T.K. v. M.G.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 04/01/2011 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 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 2091162 T.K. v. M.G. Appeal from M a r s h a l l J u v e n i l e Court (JU-09-300249) PER CURIAM. T.K. Marshall ("the mother") Juvenile Court appeals from a ("the j u v e n i l e c o u r t " ) ("the c h i l d " ) d e p e n d e n t a n d a w a r d i n g c u s t o d y M.G., t h e c h i l d ' s f a t h e r judgment ("the f a t h e r " ) . of the d e c l a r i n g K.W. ofthe child t o 2091162 The filed f a t h e r , who dependency a was the noncustodial parent of the petition on November 17, 2009, child, alleging t h a t t h e m o t h e r , t h e c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t , was u n a b l e t o d i s c h a r g e her parental her use of responsibilities illegal drugs, her inability to properly sought award an of t o and f o r the c h i l d because of care custody inadequate finances, f o r the c h i l d . of the child 1 The and Along w i t h h i s dependency p e t i t i o n , the f a t h e r and father her also child support. filed a motion In h i s a f f i d a v i t submitted i n support of h i s dependency petition, the father alleged, among other things, the following specific facts: 1 "About two weeks a g o , I f o u n d o u t [ t h e m o t h e r ] was i n the h o s p i t a l . ... I l a t e r f o u n d o u t l a s t W e d n e s d a y ... t h a t [ t h e m o t h e r ] was i n t h e h o s p i t a l b e c a u s e s h e was h i g h a n d t h o u g h t a l i e n s w e r e c o m i n g to k i l l h e r . "... On F r i d a y , N o v e m b e r , 1 3 , 2 0 0 9 , I w e n t t o p i c k [ t h e c h i l d ] up a t s c h o o l a s I a l w a y s d o on my weekend. W h i l e t h e r e [ t h e m o t h e r ] and [ t h e mother's h u s b a n d ] showed up a n d c a u s e d a s c e n e a n d t h e p o l i c e were c a l l e d . When t h e p o l i c e a r r i v e d t h e [ y ] b o t h l e f t immediately. While a t the school, [ t h e mother's h u s b a n d ] a d m i t t e d t o me t h a t [ t h e m o t h e r ] h a d b e e n t a k i n g drugs "I have s i n c e l e a r n e d t h a t [ t h e m o t h e r ] has s e v e r a l D U I ' s a n d was s u p p o s e d t o b e i n i n - p a t i e n t treatment f o r her drug problems. H e r h u s b a n d was a l s o i n d i c t e d by t h e G r a n d J u r y i n A p r i l 2009 f o r Unlawful Manufacturing " 2 2091162 requesting emergency father's that he be awarded circumstances. motion f o r an 2 custody The award of the c h i l d juvenile of court emergency based granted custody on the of the child. On D e c e m b e r 1, 2 0 0 9 , t h e j u v e n i l e adopting an agreement between the c o u r t e n t e r e d an mother and the p u r s u a n t t o w h i c h t h e f a t h e r was a w a r d e d p e n d e n t e l i t e 2 In that emergency motion, the father "1. That a P e t i t i o n f o r a Dependency has been f i l e d i n t h i s order father custody alleged: Determination case. of "2. That t h e mother and [ t h e mother's husband] a r e u n a b l e t o p r o v i d e a s a f e a n d s t a b l e home f o r t h e child i n that t h e mother has drug and alcohol a d d i c t i o n and has been a r r e s t e d f o r f e l o n y [ d r i v i n g u n d e r t h e i n f l u e n c e ] a n d r e c e n t l y h o s p i t a l i z e d due to h e r drug a d d i c t i o n and t h e [ m o t h e r ' s husband] has been indicted for unlawful manufacturing a c o n t r o l l e d substance. "3. T h a t t h e m o t h e r c a n no l o n g e r t a k e c a r e o f the child i n t h a t t h e m o t h e r i s b e l i e v e d t o be t a k i n g i l l e g a l d r u g s t o i n c l u d e c r y s t a l meth and i s b e l i e v e d t o have t h e c h i l d e x p o s e d t o drug u s e r s and dealers. to to "4. That t h e r e e x i t s a r e a l and p r e s e n t danger t h e c h i l d i n t h a t t h e m o t h e r i s no l o n g e r w i l l i n g c a r e f o r t h e c h i l d due t o h e r c o n t i n u e d d r u g u s e . "5. That i t i s i n the best i n t e r e s t of the c h i l d t o be p l a c e d i n t h e t e m p o r a r y c u s t o d y o f t h e [ f a t h e r ] pending a f i n a l hearing." 