T.C. v. Mac.M. and Mar.M.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 09/23/2011 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 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 , Alabama 36104-3741 ((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, 2011 2100037 T.C. v. Mac.M. and Mar.M. Appeal from J e f f e r s o n J u v e n i l e Court, (JU-10-700092) THOMPSON, Bessemer D i v i s i o n P r e s i d i n g Judge. On F e b r u a r y 2, 2 0 1 0 , Mac.M. ("the m a t e r n a l and Mar.M. ("the m a t e r n a l a l l e g i n g t h a t A.J.C. grandmother") filed grandfather") a petition ("the c h i l d " ) was d e p e n d e n t as a r e s u l t of t h e drug use o f t h e c h i l d ' s p a r e n t s , J.D.C. ("the m o t h e r " ) 2100037 and T.C. award ("the f a t h e r " ) . of custody visitation moved March of the c h i l d f o r the parents. f o r an a w a r d pending The m a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s s o u g h t an a n d an a w a r d The m a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s of pendente lite a d e t e r m i n a t i o n on t h e i r 11, 2010, of supervised the j u v e n i l e custody dependency court of the also child petition. awarded grandparents pendente l i t e custody of the c h i l d . the On maternal On M a r c h 23, 2010, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t e n t e r e d a n o t h e r , more d e t a i l e d o r d e r c o n t i n u i n g t h e award t o t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s o f pendente lite c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d and awarding t h e p a r e n t s s u p e r v i s e d v i s i t a t i o n pending On A p r i l suggestion a later of death lite 1 22, 2010, t h e c h i l d ' s g u a r d i a n a d l i t e m f i l e d a Shortly thereafter, pendente review hearing. award indicating the father that filed t h e mother a motion of supervised v i s i t a t i o n . had died. t o modify the On June 2010, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t e n t e r e d a n o t h e r p e n d e n t e l i t e 9, order continuing custody of the c h i l d w i t h the maternal grandparents A l t h o u g h t h e M a r c h 23, 2010, o r d e r p u r p o r t s t o a w a r d t h e m a t e r n a l grandparents "custody" o f t h e c h i l d , i t i s c l e a r from subsequent o r d e r s s c h e d u l i n g a dependency h e a r i n g and from t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s comments d u r i n g t h e d e p e n d e n c y h e a r i n g t h a t t h e M a r c h 23, 2010, o r d e r was a p e n d e n t e l i t e c u s t o d y o r d e r . 1 2 2100037 and denying supervised In the father's motion to modify t h e award of visitation. August 2010, Th.C. grandparents, each and G.C., moved to the c h i l d ' s intervene i n the paternal dependency a c t i o n , a n d e a c h s o u g h t an a w a r d o f v i s i t a t i o n w i t h t h e c h i l d . T h e i r m o t i o n s h a d n o t b e e n r u l e d upon b y t h e t i m e t h e o r d e r a t issue i n this paternal appeal entered. C.C.S., the child's a u n t , f i l e d a s t a t e m e n t i n s u p p o r t o f t h e f a t h e r on a form d e s i g n a t e d court was denied as a " m o t i o n t o i n t e r v e n e , " b u t t h e j u v e n i l e that "motion" as n o t b e i n g , i n substance, a motion t o intervene. On S e p t e m b e r 21, 2010, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ore tenus hearing on t h e i s s u e c o n d u c t e d an of the c h i l d ' s Much o f t h e e v i d e n c e a t t h a t h e a r i n g dependency. f o c u s e d on t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s ' a l l e g a t i o n s t h a t the f a t h e r abused p r e s c r i p t i o n m e d i c a t i o n s and t h e f a t h e r ' s d e n i a l o f t h o s e a l l e g a t i o n s . juvenile court specified during i n i t i a l matter, i t would consider the issue evidence, the hearing court After determined that receiving the c h i l d dependent, and i t then o f f e r e d t o p r o c e e d t o r e c e i v e 3 as an only evidence p e r t a i n i n g t o o f t h e c h i l d ' s dependency. the j u v e n i l e that, The such was evidence 2100037 pertaining However, portion to the the disposition maternal and s t a t e d : order grandparents finding Although jurisdiction moved 22, 2010, child the dependent. The consider this Wallace ( A l a . C i v . App. App. of the 1997). t h a t i t cannot I n c . v. 1998) entered f a t h e r appealed this an the court's jurisdictional t h a t t h i s c o u r t may v. Tee court addressed appeal, J a y s Mfg. issues t a k e n o t i c e o f them Co., 689 So. 2d 210, As e x p l a i n e d i n t h i s o p i n i o n , we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e S e p t e m b e r 22, 2010, Civ. the court. none o f t h e p a r t i e s has Outdoor Adver., continue to the d i s p o s i t i o n juvenile order to t h i s are of such importance therefore, child. order. 