D.C.S. v. L.B.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 11/18/2011 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 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, 2011-2012 2091185 D.C.S. v. L.B. Appeal from Madison J u v e n i l e Court (CS-05-143.01) On R e h e a r i n g Ex Mero Motu THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e . T h i s c o u r t ' s o p i n i o n o f J u n e 24, 2 0 1 1 , i s w i t h d r a w n , a n d the f o l l o w i n g s u b s t i t u t e d t h e r e f o r . 2091185 This i s t h e s e c o n d t i m e D.C.S. ( " t h e f a t h e r " ) a n d L.B. ("the m o t h e r " ) L.B., have been before this court. I n D.C.S. v . 4 So. 3d 513 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 8 ) , t h e m o t h e r s o u g h t a determination of the father's p a t e r n i t y , custody of the c h i l d , and an a w a r d o f c h i l d s u p p o r t . father's entered paternity a established final pendente of the c h i l d , lite the father's judgment, The p a r t i e s s t i p u l a t e d t o t h e order and t h e j u v e n i l e that, paternity. the j u v e n i l e among among awarded t h e mother c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d , father was v o l u n t a r i l y u n d e r e m p l o y e d s u p p o r t b a s e d on t h a t d e t e r m i n a t i o n , child-support affirmed; arrearage. i n pertinent other In i t s A p r i l court, court things, 13, 2007, other things, determined that the and c a l c u l a t e d and awarded t h e mother a The f a t h e r a p p e a l e d , a n d t h i s part, this child court agreed that court the j u v e n i l e c o u r t h a d n o t e r r e d i n i m p u t i n g income t o t h e f a t h e r for the purpose of c a l c u l a t i n g c h i l d support. D.C.S. v. L.B., supra. On June 25, 2009, t h e f a t h e r f i l e d i n t h e j u v e n i l e a petition t o modify h i s child-support obligation. court In that p e t i t i o n , t h e f a t h e r a l s o a s s e r t e d a c l a i m s e e k i n g t o have t h e mother h e l d i n contempt f o r v a r i o u s 2 alleged v i o l a t i o n s of the 2091185 "Standard Parenting judgment. With regard a w a r d o f an The of the attorney s e t f o r t h i n t h e A p r i l 13, to both f e e and father's that child petition, the father claims, costs m o t h e r a n s w e r e d and alleging pay Clauses" the from the d e n i e d the and she was father 2007, sought mother. material then f i l e d allegations a counterclaim i n contempt f o r h i s failure receiving ore tenus evidence, the juvenile court e n t e r e d a j u d g m e n t i n w h i c h i t , among o t h e r t h i n g s , d e n i e d father's claim seeking a modification reaching that ruling, t o be the juvenile father's contempt c l a i m s o f an a t t o r n e y f e e and motion, which the appealed to t h i s In his and costs. child court The support. again The found juvenile arrearage. h i s claims j u v e n i l e court I t also the In the court denied s e e k i n g an award f a t h e r f i l e d a postjudgment denied. The father timely court. brief juvenile court obligation. of v o l u n t a r i l y underemployed. awarded the mother a c h i l d - s u p p o r t the to support. After father an on erred appeal, the father argues i n r e f u s i n g to modify h i s that child-support He a l s o a s s e r t s a r g u m e n t s t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e 3 the court 2091185 e r r e d i n f a i l i n g t o f i n d t h e m o t h e r i n c o n t e m p t and t o a w a r d him On an a t t o r n e y original f e e and submission, on in failing costs. June 24, 2011, this court i s s u e d a p l u r a l i t y o p i n i o n , i n w h i c h Judge Moore c o n c u r r e d Judge B r y a n c o n c u r r e d specially, concluding court lacked continuing j u r i s d i c t i o n t h a t the juvenile to c o n s i d e r the father's m o d i f i c a t i o n c l a i m s and t h a t , b a s e d on t h a t l a c k o f continuing j u r i s d i c t i o n , the j u v e n i l e c o u r t a l s o l a c k e d j u r i s d i c t i o n the enforcement c l a i m s . result. The Judge Thomas w r o t e t o c o n c u r i n author of t h i s opinion concurred with that of the main o p i n i o n d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t the j u v e n i l e c o u r t continuing the dissented the jurisdiction over modification court lacked the authority to consider joined that Thus, majority court opinion original submission, i n accordance h e l d t h a t the juvenile court the modification father's in the with earlier on precedent, to was s p l i t w i t h r e g a r d to the i s s u e whether the j u v e n i l e c o u r t had over the enforcement 4 claims, the consider court jurisdiction However, the writing. released lacked j u r i s d i c t i o n claims. lacked that Judge P i t t m a n the part but contempt c l a i m s ; of the claims parties' a over concluding from t h a t p a r t of the main o p i n i o n juvenile and and no majority 2091185 opinion the resulted with issue whether regard the to that j u v e n i l e court issue. With regard retained to jurisdiction o v e r t h e c o n t e m p t c l a i m s , t h i s c o u r t ' s o p i n i o n was a plurality opinion. "A p l u r a l i t y o p i n i o n i s an o p i n i o n ' a g r e e d t o by l e s s t h a n t h e m a j o r i t y as t o t h e r e a s o n i n g o f t h e d e c i s i o n , b u t i s a g r e e d t o by a m a j o r i t y as t o t h e r e s u l t , ' B l a c k ' s Law D i c t i o n a r y 1092 ( 6 t h ed. 1 9 9 0 ) ; an o p i n i o n t h a t l a c k s t h e s u f f i c i e n t number o f judges' votes to c o n s t i t u t e a majority opinion. Therefore, '[t]he precedential value of the reasoning i n a p l u r a l i t y opinion i s questionable at best.' Ex p a r t e D i s c o u n t F o o d s , I n c . , 789 So. 2d 842, 845 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) ; see a l s o Ex p a r t e A c h e n b a c h , 783 So. 2d 4 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) . " Ex p a r t e n.4 State ( I n r e L.B.S. v. L.M.S.), 826 ( A l a . C i v . App. The quoting w h i c h o n l y two to the t r i a l from Office that part members o f t h e c o u r t s of t h i s held that a j u v e n i l e court enforce i t s own Judicial judgments. Circuit, 