3 2091162 of the c h i l d that order mother, and t h e mother also contained and the was a requirement mother's M a r s h a l l County Family current order was subsequently provide that the mother's hearing The that amended juvenile court 3, hearing, i n which, 2010, the with his or dismiss filed. the the 2010, t o child the matter that the for a amended motion Accordingly, father's original after medical The m o t h e r petition, an regarding scheduled sought he s o u g h t an o r d e r matter. be an "amended p e t i t i o n f o r i n addition to the r e l i e f fee i n this that agreement before t o pay a p o r t i o n of the c h i l d ' s attorney granted 3, lite the c h i l d . day the father f i l e d o r i g i n a l dependency p e t i t i o n , mother The p e n d e n t e scheduled summer v i s i t a t i o n w i t h August dependency custody" i n the o n A u g u s t 4, 2 0 1 0 , a n d o n May 2 0 , 2 0 1 0 , i t e n t e r e d mother's On enroll o n May visitation rights; the father, the husband order r e f l e c t i n g the terms of the p a r t i e s ' the visitation Drug C o u r t program. custody supervised. awarded and concluding the that inhis requiring the expenses and moved t o strike juvenile court i t was untimely t h e A u g u s t 4, 2 0 1 0 , h e a r i n g p r o c e e d e d o n dependency 4 petition. 2091162 On the date of the dependency a motion to dismiss that the juvenile over the matter. motion before the court The clear and lacked father primary the mother The evidence that the custody that Following a was judgment found by dependent, of the c h i l d , of the c h i l d , filed and a postjudgment juvenile that her court finding action. that The motion lacked due-process The j u v e n i l e c o u r t d e n i e d specifically over legal on things, the c h i l d p h y s i c a l custody the jurisdiction violated. that arguing and awarded awarded visitation. mother argued rule the j u v e n i l e court entered awarded the p a r t i e s j o i n t the d i d not i t , among o t h e r filed jurisdiction the e v i d e n t i a r y hearing. i n which convincing subject-matter juvenile court conducting 2010, the mother the f a t h e r ' s dependency p e t i t i o n , dependency h e a r i n g , o n A u g u s t 5, hearing, then which she subject-matter rights had been the postjudgment motion, i t had s u b j e c t - m a t t e r mother in timely jurisdiction appealed to this court. On final appeal, the mother judgment jurisdiction. i s void argues for that lack the j u v e n i l e of The m o t h e r c o n t e n d s t h a t , a l t h o u g h 5 court's subject-matter the father's 2091162 petition the purported juvenile court, custody dispute action. The erred as matter legal v. to Civ. question Alabama dependency action i s actually between a matter [Ms. App. the the parents and mother contends t h a t the of of jurisdiction i n the nature i s not a juvenile court concluding that i t had over the father's action. We 2 0 9 0 1 3 0 , Dec. 3, 2010] So. de subject- review the novo. 3d a therefore in jurisdiction of dependency law subject-matter of , Hill (Ala. 2 010) . Section seq., the jurisdiction Hill, invoke 12-15-114(a), Juvenile Ala. Code Justice 1975, Ala. Act Code provides, a part AJJA"), ("the 1975, § 12-15-101 in pertinent of the et part: "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 c o u r t proceedings i n which a c h i l d i s a l l e g e d to have committed a delinquent act, to be dependent, or to be in need of supervision. 