2010, ex mero motu. to the motion the to of juvenile court granted that September The custody g o i n g t o p r o b a b l y do a p e n d e n t e l i t e " "I'm S e p t e m b e r 22, 211 the of the h e a r i n g p e r t a i n i n g custody of the c h i l d . On of support Kennard, (a n o n f i n a l order i s not f i n a l the 721 judgment appeal. So. 2d will See 226, not and, Bacadam 229 (Ala. support an appeal). In this o r d e r was case, the juvenile c o u r t ' s September 22, e n t e r e d on a s t a n d a r d i z e d f o r m . On t h a t form, j u v e n i l e c o u r t p l a c e d a c h e c k mark t o i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e 4 2010, the "child 2100037 [was] found dependent." determination states: A handwritten "[At] dependent pendente l i t e . " the j u v e n i l e c o u r t time notation beside [of] p e t i t i o n I n t h e S e p t e m b e r 22, that child 2010, was order, made t h e f o l l o w i n g f a c t u a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n : " C o u r t h e a r d t e s t i m o n y as t o d e p e n d e n c y . After sworn t e s t i m o n y and e v i d e n c e , t h e c o u r t h e r e b y f i n d s the child ... d e p e n d e n t due [to] i n a b i l i t y to d i s c h a r g e p a r e n t a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s as t o [the] c h i l d b e c a u s e o f use o f h i g h amounts o f pain m e d i c a t i o n s and m u s c l e r e l a x e r s . "Motion to intervene by [the paternal grandfather was] not served on [the maternal grandparents]. Therefore, [the maternal g r a n d p a r e n t s ' ] m o t i o n t o c o n t i n u e as t o d i s p o s i t i o n is granted. Motions t o i n t e r v e n e as t o [the p a t e r n a l g r a n d f a t h e r ] and [ t h e p a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r ] t o be h e a r d on 10/12/2010 [ a t ] 10:00 a.m. Pending h e a r i n g , [ g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m ] t o i n q u i r e as t o [ t h e p a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s ] and [ p a t e r n a l a u n t ] as w e l l as f a t h e r [ t o ] p r o v i d e p r e s c r i p t i o n s . " (Emphasis added.) At the bottom of the S e p t e m b e r 22, 2010, o r d e r i s a h a n d w r i t t e n n o t a t i o n by t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t s t a t i n g : "until 10/12/2010 as o r d e r s p r e v i o u s l y e n t e r e d . " T h i s c o u r t has e x p l a i n e d t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s juvenile support court's order an under which a or judgment i s s u f f i c i e n t l y final appeal: "Although a juvenile court's orders in a d e p e n d e n c y c a s e a r e , i n one s e n s e , n e v e r 'final' because the c o u r t r e t a i n s j u r i s d i c t i o n to modify i t s o r d e r s upon a s h o w i n g o f c h a n g e d c i r c u m s t a n c e s , see 5 to 2100037 C.L. v . D.H., 916 So. 2d 622 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 5 ) ; C o m m i t t e e Comments, R u l e 4, A l a . R. App. P., t h i s court has always treated formal dependency a d j u d i c a t i o n s as f i n a l and a p p e a l a b l e judgments despite the fact that they are scheduled f o r further review by the j u v e n i l e court." D.P. v . L i m e s t o n e 762 Cnty. D e p ' t o f Human Res., 28 So. 3d 759, ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009) ( h o l d i n g t h a t an o r d e r f i n d i n g , w i t h regard t o the father, that reasonable e f f o r t s a t r e u n i f i c a t i o n were no l o n g e r r e q u i r e d o f t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f Human was a p e r m a n e n c y o r d e r t h a t was s u f f i c i e n t l y f i n a l t o s u p p o r t an a p p e a l ; t h a t o r d e r a l s o e x p r e s s l y l e f t i n place previous awards o f l e g a l c u s t o d y i n c i d e n t t o d e p e n d e n c y In this Resources findings). J . J . v. J.H.W., 27 So. 3d 519 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 8 ) , c o u r t h e l d t h a t an o r d e r f i n d i n g awarding custody t o one p a r t y support the appeal, motions filed by even though the parties scheduled f o r a l a t e r was a child sufficiently further review concerning review hearing. dependent and final of to certain visitation were This court noted t h a t t h e o r d e r f r o m w h i c h t h e a p p e a l a r o s e " i n d i c a t e s an i n t e n t t o dispose of a l l other pending m a t t e r s , " 27 So. 3d a t 5 2 1 , a n d explained: "Under o u r c a s e l a w , a f o r m a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n b y a j u v e n i l e c o u r t o f a c h i l d ' s dependency c o u p l e d w i t h an a w a r d o f c u s t o d y i n c i d e n t t o t h a t d e t e r m i n a t i o n 6 2100037 w i l l g i v e r i s e t o an a p p e a l a b l e f i n a l j u d g m e n t e v e n if the custody award i s denominated as a 'temporary' award and f u r t h e r r e v i e w o f t h e case is envisioned." [ 2 ] 27 So. 3d a t 522 (emphasis Cnty. So. added). See a l s o E.D. v . Madison D e p ' t o f Human R e s . , [Ms. 2090415, A u g . 