2d 178, 185 2002). Administrative solely So. the of of court Courts, the relying plurality concurred, The State's sent a jurisdiction General, the in letter court P r e s i d i n g Judge o f t h e Attorney and opinion state stating that this lacked continuing on had to 13th State D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s , and the A d m i n i s t r a t i v e O f f i c e of amici Courts filed a joint motion 5 as curiae asking this 2091185 court to place consider the matter the purported on impact rehearing, their ex mero motu, interpretation to of the o r i g i n a l o p i n i o n m i g h t h a v e on t h e o p e r a t i o n o f t h e c o u r t s and the State's This ability to qualify court placed the appeal received oral arguments. i s s u e d on o r i g i n a l On o r i g i n a l for certain on r e h e a r i n g , This opinion federal funding. ex mero motu, and replaces the opinion submission. submission, n e i t h e r of the p a r t i e s to this appeal addressed the issue of the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the j u v e n i l e court or t h i s court t o consider h i s or her c l a i m s . jurisdictional may take Mfg. n o t i c e o f them ex mero motu. i s d u t y bound t o n o t i c e subject-matter jurisdiction.'" So. 2d 42, 45 W a l l a c e v. Tee ex mero Baldwin ( A l a . 2003) (quoting motu court Jays "'[T]his the absence of C n t y . v. Bay M i n e t t e , Stamps v. C n t y . Bd. o f E d u c . , 642 So. 2d 941, 945 n. 2 "'The q u e s t i o n However, i s s u e s are of such importance t h a t t h i s Co., 689 So. 2d 210, 211 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 7 ) . Court 854 1 Jefferson ( A l a . 1994)). o f j u r i s d i c t i o n i s a l w a y s f u n d a m e n t a l , and i f T h e m o t h e r d i d n o t f a v o r t h i s c o u r t w i t h a b r i e f on appeal. D u r i n g o r a l argument on r e h e a r i n g , t h e f a t h e r ' s a t t o r n e y argued t h a t t h i s court should h o l d t h a t the j u v e n i l e court p r o p e r l y e x e r c i s e d j u r i s d i c t i o n over a l l of h i s c l a i m s . 1 6 2091185 there or i s an a b s e n c e o f j u r i s d i c t i o n , the subject jurisdiction matter, over Parker, court the subject waiver or consent.'" 442, 443 a over e i t h e r the person, has no matter power cannot t o a c t , and be created by P o f f v. G e n e r a l M o t o r s C o r p . , 705 So. 2d ( A l a . C i v . App. 1997) ( q u o t i n g B.F. G o o d r i c h Co. v. 282 A l a . 151, 155, 209 So. 2d 647, 650 (1967)). Under f o r m e r § 12-15-32, A l a . Code 1975, once a j u v e n i l e court properly exercised j u r i s d i c t i o n over a matter i n v o l v i n g a c h i l d , the j u v e n i l e court maintained continuing over the child. However, our legislature jurisdiction altered the c o n t i n u i n g 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 when i t e n a c t e d t h e new A l a b a m a J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e A c t ("the c u r r e n t A J J A " ) , § 12-15-101 e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1975, w h i c h became e f f e c t i v e on January 1, 2009. Section 12-15-117 See of A c t . No. the 2008-277, current AJJA, r e n u m b e r e d f o r m e r § 12-15-32, p r o v i d e s retains continuing determined supervision. to be jurisdiction dependent, arise pursuant which 2008. revised and that a j u v e n i l e court when a c h i l d delinquent, Under t h e c u r r e n t A J J A , not r e t a i n j u r i s d i c t i o n that only A l a . Acts or in has need a j u v e n i l e court been of does over c u s t o d y d i s p u t e s between p a r e n t s to claims 7 seeking a m o d i f i c a t i o n of a 2091185 judgment e s t a b l i s h i n g a child's paternity. This c o u r t has explained: "To t h e e x t e n t t h a t a j u v e n i l e c o u r t h a s p r o p e r l y made an i n i t i a l custody award, o r has p r o p e r l y modified a custody judgment under t h e s t a t u t o r y f r a m e w o r k s e t f o r t h i n t h e m a i n o p i n i o n i n W.B.G.M. [v. P.S.T., 999 So. 2d 971 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 8 ) ] , those judgments remain valid and enforceable n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g t h e enactment o f [the c u r r e n t A J J A ] . 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 Alabama 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 c o n s t i t u t e d as ' t r i a l court[s] of general j u r i s d i c t i o n . ' A l a . Const. 1901, § 1 3 9 ( a ) ( O f f . Recomp.)." Ex p a r t e T.C., 63 So. 3d 627, 631 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 0 ) ; s e e a l s o Ex p a r t e L.N.K., 64 So. 3d 656, 658 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2010) ("Thus, t h i s has c o u r t h a s h e l d t h a t a j u v e n i l e c o u r t no l o n g e r continuing jurisdiction having made a prior over paternity a c h i l d b a s e d s o l e l y on i t s determination."); K.C. v. R.L.P., 67 So. 3d 94, 96 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2011) ("Because t h e c h i l d has never been found dependent, and because t h e p r e s e n t [modification] a c t i o n was f i l e d after 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 R.T. v . B.N.H., juvenile court 66 So. 3d 807 i n the c i r c u i t court."); over an a c t i o n and f o r grandparent 8 1, 2009, i t ( A l a . C i v . App. 2011) ( t h e lacked j u r i s d i c t i o n claims t o modify v i s i t a t i o n January involving visitation). 2091185 In this case, determined the fashioned a indication the juvenile court, that the current AJJA. 117(a) and c o u r t was seeking award. juvenile "dependent, d e l i n q u e n t , the 2007 a c t i o n , f a t h e r ' s p a t e r n i t y , e s t a b l i s h e d custody, child-support continue i n the or jurisdiction court of the 12-15-117(a). recent caselaw, the contains no child to be as to s u p e r v i s i o n " so j u v e n i l e court In we record found i n need of § without The under accordance with must h o l d that § the the 12-15- juvenile j u r i s d i c t i o n to c o n s i d e r the f a t h e r ' s to modify the and claims c h i l d - s u p p o r t p r o v i s i o n of i t s e a r l i e r j u d g m e n t ; t h e m o d i f i c a t i o n c l a i m s were r e q u i r e d t o have b e e n brought i n the circuit p a r t e L.N.K., s u p r a . 