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 . " In her b r i e f parte T.C., (Ala. Civ. case, a entered [Ms. App. mother by a submitted 2090433, 2010), sought to this June i n support to modify juvenile court. p r e v i o u s l y been d e c l a r e d 18, The court, the mother c i t e s 2010] of a her 2006 So. argument. custody c h i l d r e n at dependent, d e l i n q u e n t , 6 3d issue Ex , In that judgment had or i n need not of 2091162 supervision. concluding This that jurisdiction The court starting court the over mother's the 1975, that custody determined Code be Ex 1975 jurisdiction applies parte T.C., (the court So. d i d not original paternity 2011] child [custody] , continuing a See court that was R.L.P., the K.C. v. ( A l a . C i v . App. filed o n l y have been p r o p e r l y f i l e d after in [Ms. January Code been need continuing or a child 2090968, Jan. 2011) as part 2090797, of Jan. 2009, the a 14, ("Because because the 1, 7, (the j u v e n i l e AJJA to modify 2011) of 12-15-117(a), i n the c i r c u i t court 7 include has child entered , was or delinquent under who maintains n e v e r been f o u n d d e p e n d e n t , and action effective jurisdiction also § ( A l a . C i v . App. judgment 3d child v . B.N.H., [Ms. jurisdiction action); So. has 3d custody action. § 12-15-114, A l a . to supra. a dependent or have w h i c h was delinquent, juvenile i n n e e d o f s u p e r v i s i o n ) ; R.T. 2011] only dependent, over see juvenile court's matters supervision. Ala. the to AJJA, subject-matter 2009, a dependency a c t i o n d i d not d i s p u t e between p a r e n t s , over lacked appeal, custody-modification a custody and mother's court t h a t under J a n u a r y 1, the juvenile the explained dismissed the present i t could [and n o t in 2091162 the juvenile Dec. c o u r t ] . " ) ; and Ex p a r t e 3, 2 0 1 0 ] juvenile child So. 3d court based , no l o n g e r solely on L.N.K., [Ms. 2 0 9 0 9 6 5 , ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 2 0 1 0 ) ("[A] has c o n t i n u i n g i t shaving jurisdiction made a prior over a paternity determination."). The supra, mother i s a petition, drugs custody that this dispute. case, like However, to properly of the child care father's petition jurisdiction and that f o rthe child. were s u f f i c i e n t of the juvenile court. was t h e dependency See § 1 2 - 1 5 - 1 0 2 ( 8 ) , C o d e 1 9 7 5 . S e e a l s o B.R.G. v . G.L.M., , t h e mother t o invoke Ala. So. 3d illegal The a l l e g a t i o n s i n 1975 ( d e f i n i n g " d e p e n d e n t 2010] T.C., i n h i s dependency Code 27, Ex p a r t e t h e f a t h e r a l l e g e d t h a t t h e m o t h e r was u s i n g i n the presence failing the argues child"); and § Ala. 12-15-114(a), [Ms. 2 0 9 0 4 4 8 , A u g . n. 3 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 2010) (the f a t h e r ' s a l l e g a t i o n s t h a t t h e mother had abused t h e c h i l d and had the failed dependency "squarely whether So. to provide jurisdiction present[ed] the child supervision were sufficient to the juvenile court of the juvenile [was] d e p e n d e n t " ) ; 2 d 307 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 2005) 8 court with the invoke and question a n d L.L.M. v . S.F., 919 (the a l l e g a t i o n s c o n t a i n e d i n 2091162 the dependency grandparents petitions were jurisdiction filed sufficient of the juvenile by to the father invoke and the dependency court). "Once t h e 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 been properly statutory invoked, dependency 499, 501 ( A l a . alleged his court of the child." Civ. K.C.G. App. 2010). has an custodial was one custodian, discharge parent; In this or other case, custodian 46 S o . 3 d t h e c h i l d was of the conduct of legal alleged that the guardian, i s unable or legal unwilling ... h e r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s t o a n d f o r t h e c h i l d . " 12-15-102(8)(a).6., properly parent, imperative v . S.J.R. , i n essence, the father "[w]hose court has hearing t o determine t o have been dependent as a r e s u l t child A l a . Code exercising evidentiary the the juvenile d u t y t o c o n d u c t an e v i d e n t i a r y the the 1975. The juvenile to § court, i t s dependency j u r i s d i c t i o n , c o n d u c t e d an hearing, and i t then entered a judgment finding c h i l d t o be dependent and a w a r d i n g c u s t o d y t o t h e f a