27, 2010] 3d order , was "addressed, ( A l a . C i v . App. 2010) ( c o n c l u d i n g t h a t an sufficiently final to support an a p p e a l among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h e d i s p o s i t i o n o f t h e c h i l d pursuant t o the j u v e n i l e court's f i n d i n g of In this C.L. v . D.H., court when i t concluded pendente l i t e 916 So. 2d 622 that an initial dependency"). ( A l a . C i v . App. custody o r d e r , b u t t h a t a subsequent order 2005), was o r d e r from a which t h e a p p e a l a r o s e was s u f f i c i e n t l y f i n a l t o s u p p o r t t h e a p p e a l . This court explained: "A p e n d e n t e l i t e o r d e r i s one made p e n d i n g t h e litigation. See Ex p a r t e J . P . , 641 So. 2d 276 ( A l a . 1994) ( c u s t o d y c a s e ) ; R i c h v . R i c h , 887 So. 2d 289 A " t e m p o r a r y " c u s t o d y award, as o p p o s e d t o a p e n d e n t e l i t e c u s t o d y a w a r d , w i l l s u p p o r t an a p p e a l . See Ex p a r t e J.P., 641 So. 2d 276, 278 ( A l a . 1994) ( e x p l a i n i n g t h e d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n " t e m p o r a r y " c u s t o d y awards a n d p e n d e n t e l i t e c u s t o d y awards a n d s t a t i n g t h a t " t h e l a n g u a g e u s e d b y t h e c o u r t s c a n be c o n f u s i n g , e s p e c i a l l y t h e l a n g u a g e s p e a k i n g o f a t e m p o r a r y a w a r d o f c u s t o d y as a f i n a l o r d e r , as o p p o s e d t o a pendente l i t e o r d e r , which i s n o t a f i n a l o r d e r " ) ; see a l s o T.J.H. v . S.N.F., 960 So. 2d 669, 672 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009) (same). 2 7 2100037 (Ala. Civ. App. 2004) (plurality opinion) ( d i s c u s s i n g t h e d e f i n i t i o n and n a t u r e o f a 'pendente l i t e ' order i n a custody case), quoted with approval i n Hodge v. S t e i n w i n d e r , [919] So. 2d [1179, 1182¬ 83] ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 5 ) ; and T r e v i n o v. B l i n n , 897 So. 2d 358, 360 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2004) ( C r a w l e y and M u r d o c k , J J . , d i s s e n t i n g ) ( r e l i e d upon i n Hodge v. S t e i n w i n d e r , [919] So. 2d [ 1 1 7 9 ] ) . I t i s an o r d e r made p e n d i n g t h e a d j u d i c a t i o n o f t h e e x i s t i n g c a s e , i.e., the e x t a n t f a c t s . Id. " I t i s t r u e t h a t the j u v e n i l e c o u r t e n t e r e d a p e n d e n t e l i t e o r d e r , b u t t h e o r d e r e n t e r e d on May 28, 2004, was n o t i t . The j u v e n i l e c o u r t e n t e r e d a p e n d e n t e l i t e o r d e r on J a n u a r y 9, 2004, a w a r d i n g custody of the c h i l d pending the t r i a l of the case. In t h a t same o r d e r , t h e c o u r t s e t t h e t r i a l f o r M a r c h 23, 2004. The c o u r t l a t e r r e s e t t h e t r i a l f o r May 7, 2004. " A f t e r t h e p a r t i e s had h a d t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o c o n d u c t a p p r o p r i a t e d i s c o v e r y and o t h e r w i s e p r e p a r e for t r i a l , the c o u r t conducted the scheduled t r i a l , r e c e i v e d the evidence p e r t i n e n t t o the i s s u e of the c h i l d ' s d e p e n d e n c y , and h e a r d t h e a r g u m e n t s o f b o t h parties. I t t h e r e u p o n f o u n d t h e c h i l d d e p e n d e n t and e n t e r e d i t s May 28, 2004, j u d g m e n t t r a n s f e r r i n g primary p h y s i c a l custody of the child to the maternal grandmother. "The setting of the case for a 'review' a p p r o x i m a t e l y f o u r months l a t e r does n o t make t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s May 28 j u d g m e n t a p e n d e n t e l i t e order. The j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t does n o t i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e p u r p o s e o f t h e S e p t e m b e r 2004 'review' hearing w o u l d be to finish receiving e v i d e n c e as t o t h e e x t a n t f a c t s as o f May 2004. To t h e c o n t r a r y , t h e r e c o r d and t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s May 28 j u d g m e n t f u l l y i n d i c a t e t h a t i t had a l r e a d y heard that evidence and was e n t e r i n g a judgment based thereon. I n s t e a d , the judgment i n d i c a t e s t h a t the j u v e n i l e c o u r t would at i t s 'review' c o n s i d