19, 2011] See Therefore, as t o t h e s e c l a i m s was Aug. court. void. So. parte T.C., supra; Ex the j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s judgment See 3d Ex L.P. , v. A.W., [Ms. 2100535, ( A l a . C i v . App. 2011). B e c a u s e a v o i d j u d g m e n t w i l l n o t s u p p o r t an a p p e a l , we dismiss the f a t h e r ' s appeal i n p a r t , w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n s to the j u v e n i l e court to dismiss the father's petition to h i s m o d i f i c a t i o n claims. 767, 772 ( A l a . C i v . App. See 2010). 9 i n s o f a r as S e a r l e v. V i n s o n , i t relates 42 So. 3d 2091185 We conclude, however, that the j u v e n i l e court retained j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h e contempt c l a i m s a s s e r t e d by t h e p a r t i e s . In their contempt claims, each p a r t y sought to require the o t h e r p a r t y t o c o m p l y w i t h v a r i o u s p o r t i o n s o f t h e A p r i l 13, 2007, judgment. juvenile court Under retains through contempt retains jurisdiction monetary payments. Although § 12-15-110, t h e power determinations. to to enforce The enforce A l a . Code 1975, t h e i t s judgments j u v e n i l e court i t s orders that also require § 1 2 - 1 5 - 1 1 7 ( c ) a n d ( d ) , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 . 2 under t h e c u r r e n t AJJA, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t d i d n o t maintain j u r i s d i c t i o n over the c h i l d , i . e . , the j u v e n i l e court lacked 2 continuing Section jurisdiction 12-15-117 p r o v i d e s , t o modify child support i n pertinent part: " ( c ) I n any c a s e o v e r w h i c h t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t has j u r i s d i c t i o n , t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t s h a l l r e t a i n j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r an i n d i v i d u a l o f a n y age f o r t h e enforcement o f any p r i o r o r d e r s o f t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t r e q u i r i n g t h e payment o f f i n e s , c o u r t c o s t s , r e s t i t u t i o n , o r o t h e r money o r d e r e d b y t h e j u v e n i l e court u n t i l paid i n f u l l . "(d) F o r p u r p o s e s o f e n f o r c i n g any o r d e r o f t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t r e q u i r i n g t h e payment o f f i n e s , c o u r t c o s t s , r e s t i t u t i o n , o r o t h e r money o r d e r e d b y t h e juvenile court, the remedies with regard to punishment f o r contempt, i n c l u d i n g i n c a r c e r a t i o n i n j a i l o f i n d i v i d u a l s 18 y e a r s o f age o r o l d e r , s h a l l be a v a i l a b l e t o t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t . " 10 or 2091185 child custody, enforce the j u v e n i l e c o u r t maintained i t s own judgment. § 12-15-117(c); A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t had the p a r t i e s ' We jurisdiction § jurisdiction that the jurisdictional of the courts, set of to jurisdiction. Ex 856 facts n.3 the issue p a r t e Bad ( A l a . 2006) venue and j u r i s d i c t i o n ) ; 2d 778, and 781-82 the the related are of venue, and to neither not Toys H o l d i n g s , ( d i s c u s s i n g the convenience the Inc., issue 958 (Ala. 2002) (same). duty of the i n p a r t and 63 So. 3d a t 632 This court ("[I]t Sys. i s not of Alabama, the those 431 See So. f u n c t i o n of the 11 2d 827 may So. not the or laws l a w s as w r i t t e n . " (Thompson, P . J . , c o n c u r r i n g i n the r e s u l t ) . Employees' Ret. So. i s s u e s on t h e b a s e s o f e x p e d i e n c y courts to apply of d i f f e r e n c e between " I t i s the duty of the l e g i s l a t u r e to enact Ex p a r t e T.C., 1983) different of Ex p a r t e C i t y o f H a l e y v i l l e , determine j u r i s d i c t i o n a l policy. in claims However, m a t t e r s o f e x p e d i e n c y relevant 852, consider n o r t h e b e s t use o f t h e r e s o u r c e s o f t h e p a r t i e s and the j u d i c i a r y . are to specifications c u r r e n t AJJA, which r e q u i r e l i t i g a t i o n expedient 12-15-110. contempt c l a i m s . note same to concurring a l s o H o n e y c u t t v. 2d 961, court 964 (Ala. to usurp the 2091185 r o l e o f t h e l e g i s l a t u r e and t o amend s t a t u t e s u n d e r t h e of construction."). a r i s i n g out The resolution of the p r o v i s i o n s i n the of the guise difficulties current AJJA concerning the j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s r e t e n t i o n of j u r i s d i c t i o n i s a matter to be addressed by the legislature. r e h e a r i n g ex mero motu i n t h i s court's attention that a the current opinion, AJJA, of h o w e v e r , we the those version i s to be argument brought to introduced the AJJA. For must c o n c l u d e the to had jurisdiction to pertaining purposes of t h a t , under the to the the of in this current consider enforcement on this j u r i s d i c t i o n a l problems c r e a t e d j u v e n i l e court claims oral c o u r t , i t was bill l e g i s l a t u r e t o remedy t h e During only its 2007 judgment. The seek to 2007, c o n t e m p t c l a i m s a s s e r t e d by t h e f a t h e r and t h e m o t h e r enforce aspects of the judgment p e r t a i n i n g t o parties had Clauses" complied attached judgment. The August 2010, failure 19, t o pay as with an f a t h e r has juvenile court's child a set exhibit not judgment c h i l d support support of to 13, whether the "Standard the April Parenting 13, 2007, appealed t h a t p o r t i o n of finding him as o r d e r e d . 