t h e r . Among i t sfactual court noted recent findings the mother's relapse using i n that long crystal 9 judgment, history the of drug methamphetamine, juvenile abuse, her her recent 2091162 suicide for attempt, and h e r marriage manufacturing The illegal drugs. mother i s c o r r e c t t h a t , t o a man under indictment 3 i n some c a s e s , t h i s c o u r t has c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e d i s p u t e a t i s s u e was more i n t h e n a t u r e o f a custody d i s p u t e than a dependency a c t i o n . v . A.K., P.C., 875 So. 2 d 3 2 6 , 3 2 8 - 2 9 853 So. 2 d 246 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2003); ( A l a . C i v . App. 2002); 826 S o . 2 d 890 690 So. 2d 365 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 6 ) . also upheld appeal, of ( A l a . C i v . App. 2002); judgments i . e . , judgments a dependent child. similar However, t h i s t o t h e one App. 2010) a parent S e e G.H. v. C l e b u r n e DHR filed S.E., J.D.A., c o u r t has at issue i n which (Cleburne County S.G. v . B.S.L. v. a n d C.L.C. v . Human R e s . , [Ms. 2 0 9 0 4 3 1 , N o v . 1 2 , 2 0 1 0 ] Civ. S e e , e . g . , S.D.F. i s awarded in this custody County Dep't o f So. 3d (Ala. petitions alleging the dependency o f t h e c h i l d r e n , and t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t e n t e r e d a judgment f i n d i n g t h e c h i l d r e n dependent and awarding of them Civ. to the father); App. 2008) custody J . J . v . J.H.W., 27 S o . 3 d 5 1 9 ( A l a . ( a f f i r m i n g an award o f c u s t o d y o f a dependent The j u v e n i l e c o u r t a l s o acknowledged t h a t t h e mother had made r e c e n t i m p r o v e m e n t s i n h e r c i r c u m s t a n c e s , including d i v o r c i n g h e r husband, e n r o l l i n g i n a drug-treatment program, a t t e n d i n g church, and m a i n t a i n i n g a j o b . 3 10 2091162 child 307 to the c h i l d ' s ( A l a . C i v . App. dependent c h i l d Given law, 2005) to the c a n n o t be and a b l e a n d L . L . M . v . S.F., The mother support has we cannot of a of deemed d e p e n d e n t when a f i t p a r e n t i s say t h a t , f o r the c h i l d . to support not The allegations in i f supported the dependency challenged on f o r the j u v e n i l e court's appeal the dependency by determination. evidentiary determination. Even i f the mother had a s s e r t e d i n h e r a p p e l l a t e b r i e f argument r e g a r d i n g 2d as a m a t t e r to care would tend So. ( a f f i r m i n g an a w a r d o f c u s t o d y the f a t h e r ' s p l e a d i n g , motions, and a f f i d a v i t , evidence, 919 father). the foregoing, a child willing father); the s u f f i c i e n c y of the evidence an supporting the j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s dependency judgment, t h i s c o u r t c o u l d not address record that on hearing. App. appeal appellant, mother ( i t was to d i d not a copy of the t r a n s c r i p t the include a reversal); So. 2d 1092, 1092-92 the The See G o r e e v . S h i r l e y , 2000) warrant argument. sufficient of dependency (Ala. Civ. mother, information i n the in as record ex r e l . G i b s o n v. G i b s o n , ( A l a . C i v . App. 1989) evidence p e r t a i n i n g to the facts, 11 of the 765 S o . 2 d 6 6 1 , 662 responsibility and S t a t e include (same). procedure, the to 786 Therefore, and h i s t o r y 2091162 of this case t h a t was presented to a v a i l a b l e f o r t h i s court's review, that the support evidence the omitted juvenile from court's C o u n t y D e p ' t o f Human R e s . , the and the juvenile So. is not t h i s c o u r t must presume record judgment. 