e r a 8 2100037 m o d i f i c a t i o n o f t h e c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d b a s e d on w h a t e v e r new f a c t s m i g h t come i n t o e x i s t e n c e b e t w e e n t h e t i m e t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t e n t e r e d i t s j u d g m e n t on May 28, 2004, and t h e s c h e d u l e d 'review' on S e p t e m b e r 15, 2004. C f . Hodge v. S t e i n w i n d e r , [919] So. 2d [1179] (holding that the issue of the f i n a l i t y o f an o r d e r i n a c h i l d - c u s t o d y c a s e was c o n t r o l l e d by t h e f a c t t h a t t h e t r i a l court's j u d g m e n t was f i n a l as t o t h e f a c t s p r e s e n t e d a t t r i a l a n d w o u l d o n l y be m o d i f i e d i n t h e e v e n t t h a t new facts subsequently developed justifying a m o d i f i c a t i o n of t h a t judgment). " I n o t h e r words, t h e s e t t i n g o f t h e September ' r e v i e w ' h e a r i n g was n o t a f u n c t i o n o f a n e e d f o r the parties to complete the gathering and presentation t o the court of the evidence of the facts already i n existence. The c o u r t ' s expressed w i l l i n g n e s s t o c o n s i d e r a change i n t h e c u s t o d i a l p l a c e m e n t o f t h e c h i l d was made i n c o n t e m p l a t i o n o f new f a c t s - - i . e . , d e v e l o p m e n t s i n t h e l i v e s o f t h e mother and t h e c h i l d and t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p t h a t might occur a f t e r the court entered i t s order. "Consistent with the w e l l - e s t a b l i s h e d p r i n c i p l e that an adjudication of dependency and an accompanying c u s t o d i a l placement o f a c h i l d i n a d e p e n d e n c y p r o c e e d i n g i s an a p p e a l a b l e o r d e r , t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e s t a t e d i n i t s May 28, 2004, j u d g m e n t t h a t 'any p a r t y may a p p e a l t h i s d e c i s i o n w i t h i n 14 d a y s . ' The j u v e n i l e c o u r t was r i g h t . We t h e r e f o r e p r o c e e d t o c o n s i d e r t h i s a p p e a l on i t s m e r i t s . " 916 So. 2d a t 624-26 In this case, (second emphasis added). at the close o f t h e September 2 1 , 2010, hearing, the j u v e n i l e court expressly stated that i t intended 9 2100037 that additional disposition evidence of the c h i l d pertaining would h e a r i n g , w h i c h was s c h e d u l e d be to presented t o occur 12, 2010. entered on S e p t e m b e r 22, 2010, was n o t f i n a l contain custody So. The j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s a dependency finding "coupled incident to that determination." 3d a t 522. 10/12/2010 as o r d e r s Thus, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t l e f t of the c h i l d t h e r e f o r e conclude interlocutory next subsequent on order, because i t d i d with an a w a r d o f The o n l y p o r t i o n o f t h e S e p t e m b e r 22, 2010, provision: "until custody at the J . J . v. J.H.W., 27 o r d e r t h a t c o u l d be s a i d t o a d d r e s s c u s t o d y lite custodial t h r e e weeks l a t e r , October not the i s the handwritten previously entered." i n p l a c e i t s award o f pendente t o the maternal grandparents. We t h a t t h e S e p t e m b e r 22, 2010, o r d e r was an order not capable of supporting the father's appeal. We n o t e t h a t t h e a p p r o p r i a t e method o f s e e k i n g a p p e l l a t e review for o f an i n t e r l o c u t o r y o r d e r i s t h e f i l i n g a writ o f mandamus. r e l i e f i n this court. 959 writ The f a t h e r h a s n o t s o u g h t mandamus See G.B. v. S t a t e Dep't o f Human R e s . , So. 2d 1116 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2006) of mandamus of a p e t i t i o n pertaining 10 to a (parents d i d n o t seek a nonfinal order, and, 2100037 therefore, the 988 So. as already appeal 2d 1078, 1079 dismissed); ( A l a . C i v . App. Long, Further, indicated that at i t another i t appears t h a t , under the f a c t s of c a s e , r e v i e w by way this o f a p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus m i g h t premature. The dissent asserts that Alabama J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e A c t Ala. Code 1975, Juvenile J u s t i c e Act court may recent ("the which ("the A l a . Code 1975, this court (same). c e r t a i n a d d i t i o n a l evidence Therefore, seq., 2008) receive hearing. seq., Amberson v. the to juvenile and stated, intended e v e n be was as consider changes i n the new A J J A " ) , § 12-15-101 e t replaced the former AJJA"), of January 1, Alabama f o r m e r § 12-15-1 e t 2009, indicate that the d i s s e n t r e l i e s on d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n t h e f o r m e r A J J A and the new the former AJJA for that contention. "judgments, o r d e r s , of a " f i n a l c o u r t " to the nonfinal The that, according to i t s t i t l e , of j u v e n i l e court appeal from former orders; A J J A as s u p p o r t appeals current order, circuit authorized etc.," provided A l a . Code 1975 appeals for an judgment or d e c r e e of the j u v e n i l e court for a t r i a l de f o r t h a d e t a i l e d procedure f o r such appeals. 