12 and April i n contempt Rather, on for the his appeal, 2091185 he a r g u e s t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t e r r e d i n f a i l i n g t o f i n d t h e mother i n contempt. Accordingly, this opinion sets forth facts pertinent to that the issue. I n h i s b r i e f on a p p e a l , t h e f a t h e r f o c u s e s h i s a r g u m e n t s on a s s e r t i o n s t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t e r r e d i n f a i l i n g t o f i n d t h a t t h e m o t h e r v i o l a t e d c l a u s e s 6, 16, and 17 o f t h e Parenting Clauses. Standard Those c l a u s e s p r o v i d e , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : "6. Both parents s h a l l encourage the minor c h i l d t o l o v e , r e s p e c t and h o n o r t h e o t h e r p a r e n t . N e i t h e r o f them s h a l l a l i e n a t e nor attempt to a l i e n a t e or d i m i n i s h the a f f e c t i o n of the minor c h i l d f o r the other p a r e n t , or disparage or a l l o w o t h e r s to d i s p a r a g e the o t h e r parent t o or i n the p r e s e n c e o f t h e m i n o r c h i l d . ... " "16. The C o u r t e x p e c t s c h i l d r e n t o be i n s u l a t e d t o the f u l l e s t e x t e n t p o s s i b l e from the c o n f l i c t between t h e i r p a r e n t s . They s h o u l d n o t be made c o n f i d a n t s o f a p a r e n t , and s h o u l d be e n c o u r a g e d t o l o v e , h o n o r and r e s p e c t b o t h p a r e n t s and their respective f a m i l i e s . Parents should act a c c o r d i n g l y i n the presence of the c h i l d . "17. The C o u r t e x p e c t s b o t h p a r e n t s t o have t h e opportunity to attend a c h i l d ' s medical and/or d e n t a l a p p o i n t m e n t s , as w e l l as a c h i l d ' s s c h o o l and extracurricular a c t i v i t i e s , including parent-teacher conferences, school events, s p o r t i n g events, etc. A parent scheduling any such appointment or r e c e i v i n g n o t i c e of such a c t i v i t i e s s h o u l d g i v e the same n o t i c e t o t h e o t h e r p a r e n t as soon as r e c e i v e d . Parents s h a l l conduct themselves in a civil and a p p r o p r i a t e manner a t a l l s u c h a p p o i n t m e n t s and 13 2091185 activities. The c h i l d s h o u l d be a l l o w e d contact w i t h b o t h p a r e n t s a t any s u c h a c t i v i t y , regardless o f whose c u s t o d i a l / v i s i t a t i o n period i t i s . " The record indicates that j u d g m e n t was e n t e r e d , facility attended employed. on an i n c i d e n t by t h e c h i l d director, and t h a t she worked with permission day-care at the day-care and a t which the permission t h e mother t h e mother i s a n d began yelling to v i s i t the c h i l d . a t him. and t h r e a t e n e d verified facility's The father t o revoke h i s The m o t h e r d e n i e d c u r s i n g a n d a t t h e f a t h e r on t h a t o c c a s i o n , facility of the came o u t o f t h e b u i l d i n g i n t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e mother c u r s e d yelling occurred 2007 The f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t he was v i s i t i n g t h e c h i l d the playground, which s h o r t l y a f t e r the A p r i l much but a worker a t the of the substance of the father's allegations. The father's niece testified regarding an i n c i d e n t i n which she, t h e f a t h e r , t h e f a t h e r ' s g i r l f r i e n d , and t h e c h i l d went t o a s k a t i n g months b e f o r e r i n k together the hearing approximately eight i n t h i s matter. The n i e c e to nine testified t h a t t h e m o t h e r came t o t h e s k a t i n g r i n k a n d , i n t h e p r e s e n c e of the child, criticized the girlfriend. 14 father to the father's 2091185 The father involving trip also presented the f a t h e r ' s to a "pumpkin evidence about an attendance at the c h i l d ' s patch." The father incident 2008 testified field that m o t h e r s t a t e d t h a t i f he went, she w o u l d n o t a l l o w t h e to attend the f i e l d drove the c h i l d child to ride traveling. trip. trip rather than i n which the c h i l d ' s The m o t h e r e x p l a i n e d allowing at f i e l d the c l a s s m a t e s were that the f i e l d t r i p occurred on h e r day o f f , t h a t t h e f a t h e r h a d a t t e n d e d t h e c h i l d ' s field trip, child I t i s u n d i s p u t e d t h a t t h e mother to the f i e l d on a bus the and t h a t t h e y h a d a g r e e d t o a l t e r n a t e last attendance trips. The f a t h e r s u b m i t t e d i n t o e v i d e n c e an a u d i o r e c o r d i n g a conversation his he h a d w i t h t h e m o t h e r c o n c e r n i n g t h a t t r i p and r e q u e s t t h a t t h e m o t h e r do more t o s h i e l d t h e c h i l d their of conflicts. 3 In that conversation, from t h e mother e x p r e s s e d a d e s i r e t o a t t e n d t h e f i e l d t r i p a l o n e w i t h t h e c h i l d , as t h e father had father's i n an requests earlier that field the trip. child not In response be informed to the of the I n h i s t e s t i m o n y , t h e f a t h e r a d m i t t e d t h a t he o f t e n recorded conversations w i t h t h e m o t h e r when he w a n t e d t o d i s c u s s an i s s u e p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e c h i l d , and he a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t he d i d n o t i n f o r m t h e m o t h e r t h a t she was b e i n g r e c o r d e d . 3 15 2091185 d e t a i l s of t h e i r conflict, t h e m o t h e r r e s p o n d e d t h a t she was not g o i n g t o l i e t o t h e c h i l d . explained that During the hearing, she d i d n o t i n t e n d to t e l l t h e mother the c h i l d the s p e c i f i c s o f any d i s a g r e e m e n t s b u t t h a t she t h o u g h t t h a t t h e child should know, i f t h e c h i l d f a t h e r d i d not always The father advance that the c h i l d was counselor, Dr. K e l l y F i s c h e r . been t h e mother and he h a d n o t b e e n no and has now that counselor father that agree. testified was asked, longer receiving informed seeing informed i n her counseling from The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s i n advance of previous a new that the a l lthe child's a c t i v i t i e s a n d a p p o i n t m e n t s e x c e p t f o r an a p p o i n t m e n t w i t h D r . Fischer. child began learned he The r e c o r d c o n t a i n s with Dr. Fischer, about t h e c h i l d ' s treatment w i t h learned indicates before treatment no e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g when t h e t h a t t h e c h i l d was s e e i n g that t h e f a t h e r met w i t h the hearing communication informed i n this Dr. F i s c h e r Dr. F i s c h e r . behavior." 