992 court 2d was sufficient J.B. v. to Cleburne 34, 40 (Ala. Civ. App. failed to demonstrate 2008). We appeal matter. process was hold that that the The mother juvenile Accordingly, on we her subject-matter mother's has court lacked pretermit argument r a i s e d by predicated lacked the the a jurisdiction discussion mother, because contention that the of that on over this the due- argument juvenile court jurisdiction. request for an attorney fee on appeal Bryan, and Thomas, is denied. AFFIRMED. Thompson, P.J., and Pittman, concur. Moore, J., dissents, with 12 writing. JJ., 2091162 MOORE, J u d g e , On dissenting. appeal, court's final by ("the judgment jurisdiction. filed T.K. The M.G. mother") is void ("the father") of the out between custody dependency court dispute action. therefore subject-matter her motion I The erred had for that lack of the the jurisdiction her to parents, contends a matter and the petition invoke the j u v e n i l e court, i t a c t u a l l y set mother as to dismiss purported juvenile subject-matter mother contends t h a t , although dependency j u r i s d i c t i o n a argues of law which that the to vacate not a juvenile in holding o v e r t h e a c t i o n and motion is that i t i n denying the judgment. agree. Because Alabama juvenile courts Constitution, jurisdiction extended beyond the Ex parte K.L.P., 868 1975, courts and juvenile terms of So. 12-15-114, A l a . Juvenile J u s t i c e Act Code not sets Code ("the forth provides, 2d the new in pertinent 13 derive (Ala. Civ. a part AJJA"), original by of the App. new cannot part: of See 2003). Alabama § 12-15-1 e t seq., jurisdiction the their empowering s t a t u t e . 456 1975, created that jurisdiction the 454, courts courts s o l e l y f r o m s t a t u t e , and be Section are Ala. juvenile 2091162 "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 which a c h i l d i s a l l e g e d t o have committed a d e l i n q u e n t act, to be dependent, or to be in need of 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 . " § 1 2 - 1 5 - 1 1 4 ( a ) , A l a . C o d e 1975 neither this meaning of As a court the I read our it, a petition the shall have has been However, juvenile court shall parents" t o be "[a] the not thereof, plain of and McClain, a So. 2d of § juvenile court states, generally, that 12-15-114(a). over proceedings in dependency of a alleging the sentence provides a "custody The that the dispute between phrase "custody refers to a legal contest p i t t i n g for child the or 1061, 1074 custody, children. language, to give e f f e c t to the p l a i n sentence the dependency a c t i o n . " unambiguous 957 filed has Heretofore, construed jurisdiction consider another minor court sentence second d i s p u t e between p a r e n t s " against in § first child. parent supreme language used juvenile court which nor (emphasis added). see or some Therefore, City ( A l a . 2006) of by its (requiring the v. courts second the possibility that a c o u l d e x e r c i s e dependency jurisdiction over a c o n t e s t s o l e l y b e t w e e n two excludes aspect Bessemer language of a s t a t u t e ) , 12-15-114(a) one parents 14 as t o t h e custody o f one or 2091162 more o f t h e i r children. 12-15-114(a) creates In e f f e c t , an exception d e c l a r i n g that a custody in the form jurisdiction My of a the second to the f i r s t dependency petition, will is reading the subject Code would be consistent with within see 1958). interpreted included of controversy." 1975; (Recomp. even i f c a s t not invoke the other as also At bringing the dependency a child See f o r m e r Title one Under AJJA child," repealed 62, time, custody § that § that part custody 12-15-1(10)c., 3 1 1 , A l a . Code language disputes jurisdiction former law, had between (1963). of been parents of juvenile courts. of the d e f i n i t i o n 1940 See The "dependent s e e § 1 2 - 1 5 - 1 0 2 ( 8 ) a . , A l a . Code 1975, r e i n f o r c i n g t h e conclusion juvenile the changes "[w]hose H a j o v s k y v . H a j o v s k y , 2 7 6 A l a . 7 7 , 1 5 9 S o . 