120, s e c t i o n of (amended and 11 novo, and i t set F o r m e r § 12-15¬ r e n u m b e r e d as § 12-15-601, 2100037 Ala. Code 1975). authorizing The appeals new from AJJA the also contains a juvenile court; provision section 12-15¬ 601, A l a . Code 1975, p r o v i d e s : "A p a r t y , i n c l u d i n g t h e s t a t e o r any s u b d i v i s i o n o f t h e s t a t e , has t h e r i g h t t o a p p e a l a j u d g m e n t o r o r d e r f r o m any j u v e n i l e c o u r t p r o c e e d i n g p u r s u a n t t o t h i s chapter. The p r o c e d u r e f o r a p p e a l i n g t h e s e c a s e s s h a l l be p u r s u a n t t o r u l e s o f procedure a d o p t e d by t h e Supreme C o u r t o f A l a b a m a . A l l appeals from j u v e n i l e c o u r t p r o c e e d i n g s p u r s u a n t t o t h i s chapter s h a l l take precedence over a l l other business of the c o u r t to which the appeal i s taken." The dissent relies on the portion of § 12-15-601 that p r o v i d e s f o r "the r i g h t t o a p p e a l a judgment o r o r d e r " from a j u v e n i l e c o u r t t o a s s e r t t h a t , "by d e l e t i n g 15-120] t h e w o r d the law so as 'final,' the l e g i s l a t u r e to a l l o w appeals from [from former § 12¬ i n t e n d e d t o change o r d e r s e n t e r e d by the j u v e n i l e c o u r t t h a t do n o t c o m p l e t e l y end t h e p r o c e e d i n g s . " So. 3d fundamental at rule (Moore, J., dissenting). i n construing a statute the i n t e n t of the l e g i s l a t u r e However, i n order to a effect i s t h a t t h e s t a t u t e as a w h o l e be e x a m i n e d , r a t h e r t h a n " ' " ' i s o l a t e d p h r a s e s o r c l a u s e s . ' " ' " Fluker v. Wolff, B r i g h t v. C a l h o u n , 46 So. 3d 942, 953 988 So. 2d 492, 497 ( A l a . 2010) ( A l a . 2008), q u o t i n g i n t u r n C i t y o f B e s s e m e r v. M c C l a i n , 957 So. 2d 1061, 12 (quoting 1074 (Ala. 2100037 2006), quoting i n turn Darks Comm'n, 367 So. 2d 1378, Legislature 1380 i s presumed D a i r y , I n c . v. (Ala. 1979)). to be aware of Alabama Moreover, existing 709 So. 2d 1199, 1206 "[t]he law and Carson j u d i c i a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n when i t a d o p t s a s t a t u t e . " C i t y of P r i c h a r d , v. ( A l a . 1998) . In making i t s argument, the d i s s e n t fails to recognize t h e new A J J A ' s r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t t h e r u l e s o f p r o c e d u r e by t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t s h a l l appeals from the juvenile govern court. Dairy See adopted the procedure for 12-15-601 ("The § p r o c e d u r e f o r a p p e a l i n g t h e s e c a s e s s h a l l be p u r s u a n t t o r u l e s of procedure Those rules adopted by the of procedure court"), and final Rules Court of Alabama."). r e f e r e n c e d i n § 12-15-601 R u l e 4 ( a ) ( 1 ) , A l a . R. App. 14 d a y s o f "any Supreme P. ( p r o v i d i n g f o r an a p p e a l w i t h i n o r d e r o r j u d g m e n t i s s u e d by a 20 and include 28, A l a . R. Juv. P., juvenile discussed below. In 1982, several years after the enactment of former 12-15-120, o u r supreme c o u r t amended R u l e 20, A l a . R. J u v . and R u l e 28, A l a . R. J u v . P.; a p p e a l s t o an a p p e l l a t e adequate § P., t h o s e amendments a l l o w e d d i r e c t c o u r t from a j u v e n i l e c o u r t when r e c o r d of the j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s proceedings 13 an existed. 2100037 See Comment t o Amendment E f f e c t i v e November 15, 1985, R u l e 28, Ala. R. J u v . P.; W r i g h t v. Montgomery C n t y . D e p ' t o f P e n s i o n s & S e c . , 423 So. 2d 256, 256-57 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1982) ("Rule 20 requires each juvenile proceeding t o be r e c o r d e d so t h a t r e c o r d o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g s c a n be made f o r a p p e a l . it unnecessary to f i r s t appeal to the c i r c u i t a T h i s makes court f o r a t r i a l de novo as was done b e f o r e t h e [1982] amendments."); see also Ex parte Webb, 843 So. 2d (recognizing t h e amendment t o R u l e appeals the j u v e n i l e from 127, 129-30 ( A l a . 2002) 28 as a u t h o r i z i n g c o u r t t o an a p p e l l a t e direct court); Ex p a r t e S t a t e , 700 So. 2d 1369, 1371 n. 2 ( A l a . 