16 he father The r e c o r d a few weeks I n an e l e c t r o n i c - m a i l the father o f what the D r . F i s c h e r , o r how Dr. F i s c h e r matter. t o t h e mother, when termed stated that he h a d t h e mother's "bad 2091185 We n o t e t h a t a December 2009 l e t t e r t h e m o t h e r was a d m i t t e d into evidence. from t h e f a t h e r t o In that l e t t e r , the f a t h e r s e t f o r t h a l i s t o f o f f e n s e s he a l l e g e d t h e m o t h e r h a d c o m m i t t e d s i n c e t h e two met, i n c l u d i n g h i s a l l e g a t i o n t h a t t h e mother had t r i c k e d letter explained him, r e s u l t i n g that he h a d d i s c u s s e d number o f f r i e n d s o r a c q u a i n t a n c e s . testimony that he was d i f f e r e n c e s amicably i n her pregnancy. trying the matter The with a The f a t h e r i n s i s t e d i n h i s to resolve the parties' a n d t h a t t h e p u r p o s e o f t h e l e t t e r was t o " h e l p t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p " between t h e p a r t i e s . The father sought t o have t h e mother c o n t e m p t , w h i c h i s d e f i n e d as a " w i l l f u l , or r e f u s a l order, capable of being P. rule, complied "To h o l d the p a r t y w i l l f u l l y 2002). continuing o r command t h a t b y i t s n a t u r e with." a party Rule 70A(a)(2)(D), i n [civil] 70A(a) (2) ( D ) ] , A l a . R. C i v . P., t h e t r i a l order." for civil ... t o c o m p l y w i t h a c o u r t ' s l a w f u l w r i t , process, Civ. cited subpoena, is still A l a . R. contempt under [Rule c o u r t must f i n d t h a t f a i l e d o r r e f u s e d t o comply w i t h a c o u r t T.L.D. v . C.G., This failure 849 So. 2d 200, 205 ( A l a . C i v . App. c o u r t has e x p l a i n e d that "whether a p a r t y i s i n contempt o f c o u r t i s a d e t e r m i n a t i o n committed t o t h e sound d i s c r e t i o n o f 17 2091185 the t r i a l c o u r t , and, a b s e n t an a b u s e o f that d i s c r e t i o n or u n l e s s the judgment of the t r i a l c o u r t i s u n s u p p o r t e d by t h e e v i d e n c e so as t o be p l a i n l y and p a l p a b l y wrong, t h i s c o u r t w i l l a f f i r m . " S t a c k v. The Stack, 646 father determined So. 2d 51, contends that the that mother 56 the had Clauses but ( A l a . C i v . App. juvenile 1994). court v i o l a t e d clause Standard Parenting that i t erred f i n d her i n contempt f o r t h a t v i o l a t i o n . properly 17 of the in failing The to j u v e n i l e court d e t e r m i n e d t h e m o t h e r had v i o l a t e d c l a u s e 17 by f a i l i n g t o a c t i n a c i v i l manner on a t l e a s t one to which conduct that I t i s not f i n d i n g r e l a t e s , but regarding the rink. evidence supports The occasion. incidents at the clear i t appears to playground and the skating the j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g t h a t the mother's conduct d u r i n g those i n c i d e n t s v i o l a t e d c l a u s e of the Standard P a r e n t i n g Clauses. t h a t t h e m o t h e r was have had described to Rule However, i n o r d e r that 70A. the The violation juvenile was hostility court's b e t w e e n them, and i n order to b e t t e r co-parent Thus, i t found that mother 18 the had as judgment contributed i t recommended t h a t seek c o u n s e l i n g although find "willful," i n d i c a t e s t h a t i t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t b o t h p a r e n t s had to the to 17 i n contempt, the j u v e n i l e c o u r t would a l s o conclude in be i n the each future. violated the 2091185 civility provision juvenile court c o n d u c t was We cannot of the Standard the not w i l l f u l say that the f a t h e r has contempt by t h e e v i d e n c e . i n i t s August mother a g a i n s t p r o v i s i o n of the demonstrated be imposed f a t h e r a l s o argues t h a t the failing to alleged failure the mother find and the to mother the father pumpkin-patch f i e l d t r i p . A u g u s t 19, 2010, t h e m o t h e r was and As after note civility indicating that juvenile court future. regard from c o n f l i c t dispute to her between surrounding the i n d i c a t e d i n the quote from the judgment, the j u v e n i l e c o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t n o t i n c o n t e m p t w i t h r e g a r d t o c l a u s e s 6 and of the Standard P a r e n t i n g Clauses. reached a j u v e n i l e court erred i n child the such judgment, of the i n contempt w i t h i n s u l a t e the that 2010, i f the d e t e r m i n e d them t o be w a r r a n t e d i n t h e The 19, future violations would finding. F u r t h e r , we Standard Parenting Clauses, sanctions the mother's so as t o w a r r a n t a c o n t e m p t juvenile court, warned the Clauses, c o u l d have a l s o d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e c o n c l u s i o n i s not supported that Parenting the evidence over the juvenile course court o f two 19 Those d e t e r m i n a t i o n s had days. received ore 16 were tenus 2091185 "'[T]he witnesses' trial court demeanor and has has the advantage of observing a superior opportunity to the assess t h e i r c r e d i b i l i t y , [and, t h e r e f o r e , an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t ] c a n n o t a l t e r the t r i a l by the evidence c o u r t ' s judgment u n l e s s as t o be p a r t e F a n n , 810 So. D W W , 717 . . . 2d 793, So. clearly 2d 631, 636 795 and i t i s so palpably ( A l a . 2001) (Ala. 1998)). unsupported wrong.'" ( q u o t i n g Ex The t r i e r of Ex parte fact, and n o t t h i s c o u r t , has t h e d u t y o f r e s o l v i n g c o n f l i c t s i n t h e evidence. App. E t h r i d g e v. W r i g h t , 688 So. 2d 818, 820 (Ala. Civ. 1996). "'[The a p p e l l a t e c o u r t i s not] allowed to reweigh the evidence i n t h i s case. This [issue] ... t u r n s on t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s p e r c e p t i o n o f t h e evidence. The t r i a l c o u r t i s i n t h e b e t t e r p o s i t i o n t o e v a l u a t e t h e c r e d i b i l i t y o f t h e w i t n e s s e s ... and the trial court i s i n the b e t t e r p o s i t i o n to c o n s i d e r a l l o f t h e e v i d e n c e , as w e l l as t h e many i n f e r e n c e s t h a t may be drawn f r o m t h a t e v i d e n c e Ex p a r t e P a t r o n a s , 693 p a r t e B r y o w s k y , 676 So. So. 2d 473, 2d 1322, I n t h i s c a s e , t h e e v i d e n c e was the mother had violated Parenting Clauses. court, various Although i n s i s t s that various 475 1326 ( A l a . 