2 d 194 new by of the j u v e n i l e court. term "dependent c h i l d " Ala. of § sentence d i s p u t e between p a r e n t s , w r o u g h t b y t h e e n a c t m e n t o f t h e new A J J A . the sentence that the dependency c o u r t s no l o n g e r jurisdiction extends t o custody of Alabama's disputes between parents. Moreover, include a child t h e new who AJJA defines " i s i n need 15 a of care "dependent child" to or s u p e r v i s i o n " and 2091162 "[w]ho i s w i t h o u t willing and education In able to the legal guardian, provide of the c h i l d . " considering Murdock a parent, significance Murdock, that considered by a [Ms. 1 0 9 1 7 5 5 , of that legislature dependent Dec. 3, 2 0 1 0 ] intended i f one dependency parent an allegation endangers the that the 1975. Justice So. 3d that a Like child of the c h i l d ' s parents his or her of the j u v e n i l e court child. 16 Justice of the AJJA cannot be i s able to Hence, any p e t i t i o n asserting conduct , i n t h e new filed fitness over the s u b j e c t c h i l d cannot p o s s i b l y jurisdiction or c r e a t e d by law t h a t e i t h e r i s not. That i s , e i t h e r a t i s n o t . A c h i l d c a n n o t be p a r e n t b u t n o t dependent as the c h i l d i s not dependent then the child is not adequate care of the c h i l d . noncustodial support, definition, (Murdock, J . , c o n c u r r i n g s p e c i a l l y ) . exercise custody the of I b e l i e v e from the language employed the provide care, that "dependency i s a s t a t u s i s true of a c h i l d or c h i l d i s dependent or i d e p e n d e n t v i s - a - v i s one to the other parent. I f 'as to one parent,' dependent." ( A l a . 2010) the custodian § 1 2 - 1 5 - 1 0 2 ( 8 ) a . 2 . , A l a . Code recently explained E x p a r t e W.E., for or l e g a l to invoke regardless custodial parent 2091162 I further pierced the form petitions" parents note that, of former the pleadings actually that under presented that custody dispute a according opposed t o dependency, p r i n c i p l e s . See J o n e s 2d 374, C.L.C. v . 2d 365 ( A l a . C i v . App. ( A l a . C i v . App. ( A l a . C i v . App. App. 2002); Civ. App. (Ala. a trial 2002); 1996); S.G. 2003). case See 2000) than v . P.C., nonparent, that ruling v . L.A., dependent will 790 dependency dispute action, So. J.D.A., 826 and between the parents 2d 890 So. (Ala. Civ. 2d 262, 267 statute to By d e c l a r i n g not Now, declared has and custody shall of case, to a in § include legislature but the l e g i s l a t u r e 17 So. 328-29 ( A l a . So. award action parents, 690 i s more i n t h e n a t u r e not stand."). dependency d i s p u t e between custody v . Webb, 524 2d 326, intended to strengthen that l i n e of caselaw. a as on t h e j u v e n i l e - d e p e n d e n c y child a So. between custody, a determination-of-dependency the that 875 often "dependency 853 S o . 2 d 246 ("When a c a s e court relies 12-15-114(a) to B . S . L . v . S.E., a l s o N.G. adjudicate custody 1988); a n d S.D.F. v . A.K., C i v . App. custody the be court to hold decided 375 should law, t h i s a obviously not only i s not further to be a clarified 2091162 that such courts a dispute because c a n no the dispute longer lies be decided outside their by juvenile jurisdiction. T a k e n a l t o g e t h e r , t h e c h a n g e s i n t h e new A J J A i n d i c a t e a n obvious legislative intent that invoke the dependency simply casting dependency intent, former Civ. juvenile h i s or her custody claim i n the form petition. App. 2005), In failing relies or cases petition, see, before cases the court, juvenile court, within v . S.F., have pursuant of to v. , a [Ms. ( A l a . C i v . App. presently on § 1 2 - 1 5 - 1 1 4 ( a ) , i t s dependency to decide under G.L.M., on t h e i s s u e based a that p a r t i e s had f i l e d B.R.G. no b e a r i n g to effect by 919 S o . 