1997) 1982, a l l court. appeals A l a . Code amendment t o Rule from 1975, 20 of juvenile § c o u r t were 12-15-120. the Rules of ("Until to the However, Juvenile and circuit a 1982 Procedure provided f o r the r e c o r d i n g of testimony i n the j u v e n i l e R u l e 28 was amended a t t h e same t i m e t o a l l o w a p p e a l s court. directly t o an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t when an a d e q u a t e r e c o r d e x i s t e d . " ) . In a d d i t i o n t o p r o v i d i n g f o r the procedure f o r appeals of " f i n a l o r d e r s , j u d g m e n t s , o r d e c r e e s " o f t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t , t h e 1982 amendments the to Rule provisions of 28, A l a . R. former § J u v . P., e n c o m p a s s e d many o f 12-15-120 14 with regard to the 2100037 procedure court. f o r appeals from a juvenile court to a circuit Compare R u l e 28, A l a . R. J u v . P., a n d f o r m e r § 12-15¬ 120 (amended a n d r e n u m b e r e d Our appellate courts have a s § 12-15-601, A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 ) . recognized that Rule 28, A l a . R. J u v . P., g o v e r n s t h e p r o c e d u r e f o r a p p e a l s f r o m t h e j u v e n i l e court. Ex p a r t e Webb, s u p r a ; Ex p a r t e S t a t e , s u p r a ; s e e a l s o G.H. v . C l e b u r n e C n t y . Dep't o f Human R e s . , 62 So. 3d 540, 541 (Ala. C i v . App. 2010)("because the juvenile-court judge c e r t i f i e d t h e r e c o r d as a d e q u a t e f o r a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w , we have a p p e l l a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 2 8 ( A ) ( 1 ) , A l a . R. J u v . P."); and I n r e J.O.J., (discussing Rule 860 So. 2d 1281 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2003) 28, A l a . R. Montgomery C o u n t y D e p a r t m e n t Juv. P.). In Wright v. o f P e n s i o n s & S e c u r i t i e s , 423 So. 2d a t 257, t h i s c o u r t o b s e r v e d t h a t " [ R ] u l e 28 s u p e r s e d e s A l a . Code [1975, former] § 12-15-120. a p p e l l a t e procedure from j u v e n i l e The enactment of t h e new Rule 28 now governs court." AJJA d i d not alter the p r o c e d u r e , s e t f o r t h i n t h e c o u r t r u l e s a d o p t e d b y o u r supreme court, The by which legislature, appeals from i n enacting the juvenile § 12-15-601, court are taken. p r o v i d e d f o r an a p p e a l o f a "judgment o r o r d e r " o f t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t , b u t i t 15 2100037 specified procedure court, that such an by established s u c h as R u l e appeal the remains rules 28, A l a . R. governed adopted J u v . P. by The by the the supreme legislature is p r e s u m e d t o know o f t h e supreme c o u r t ' s e n a c t m e n t o f R u l e Ala. R. Juv. P., interpretations juvenile and as of that c o u r t s and judgments well as the rule as governing allowing of the direct juvenile new AJJA procedure 3 the courts' appeals orders appellate court. T h e r e i s no i n d i c a t i o n i n legislature of appeal of n o n f i n a l Construing § from of f i n a l intended to modify s e t f o r t h i n the Rules of J u v e n i l e Procedure create a right courts. that appeals c o u r t t o an C a r s o n v. C i t y o f P r i c h a r d , s u p r a . the appellate 28, 12-15-601 as orders of the a whole, see the or t o juvenile F l u k e r v. S e c t i o n § 12-15-601 a l s o p r o v i d e s t h a t " a p p e a l s f r o m j u v e n i l e c o u r t p r o c e e d i n g s ... s h a l l t a k e p r e c e d e n c e o v e r a l l other business of the c o u r t to which the appeal i s taken." That p r o v i s i o n , t o g e t h e r w i t h the R u l e s of J u v e n i l e Procedure p r o v i d i n g shortened time l i m i t a t i o n s f o r the c o n s i d e r a t i o n of p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n s and f o r t a k i n g an a p p e a l i n j u v e n i l e cases, are designed t o hasten the p r o g r e s s of appeals i n j u v e n i l e c a s e s , w h i c h i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e g o a l o f t h e new A J J A t o r e u n i t e p a r e n t s and c h i l d r e n as q u i c k l y as p o s s i b l e . See § 12-15-101, A l a . Code 1975. A l l o w i n g appeals from n o n f i n a l o r d e r s , as t h e d i s s e n t a d v o c a t e s , w o u l d s l o w t h e r e s o l u t i o n of j u v e n i l e cases. F u r t h e r , i t i s f o r e s e e a b l e t h a t a p a r t y c o u l d a p p e a l e v e r y n o n f i n a l o r d e r as a d i l a t o r y t a c t i c t o d i v e s t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t o f j u r i s d i c t i o n and impede i t s a b i l i t y t o a c t w h i l e t h e m a t t e r i s on a p p e a l . See R.H. v. 3 16 2100037 Wolff, supra, in enacting t h e new AJJA, d i d not a l t e r