1997) (Ala. (quoting 1996)). d i s p u t e d r e g a r d i n g whether clauses of the Standard the f a t h e r , i n h i s b r i e f to f a c t s p e r t a i n i n g to the 20 Ex this alleged 2091185 violations testified were that undisputed, she and we the cannot f a t h e r had agree. reached The an mother agreement t h a t e a c h c o u l d a t t e n d a f i e l d t r i p w i t h o u t t h e o t h e r , and evidence i n d i c a t e s t h a t the f a t h e r attended field trip anyway. The j u v e n i l e court the the pumpkin-patch determined that the m o t h e r had n o t y e t v i o l a t e d t h e S t a n d a r d P a r e n t i n g C l a u s e s by i n f o r m i n g the c h i l d of c o n f l i c t between the p a r e n t s . Further, the evidence c o u l d support father's a determination t h a t the t e s t i m o n y w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e c o n t e m p t c l a i m s was not c r e d i b l e . The had father insisted r e s o l v e the p a r t i e s ' at the disputes admitted i n t o evidence, hearing that amicably. he tried However, t h e together with other testimony, letter clearly d e m o n s t r a t e s t h a t t h e f a t h e r ' s t o n e t o w a r d t h e m o t h e r has far from c o n c i l i a t o r y . appeal, cannot say on the j u v e n i l e c o u r t exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n d e t e r m i n i n g that Parenting The not violated f a t h e r has record that m o t h e r had t h a t the evidence i n the been demonstrated the we Given the to c e r t a i n clauses of the Standard Clauses. f a t h e r l a s t argues t h a t the failing to r e q u i r e the costs. In support m o t h e r t o pay of h i s b r i e f 21 j u v e n i l e court erred his attorney argument on this in fees and issue, the 2091185 father cites only Cole v. C o l e , 507 So. 2d 1333, 1335 C i v . App. 1 9 8 7 ) , i n w h i c h t h i s c o u r t s t a t e d t h a t a t r i a l (Ala. court may a w a r d an a t t o r n e y f e e i n a c o n t e m p t a c t i o n i f t h e o p p o s i n g p a r t y i s f o u n d t o be i n c o n t e m p t . I n t h i s case, the juvenile c o u r t d i d n o t f i n d t h e mother i n contempt, and t h i s c o u r t has not r e v e r s e d t h a t d e t e r m i n a t i o n . the argument concerning asserted A c c o r d i n g l y , we must r e j e c t i n the father's brief on appeal t h e i s s u e o f an a t t o r n e y f e e . ON REHEARING EX MERO MOTU; OPINION OF JUNE 24, 2011, WITHDRAWN; OPINION SUBSTITUTED; DISMISSED I N PART; AFFIRMED I N PART; AND REMANDED. Pittman Moore, a n d Thomas, J J . , c o n c u r . J . , concurs i n t h e r a t i o n a l e in the result, with Bryan, i n p a r t and concurs writing. J . , concurs i n part writing. 22 and d i s s e n t s i n part, with 2091185 MOORE, Judge, concurring I concurring i n the concur with in the rationale in part and result. the main o p i n i o n that the Madison J u v e n i l e Court ("the j u v e n i l e c o u r t " ) lacked j u r i s d i c t i o n to adjudicate the petition o f D.C.S. ("the f a t h e r " ) to modify his support o b l i g a t i o n under the j u v e n i l e court's A p r i l judgment. I also the 12-15-110, adjudicate contempt concur juvenile the p e t i t i o n for violating juvenile court's A p r i l that, pursuant court of the f a t h e r the visitation j u v e n i l e court d i d not e r r i n f a i l i n g in contempt, not opinion. in I finally failing f o r the the j u r i s d i c t i o n its child-support 15-117, court, had or fees I also concur that to find stated otherwise. note i n assessing main d i d not e r r to the father. j u d g m e n t u n d e r A l a . Code I the mother i n the of the j u v e n i l e court that, t h e f a t h e r r a i s e s as an i s s u e erred the any a s p e c t o f t h e main o p i n i o n ' s regarding prior of concur that the j u v e n i l e court t o award a t t o r n e y ' s I do n o t j o i n reasons to the mother i n provisions 13, 2007, j u d g m e n t . 1975, § jurisdiction to hold the but 13, 2007, t o A l a . Code retained child- discussion to 1975, § 12¬ in his brief that enforce to the j u v e n i l e this court a c h i l d - s u p p o r t arrearage a g a i n s t him, 23 2091185 but he a r g u e s that that the juvenile child-support that in On appeal, motu, juvenile would court any At oral Department acknowledged juvenile to make of the f i l i n g does n o t make that of h i s any argument provisions judgment. aspect on Thus, or of the this court o f t h e judgment, even ex the i t s prior jurisdiction child-support of the judgment dicta. counsel Human that court child-support that comments argument, of failing to modify h i s i n c a l c u l a t i n g the arrearage 13, 2007, to enforce n e c e s s a r i l y be in the child-support April and to h i s contention in failing to the date erred no r e a s o n t o a d d r e s s mero and the father enforcing court's i n relation had e r r e d retroactive otherwise has court the j u v e n i l e court juvenile only obligation modification petition. point f o r amicus c u r i a e , t h e Alabama Resources any s t a t e m e n t s to adjudicate ("DHR"), as to the authority a petition j u d g m e n t w o u l d be d i c t a , specifically to enforce particularly a of a prior i n regard t o e n f o r c e m e n t a c t i o n s b r o u g h t b y DHR u n d e r A l a . C o d e 1 9 7 5 , §§ 38-10-7 and 38-10-10. that this court jurisdiction of Nevertheless, clarify the that counsel our holding juvenile 24 court to f o r DHR does requested not a l t e r the adjudicate actions 2091185 brought cannot pursuant grant to that those statutes. However, this court request. "The c o u r t s o f A l a b a m a a r e n o t a u t h o r i z e d t o r e n d e r advisory opinions, except in very limited c i r c u m s t a n c e s . See, e.g., C a r r e l l v. M a s o n i t e C o r p . , 775 So. 2d 121, 125 (Ala. 2000) ('Alabama's Declaratory Judgment A c t bars trial courts from i s s u i