2 d 307 ( A l a . third e.g., i . e . , whether, a custody a jurisdiction, dispute solely parents. Furthermore, intended give So. 3d c u r r e n t l y has j u r i s d i c t i o n between to court on c a s e s e i t h e r d e c i d e d i n which 2090448, Aug. 27, 2010] Those cannot of a l a w , s e e , e . g . , L.L.M. 2010). parent jurisdiction t h e main o p i n i o n dependency a noncustodial I cannot t h a t some c u s t o d y t h e dependency b a s e d on t h e n a t u r e concur that the d i s p u t e s between parents jurisdiction of legislature will the juvenile fall courts of the factual allegations asserted i nthe 18 2091162 complaint. I f that officers and i s true, then juvenile-court juvenile-court judges would intake bear the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of f e r r e t i n g out those custody disputes between parents that are within, and those between parents that are outside, t h e dependency juvenile such courts. a guessing sentence of § custody disputes jurisdiction The l e g i s l a t u r e p l a i n l y intended game b y , i n e f f e c t , d e c l a r i n g 1 2 - 1 5 - 1 1 4 (a) that no custody of the to avoid i n the second dispute between p a r e n t s c a n e v e r be c h a r a c t e r i z e d as a dependency a c t i o n . legislature resources obviously of undertaking a juvenile much reasoning totally that that court the valuable should not be judicial wasted t o determine whether i t had j u r i s d i c t i o n over disputes, By intended less enacting by adjudicating subverts that § 12-15-114(a), any custody dispute dependency j u r i s d i c t i o n them. The The i n such majority's purpose. t h e l e g i s l a t u r e has between parents lies of the juvenile courts. declared outside the B a s e d on t h e l a n g u a g e e m p l o y e d i n § 1 2 - 1 5 - 1 1 4 ( a ) , t h e h i s t o r y l e a d i n g up t o the adoption o f § 12-15-114(a), a n d t h e c h a n g e s made b y t h e l e g i s l a t u r e t o t h e former Alabama J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e Act, § 12-15-1 et s e q . , A l a . Code 19 1975, I conclude former that the 2091162 legislature the intended dependency that a noncustodial parent jurisdiction of a j u v e n i l e court p e t i t i o n naming the c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t the dependency of the c h i l d , custody of the c h i l d properly s t a t u t o r y duty the not asserting of a j u v e n i l e court of the child." invoke K.C.G. v . 2010). the In t h i s has an dependency 46 So. acted without judgment e n t e r e d will 1081447, Thus, not July without subject-matter without jurisdiction of support 16, an 2010] considering appeal. So. the 20 3d other i n so d o i n g . jurisdiction Ex the The j u v e n i l e c o u r t jurisdiction subject-matter 3d the father d i d t h e r e f o r e h a d no d u t y t o a d j u d i c a t e t h e f a t h e r ' s p e t i t i o n , and has imperative S.J.R. , case, j u v e n i l e c o u r t w h e n he f i l e d h i s p e t i t i o n . it a parent. the j u v e n i l e court ( A l a . C i v . App. properly filing t o c o n d u c t an e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g t o d e t e r m i n e dependency 499, 501 invoke and r e q u e s t i n g a t r a n s f e r o f t h e to the noncustodial invoked, by as a d e f e n d a n t , "Once t h e d e p e n d e n c y j u r i s d i c t i o n been cannot parte , issues and A i s void Thomas, [Ms. ( A l a . 2010). raised by the 2091162 mother, I would d i s m i s s to the juvenile court this appeal, to vacate albeit i t sfinal with instructions judgment. 4 I note t h a t t h e mother does not c o n t e s t t h e 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 t o e n t e r t h e ex p a r t e o r d e r g r a n t i n g t h e father temporary custody of the c h i l d i n response to h i s emergency motion. H e n c e , I do n o t e x p r e s s a n y o p i n i o n on t h a t p o i n t , e x c e p t t o s a y t h a t any emergency j u r i s d i c t i o n e x e r c i s e d by t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ends once t h e emergency s u b s i d e s and t h a t a j u v e n i l e c o u r t c a n n o t r e l y on t h a t j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e s o l v e a d i s p u t e between parents r e g a r d i n g the "permanent" custody of t h e i r c h i l d . S e e R.T. v . B.N.H., [Ms. 2 0 9 0 9 6 8 , J a n . 7, 2 0 1 1 ] So. 3d , ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 1 ) . 4 21

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.