the procedure f o r appeals from the juvenile the court juvenile i t i s c l e a r t h a t the to allow court; legislature, f o r appeals rather, i t from n o n f i n a l orders left in place e s t a b l i s h e d p r o c e d u r e by w h i c h f i n a l orders the Thus, R u l e j u v e n i l e court Juv. P., appeals may continues from authorizes the appeals decrees of the be to appealed. govern juvenile only the court, from well judgments 28, Ala. d e t a i l e d procedure and "final juvenile court." and the that orders, rule of of R. for expressly judgments, or 4 J.H., 778 So. 2d 839, 841-42 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2000) (a n o t i c e of appeal from a n o n f i n a l order d i v e s t e d the j u v e n i l e c o u r t of j u r i s d i c t i o n to enter f u r t h e r orders i n t h e a c t i o n , so s u b s e q u e n t o r d e r s were n u l l i t i e s ) . 4 R u l e 28, "(A) A l a . R. Juv. P., states, in pertinent part: D i r e c t Appeals to Appellate Courts. "(1) Appeals from f i n a l o r d e r s , judgments, or d e c r e e s o f t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t s h a l l be t o the a p p r o p r i a t e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t , s u b j e c t t o the Alabama Rules of A p p e l l a t e Procedure, i f : " [ L i s t i n g requirements appellate court.] f o r appeal to "(2) I f the appeal p r o v i d e d i n t h i s s u b s e c t i o n i s taken from a f i n a l o r d e r , judgment, or decree i n a case or p r o c e e d i n g a r i s i n g out of the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the juvenile court over a child ... the 17 2100037 We alter conclude that t h e e n a c t m e n t o f t h e new d i d not t h e l a w t h a t a p p e a l s f r o m a j u v e n i l e c o u r t must be a j u d g m e n t o r an o r d e r t h a t i s s u f f i c i e n t l y an AJJA appeal. appeal The i s not S e p t e m b e r 22, such an order. 2010, final to support order at issue A c c o r d i n g l y , we a p p e a l as h a v i n g b e e n t a k e n f r o m a n o n f i n a l from in dismiss this the judgment. APPEAL DISMISSED. P i t t m a n and Thomas, J J . , c o n c u r . Moore, J . , d i s s e n t s w i t h w r i t i n g , which Bryan, J . , j o i n s . a p p r o p r i a t e a p p e l l a t e court f o r purposes of appeal s h a l l b e [ , d e p e n d i n g on t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , e i t h e r the Court of C r i m i n a l Appeals or the Court of C i v i l Appeals]. final cases novo "(B) Appeals to C i r c u i t Court. Appeals from o r d e r s , judgments, or decrees i n a l l o t h e r ... s h a l l be t o t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t f o r t r i a l de " 18 2100037 MOORE, J u d g e , d i s s e n t i n g . I respectfully dissent. The c u r r e n t 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 ( " t h e A J J A " ) , 12-15-101 are as et seq., contemplates t o be c o n d u c t e d i n two phases. the "adjudicatory hearing," 1975, that dependency In the f i r s t proceedings phase, see § 12-15-310(a), the j u v e n i l e court decides whether a c h i l d known A l a . Code i s dependent. I n t h e s e c o n d p h a s e , known a s t h e " d i s p o s i t i o n a l h e a r i n g , " § 1 2 - 1 5 - 3 1 1 ( a ) , A l a . Code 1975, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t the custodial setting that the child. authorizes The A J J A immediately" allows for a "reasonable Code this case, and the f i r s t juvenile courts Ala. Court from 1975. phase Consistent with a n d Mar.M., See the foregoing on September 22, "proceed but i t also § hearing 12-15-311, procedure, i n c o n d u c t e d an a d j u d i c a t o r y 2010, Juvenile hearing finding the d i s p o s i t i o n a l hearing O c t o b e r 12, 2 0 1 0 , l e a v i n g " p e n d e n t e l i t e " Mac.M. to D i v i s i o n of the J e f f e r s o n c h i l d dependent and p o s t p o n i n g with determines the d i s p o s i t i o n a l cases. the c h i l d ' s 19 custody maternal see i n t e r e s t s of to the second, i n some judgment the best juvenile courts period" the Bessemer a serve to postpone ("the j u v e n i l e c o u r t " ) entered would § the until of the c h i l d grandparents. 