n g a d v i s o r y o p i n i o n s ' ) ; A l a . Code 1975, § 12-2¬ 10 ( a u t h o r i z i n g t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t t o i s s u e a d v i s o r y o p i n i o n s on ' i m p o r t a n t c o n s t i t u t i o n a l q u e s t i o n s ' a t the request of the Governor or the L e g i s l a t u r e ) . " L e o n C. Inc., Baker, 821 does not its a So. P.C. 2d v. 158, concern the Merrill 164 Lynch, P i e r c e , Fenner (Ala. 2001). Because Smith, this appeal to enforce c h i l d - s u p p o r t j u d g m e n t , much l e s s i t s a u t h o r i t y t o enforce child-support court cannot a u t h o r i t y of a j u v e n i l e c o u r t & judgment under express any §§ opinion 25 38-10-7 and on the issue 38-10-10, this r a i s e d by DHR. 2091185 BRYAN, J u d g e , c o n c u r r i n g I that concur w i t h the t h e main o p i n i o n juvenile jurisdiction i n p a r t and d i s s e n t i n g i n p a r t . court to consider did i n s o f a r as i t c o n c l u d e s not have subject-matter the father's p e t i t i o n to modify h i s child-support obligation. So. 3d a t ( c i t i n g Ex T.C., 63 So. 3d 627, 631 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 0 ) ) . C.E., [Ms. 1090624, J u l y 29, 2011] 2011) (wherein our supreme court C f . Ex p a r t e So. 3d , approved (Ala. this court's i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f § 1 2 - 1 5 - 1 1 7 ( a ) , A l a . Code 1975, a n d , o u r h o l d i n g i n Ex p a r t e However, T.C., t h e main thus, supra). from parte I dissent opinion's conclusion that the j u v e n i l e court r e t a i n e d j u r i s d i c t i o n to consider the contempt p e t i t i o n s juvenile 1975, court. I recognize t h a t § 1 2 - 1 5 - 1 1 0 ( a ) , A l a . Code g r a n t s t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t power t o p u n i s h disobeying an o r d e r o f t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t . " the w e l l - s e t t l e d enforce 749 f i l e d by t h e m o t h e r a n d t h e f a t h e r i n t h e law that grants a trial I also court i t s own j u d g m e n t s . See H a l l v. H a l l , ( A l a . C i v . App. 1986) a person " f o r recognize t h e power t o 485 So. 2d 747, ( " I t has l o n g b e e n r e c o g n i z e d that a c o u r t has t h e i n h e r e n t power t o i s s u e s u c h o r d e r s o r p r o c e s s as i s n e c e s s a r y t o enforce i t s judgment."). 26 Most i m p o r t a n t l y , 2091185 I recognize t h a t my d u t y as a j u d g e i s t o i n t e r p r e t t h e l a w as e n a c t e d b y o u r l e g i s l a t u r e a n d n o t t o "'amend s t a t u t e s u n d e r the guise of construction.'" So. 3d at (quoting H o n e y c u t t v. E m p l o y e e s ' R e t . S y s . o f A l a b a m a , 431 So. 2d 961, 964 ( A l a . 1983)). However, a f t e r c o n s i d e r i n g the p r a c t i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n s o f t h e d e c i s i o n r e a c h e d by t h e main o p i n i o n , decision to dissent from t h e c o n c l u s i o n my r e a c h e d by t h e main opinion regarding the j u v e n i l e court's j u r i s d i c t i o n t o enforce a j u d g m e n t when i t h a s l o s t c o n t i n u i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n t o m o d i f y t h e same j u d g m e n t , i s b a s e d on t h e " w e l l - e s t a b l i s h e d p r i n c i p l e of statutory construction sensible construction" that of a the law f a v o r s statute. rational Weathers v. and C i t y of O x f o r d , 895 So. 2d 305, 309 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 4 ) . The main opinion's conclusion approval on an u n r e a s o n a b l e Juvenile J u s t i c e A c t , § 12-15-101 ("the AJJA"). According court acquired jurisdiction action, puts a stamp of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e Alabama e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1975 t o t h e main o p i n i o n , i f a juvenile over a case through a p a t e r n i t y and a judgment a d d r e s s i n g was e n t e r e d today child s u p p o r t and c u s t o d y pursuant t o that determination of p a t e r n i t y , i n the f u t u r e , i f e i t h e r p a r t y wanted t o modify t h e c h i l d - s u p p o r t 27 2091185 or custody seeking provisions to hold o f t h e judgment the other party a c t i o n w o u l d have t o be f i l e d court and but the modification decided unreasonable by the because and f i l e i n contempt, a petition t h e contempt i n and d e c i d e d by t h e j u v e n i l e a c t i o n w o u l d have t o be f i l e d i n circuit court. i t requires This conclusion the p a r t i e s to f i l e is two s e p a r a t e a c t i o n s , i n two s e p a r a t e c o u r t s , when t h e same s e t o f facts w i l l be p r e s e n t e d i n both cases. F o r example, i n t h e p r e s e n t case, t h e f a t h e r ' s a l l e g e d i n a b i l i t y t o pay h i s child- s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n was t h e b a s i s o f h i s p e t i t i o n t o m o d i f y h i s child-support against for of h i s defense t h e mother's p e t i t i o n t o h o l d t h e f a t h e r i n contempt failing obligation. will o b l i g a t i o n as w e l l as t h e b a s i s t o pay Now, the f u l l according amount of h i s child-support t o t h e main o p i n i o n , the father have t o p r e s e n t t h e f a c t s t o e s t a b l i s h h i s i n a b i l i t y t o pay h i s child-support two separate o b l i g a t i o n i n two s e p a r a t e a c t i o n s i n courts. Furthermore, juvenile court t h e main opinion's that r e t a i n s j u r i s d i c t i o n over enforcement but not m o d i f i c a t i o n a c t i o n s w i l l , inconsistent conclusion judgments. Using 28 the actions almost c e r t a i n l y , r e s u l t i n the present case again as an 2091185 example, i f the c i r c u i t c o u r t , a f t e r c o n s i d e r i n g the f a t h e r ' s petition to modify h i s child-support that there h a d been a m a t e r i a l change the e n t r y of the A p r i l the father was not 2007 j u d g m e n t , voluntarily obligation, concluded i n circumstances since i . e . , i f i t found that underemployed, the circuit c o u r t w o u l d e n t e r a judgment g r a n t i n g t h e f a t h e r ' s p e t i t i o n t o modify court