " ' A c t No. 2008-277, A l a . A c t s 2008, r e p l a c e s ... § 1 2 - 1 5 - 3 2 [ ] w i t h a new Code s e c t i o n , A l a . Code 1975, § 12-15-117, t h a t l i m i t s a j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s r e t a i n e d j u r i s d i c t i o n t o c a s e s i n w h i c h "a c h i l d has been a d j u d i c a t e d dependent, d e l i n [ q ] u e n t , or i n need o f s u p e r v i s i o n " (emphasis added [ i n W.B.G.M., 999 So. 2 d a t 975 ( P i t t m a n , J . , c o n c u r r i n g s p e c i a l l y ) ] ) . . . . ' To l i k e e f f e c t i s § 1 2 - 1 5 - 1 1 4 ( a ) , which p r o v i d e s t h a t although a j u v e n i l e court has o r i g i n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n t o d e c i d e an a c t i o n a l l e g i n g t h a t a c h i l d i s dependent, '[a] dependency a c t i o n shall not include a custody dispute between p a r e n t s . ' The c l e a r i n t e n t o f t h e L e g i s l a t u r e was t o provide that the j u v e n i l e courts of this state s h o u l d no l o n g e r be d e c i d i n g c u s t o d y d i s p u t e s e x c e p t i n s o f a r as t h e i r r e s o l u t i o n i s d i r e c t l y i n c i d e n t a l to core j u v e n i l e - court j u r i s d i c t i o n (such as i n 4 2090797 o r i g i n a l p a t e r n i t y a c t i o n s , s e e A l a . Code 26-17-104) 1975, § "To the extent t h a t a j u v e n i l e c o u r t has p r o p e r l y made an i n i t i a l custody award, o r h a s p r o p e r l y m o d i f i e d a custody judgment under t h e s t a t u t o r y framework s e t f o r t h i n t h e main o p i n i o n i n W.B.G.M., those judgments remain valid and e n f o r c e a b l e n o t h w i t h s t a n d i n g [ A l a . Code 1975, §§ 12¬ 15-114 a n d 1 2 - 1 5 - 1 1 7 ] . Any s u c h j u d g m e n t s w o u l d , h o w e v e r , be p r o s p e c t i v e l y m o d i f i a b l e i n A l a b a m a o n l y by t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t s , w h i c h a r e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y constituted as 'trial courts of general j u r i s d i c t i o n . ' A l a . Const. 1901, § 139(a) ( O f f . Recomp.)." Ex P a r t e T.C., Because So. 3d a t the child . has never been found dependent, and b e c a u s e t h e p r e s e n t a c t i o n was f i l e d a f t e r J a n u a r y 1, 2009, i t c o u l d o n l y have b e e n p r o p e r l y f i l e d i n t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t . The mother's appeal i s t h e r e f o r e d i s m i s s e d . The j u v e n i l e c o u r t i s d i r e c t e d t o vacate and i t s judgment and t o d i s m i s s the father's t h e mother's c l a i m s f o r t h w i t h . APPEAL DISMISSED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thomas a n d Moore, J J . , c o n c u r . Thompson, P . J . , and Bryan, without w r i t i n g s . 5 J . , concur i n the result,

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.