2100037 The preliminary September an 22, question 2010, before judgment this court i s a judgment is whether that will the support appeal. Section 12-15-601, A l a . Code 1975, a part of the AJJA, provides: "A p a r t y ... h a s t h e r i g h t t o a p p e a l a j u d g m e n t or o r d e r f r o m any j u v e n i l e c o u r t p r o c e e d i n g p u r s u a n t to t h i s c h a p t e r . The p r o c e d u r e f o r a p p e a l i n g t h e s e cases shall be pursuant to rules of procedure adopted by the Supreme C o u r t of Alabama. A l l appeals from j u v e n i l e c o u r t proceedings pursuant to t h i s chapter s h a l l take precedence over a l l other b u s i n e s s of the c o u r t to which the appeal i s taken." Section 12-15-601 judgment Section from or regard, does judgments" version provided judgment or added.) This "final," the allow from § 12-15-601 the former 1975, order" 12-15-601 "final specifically appeals not state of the AJJA, appeals of the legislature for juvenile e n t e r e d by c o u r t must from "any substantially for decree allows that the court "a l i e only courts. In law. that Under § 1 2 - 1 5 - 1 2 0 , A l a . Code solely from juvenile court that by the "a final " the law juvenile order, (Emphasis deleting i n t e n d e d t o change 20 may modifies prior o r d e r s e n t e r e d by of proceeding." appeals juvenile former presume appeal the so court word as to that 2100037 do n o t c o m p l e t e l y e n d t h e p r o c e e d i n g s . C i t y Bd. o f E d u c . , 857 (holding that should to be c o n s t r u e d as seriously impact of t h i s J a c k s o n v. G l a s s v. A n n i s t o n 1147 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2006) that excludes prior terms demonstrating legislature's that regard, I believe Juvenile See See intention law). decision. children 2d 1143, amendment t o s t a t u t e modify p r i o r In So. 5 courts the state Jackson, o u r l e g i s l a t u r e h a s made a w i s e r o u t i n e l y make d e t e r m i n a t i o n s t h a t fundamental to free 999 So. rights association 2d 488, of with 494 parents one and another. (Ala. Civ. App. The main o p i n i o n p o s i t s t h a t , a l t h o u g h the l e g i s l a t u r e d e l e t e d the word " f i n a l " from the f i r s t s e n t e n c e of § 12-15¬ 601, t h e l e g i s l a t u r e , by r e f e r r i n g t o t h e r u l e s o f p r o c e d u r e a d o p t e d by our supreme c o u r t , w h i c h i n c l u d e t h e R u l e s o f Juvenile Procedure, in the second sentence, intended n e v e r t h e l e s s that appeals would l i e only from f i n a l judgments. I f t r u e , t h a t w o u l d mean t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t u r e u s e d t h e m o s t convoluted manner possible of maintaining the finality requirement, removing i t i n the f i r s t sentence only to r e v i v e i t i n t h e n e x t , and t h e n o n l y by i n c o r p o r a t i o n by r e f e r e n c e . I believe the two sentences must be read more straightforwardly. The f i r s t s e n t e n c e o b v i o u s l y d e l e t e s t h e finality r e q u i r e m e n t c o n t a i n e d i n t h e f o r m e r A J J A and t h e c u r r e n t R u l e s o f J u v e n i l e P r o c e d u r e and e s t a b l i s h e s t h a t a l l orders or judgments of the j u v e n i l e court w i l l s u p p o r t an appeal. The s e c o n d s e n t e n c e m e r e l y p r e s c r i b e s t h a t t h e m e t h o d for a p p e a l i n g f r o m s u c h o r d e r s o r j u d g m e n t s s h a l l be i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e r u l e s of p r o c e d u r e a d o p t e d by our supreme court. That c o n s t r u c t i o n g i v e s f u l l e f f e c t to b o t h the f i r s t and t h e s e c o n d s e n t e n c e s , w i t h o u t p l a c i n g them i n c o n f l i c t , as the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n by t h e main o p i n i o n d o e s . 5 21 2100037 2007) (plurality orders demand previously 28 So. 3d or order of her the unit; i f the approval proceedings and issues important for technicalities considered court legislature decision. (Ala. 1988) in such "final" has on See Friday the could to the or I f the family, has the acted whether point; v. to Ethanol ("All questions of 22 in depriving custody the future, juvenile to of has be the question we Corp., propriety, further child. depend The are on judgment i n a simple family immediate cloud the the should error harm of court proceedings the instead, and t h a t may to entered care in properly, stability review result that juvenile-court authority this ("If the i f i t was no 2009) uncertainty as has of minimize appellate court Dep't that court jeopardize this Cnty. right to as Such Limestone the ends any stake at as juvenile v. immediately separating visitation). review, order."). so of ( A l a . C i v . App. 764 whether in appellate This D.P. issues corrected promptly issue appellate 759, appealable overreached to fundamental child, i s an as See addresses c r u c i a l a parent his immediate recognized. Human R e s . , order opinion too legal would civil be action. the wisdom of the must adhere to its 208, 211 539 So. wisdom, 2d necessity, 2100037 utility, and e x p e d i e n c y a r e e x c l u s i v e l y f o r t h e L e g i s l a t u r e determine and are matters with concern."). Bryan, J . , concurs. 23 which the courts have to no

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.