the his child-support obligation. the circuit c o u l d make s u c h a m o d i f i c a t i o n r e t r o a c t i v e t o t h e d a t e father f i l e d his petition, Jud. Because Admin., father's father new the circuit court child-support d i d n o t owe see R u l e 3 2 ( A ) ( 3 ) ( a ) , A l a . R. could, obligation, a child-support depending determine arrearage. on the that the However, i n c o n t r a s t , the j u v e n i l e c o u r t , a f t e r c o n s i d e r i n g the mother's contempt petition, could determine that the father v o l u n t a r i l y u n d e r e m p l o y e d and t h a t he h a d t h e a b i l i t y the full judgment. amount o f c h i l d support ordered was t o pay i n the A p r i l 2007 Thus, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t c o u l d f i n d t h a t t h e f a t h e r was i n c o n t e m p t , and i t c o u l d o r d e r t h e f a t h e r t o p a y a c h i l d support arrearage, which judgment o f t h e c i r c u i t would court. 29 be inconsistent with the 2091185 Finally, the main o p i n i o n ' s c o n c l u s i o n t h w a r 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 i n e n a c t i n g t h e A J J A , w h i c h was provide longer that be the j u v e n i l e courts deciding resolution is custody directly jurisdiction of disputes incidental Ex p a r t e T.C., this state except to 63 So. should i n s o f a r as core "to no their juvenile-court 3d a t 630-31. Stated d i f f e r e n t l y , t h i s c o u r t has d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e c h a n g e s i n t h e AJJA r e l a t e d to were intended to a j u v e n i l e court's prevent the continuing j u v e n i l e court jurisdiction from becoming overburdened w i t h m a t t e r s t h a t are not d i r e c t l y i n c i d e n t a l the j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s e x e r c i s e of i t s core jurisdiction, to such as a c t i o n s t o e s t a b l i s h p a t e r n i t y , see § 1 2 - 1 5 - 1 1 5 ( a ) ( 6 ) , A l a . Code 1975, see a c t i o n s w h e r e i n a c h i l d i s a l l e g e d t o be § 12-15-117 ( a ) , and i n §§ other matters s p e c i f i c a l l y 12-15-114 and -115, conclusion nullifies the A l a . Code 1975. legislature's c a s e s t h a t a r e m o d i f i a b l e o n l y by one foot in enforcement. not be juvenile court to have done the a The m a i n intent circuit solely It is well settled presumed dependent, that futile for "the by set opinion's allowing court to the forth leave purpose of Legislature w i l l thing i n enacting a s t a t u t e ; there i s a presumption t h a t the L e g i s l a t u r e i n t e n d e d 30 2091185 a j u s t and r e a s o n a b l e c o n s t r u c t i o n and d i d n o t e n a c t a s t a t u t e t h a t h a s no p r a c t i c a l m e a n i n g . " W e a t h e r s v. C i t y o f O x f o r d , 895 So. 2d a t 309. To t h e e x t e n t all phrase "other 12-15-117(c), jurisdiction judgment t h a t t h e m a i n o p i n i o n r e l i e s on t h e c a t c h money o r d e r e d Ala. Code by t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t " 1975, to a j u v e n i l e court made i n conjunction r e s p e c t f u l l y disagree. to confer to enforce with a in § continuing child-support a paternity judgment, I F i n e s , c o u r t c o s t s , a n d r e s t i t u t i o n -¬ t h e s p e c i f i c t y p e s o f money j u d g m e n t s r e f e r r e d t o i n § 12-15117(c) -- are d e f i n i t e , specific, judgments, u n l i k e a c h i l d - s u p p o r t the ejusdem generis rule and u n m o d i f i a b l e judgment. money Thus, b a s e d on of s t a t u t o r y construction, I must conclude t h a t c h i l d - s u p p o r t judgments a r e n o t i n c l u d e d i n t h e phrase "other money o r d e r e d by t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t " c h i l d - s u p p o r t judgments a r e o f a d i f f e r e n t nature because or class of "money o r d e r e d b y t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t " t h a n f i n e s , c o u r t c o s t s , and r e s t i t u t i o n . See C o c k i n g v. C i t y o f Montgomery, 48 So. 3d 647, 650 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2010) ("The e j u s d e m g e n e r i s statutory phrases construction follow provides or precede a 31 that when g e n e r a l specific list rule of words or of classes of 2091185 persons to be or t h i n g s , the g e n e r a l word or p h r a s e i s i n t e r p r e t e d of specific the same nature or class as those named in the list."). B e c a u s e t h i s c o u r t has a duty to address a trial court's l a c k o f s u b j e c t - m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n ex mero motu, see Ex p a r t e T.C., 63 So. Ins. Co., conclude its 3d a t 630 31 So. t h a t the entirety. ( c i t i n g Ex p a r t e P r o g r e s s i v e S p e c i a l t y 3d 661, 662 n.1 f a t h e r ' s appeal (Ala. i s due 2009)), t o be Because a m a j o r i t y of t h i s I would dismissed i n court disagrees, I respectfully dissent. This special writing should not be i n t e r p r e t e d as a p p r o v a l of the c u r r e n t s t a t e of the AJJA. To t h e c o n t r a r y , I b e l i e v e t h a t the j u v e n i l e c o u r t should r e t a i n to modify and e n f o r c e any j u d g m e n t t h a t i t has jurisdiction entered after p r o p e r l y e x e r c i s i n g o r i g i n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n over the a c t i o n . noted i n the main o p i n i o n , t h i s changes t i m e , we time. to the AJJA are l e f t Because jurisdiction dependent, are c o u r t has forthcoming. As been i n f o r m e d However, that until that t o i n t e r p r e t t h e A J J A as i t e x i s t s a t the AJJA to modify delinquent, divested the juvenile judgments t h a t d i d not or in 32 need of my this courts find a supervision, I of child must 2091185 conclude, b a s e d on court also l o s t no longer had legislature will question and the foregoing jurisdiction reasons, to enforce jurisdiction to any modify. that the juvenile judgment t h a t i t Hopefully, c o r r e c t t h i s a r e a o f l a w so t h a t t h e r e the i s no that a j u v e n i l e court r e t a i n s j u r i s d i c t i o n to modify enforce i t s judgments. 33

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.