R.S. v. State of Alabama ex rel. C.L.S.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 06/17/2011 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 2100266 R.S. v. State o f Alabama ex r e l . C.L.S. Appeal from Madison J u v e n i l e Court (CS-94-819.02) MOORE, J u d g e . On O c t o b e r 28, 2009, t h e S t a t e C.L.S. o f A l a b a m a , on b e h a l f o f ("the m o t h e r " ) , f i l e d a c o n t e m p t p e t i t i o n a g a i n s t R.S. ("the f a t h e r ) court"). i n t h e Madison J u v e n i l e Court ("the j u v e n i l e The p e t i t i o n a l l e g e d t h a t t h e f a t h e r was i n a r r e a r s 2100266 on his child-support obligation judgment, arrearage was that was the The petition a December 21, amount $20,850.73, and $22,120.26. t h a t the principal under of t h a t the child-support accumulated requested, j u v e n i l e court schedule the 1996, interest among o t h e r t h i n g s , a hearing on the petition, t h a t t h e f a t h e r be r e q u i r e d t o a p p e a r a t s a i d h e a r i n g and show c a u s e why that the he s h o u l d n o t be h e l d i n c o n t e m p t o f c o u r t , and juvenile court "reduce j u d g m e n t w i t h i n t e r e s t and the arrearage[] amount o r d e r payments t h e r e o n " to and award s u c h o t h e r r e l i e f t o w h i c h t h e m o t h e r m i g h t be e n t i t l e d . juvenile-court referee entered an o r d e r p e t i t i o n f o r a h e a r i n g on J a n u a r y the order certified setting the mail November 2, on hearing h e a r i n g was c o n t i n u e d by 3, The 2010. c o n t i n u e d by On 2010. The were s e r v e d 2009. The on 1, petition the January and father 20, 2010, 2010, hearing was subsequently the father filed a 2010. "motion for of p a t e r n i t y , or i n the a l t e r n a t i v e , motion establish visitation," by the j u v e n i l e - c o u r t r e f e r e e t o March 3, 2010, The contempt t h e j u v e n i l e - c o u r t r e f e r e e t o M a r c h 24, March determination March 20, s e t t i n g the a i n w h i c h he asserted that "[n]o c u s t o d y d e t e r m i n a t i o n had been p e r f o r m e d i n t h i s m a t t e r . " 2 to prior The 2100266 father requested that determination the j u v e n i l e court or, a l t e r n a t i v e l y , i f the make court a paternity declined his request f o r a p a t e r n i t y d e t e r m i n a t i o n , t h a t the j u v e n i l e c o u r t o r d e r r e g u l a r v i s i t a t i o n b e t w e e n h i m and t h e c h i l d . On M a r c h 16, 2010, t h e j u v e n i l e - c o u r t j u d g e s e t t h e f a t h e r ' s m o t i o n f o r a hearing on A p r i l t e s t r e p o r t " was On M a r c h 22, 2, 2010. On M a r c h 18, 2010, a "genetic f i l e d w i t h the j u v e n i l e c o u r t . 2010, the State f i l e d a motion requesting t h a t t h e M a r c h 24, 2010, h e a r i n g s c h e d u l e d b e f o r e t h e r e f e r e e be continued father's until "motion alternative, the j u v e n i l e - c o u r t judge f o r determination motion to e s t a b l i s h ruled on the of p a t e r n i t y , or i n the visitation." The referee g r a n t e d t h e m o t i o n t o c o n t i n u e and r e s e t t h e h e a r i n g f o r A p r i l 28, 2010. On father's March "motion alternative, attached 23, 2010, the State for determination motion to establish t o i t s r e s p o n s e payment filed a response to the of p a t e r n i t y , or i n the visitation." records from The State the State of A l a b a m a ' s C h i l d S u p p o r t E n f o r c e m e n t D i v i s i o n and a s p r e a d s h e e t s e t t i n g out i t s i n t e r e s t calculations. 3 2100266 On order July denying paternity" and 15, 2010, the and s e t t i n g t h e Thereafter, arrearage/contempt "motion "motion matters on December 2, f i l e d her "report, juvenile-court father's a l l other pending states, the for entered an determination of to e s t a b l i s h for t r i a l 2010, judge visitation" on A u g u s t 9, 2010. the j u v e n i l e - c o u r t r e f e r e e f i n d i n g s and r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s ... r e g a r d i n g f o r non-payment o f c h i l d in pertinent support," part: " T h i s c a u s e came t o be h e a r d on A u g u s t 9, 2010, upon t h e [ m o t h e r ' s ] P e t i t i o n f o r C o n t e m p t and r u l e "The c a u s e was s u b m i t t e d upon t h e p l e a d i n g s and upon t h e a g r e e m e n t o f t h e p a r t i e s . B a s e d upon t h e a g r e e m e n t p r e s e n t e d , t h e R e f e r e e makes t h e f o l l o w i n g f i n d i n g s and r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s : "1. The [ f a t h e r ] was o r d e r e d b y t h e J u v e n i l e Court of Madison County, Alabama, on December 21, 1996, t o pay c h i l d s u p p o r t i n s p e c i f i e d p e r i o d i c payments. "2. The [ f a t h e r ] has f a i l e d on 75 s e p a r a t e o c c a s i o n s t o comply w i t h the p r e v i o u s o r d e r o f s u p p o r t and i s d e l i n q u e n t i n a r r e a r s and i n t e r e s t t o t a l i n g $46,707.16 as o f June 30, 2010. "3. The [ f a t h e r ' s ] f a i l u r e t o make t h e s a i d c h i l d s u p p o r t payments i s due t o [the f a t h e r ' s ] w i l l f u l n e g l e c t and i s n o t due t o an i n a b i l i t y t o p a y . 4 which 2100266 " I t i s , t h e r e f o r e , t h e recommendation R e f e r e e as f o l l o w s : of the "1. Judgment s h o u l d be r e n d e r e d i n f a v o r o f t h e [mother] a n d a g a i n s t t h e [ f a t h e r ] i n t h e amount o f $46,707.16 f o r t h e c h i l d s u p p o r t a r r e a r a g e a n d i n t e r e s t d e t e r m i n e d due as o f June 30, 2010. T h i s j u d g m e n t subsumes a l l p r i o r judgments f o r c h i l d s u p p o r t i n t h i s cause. "2. The [ f a t h e r ] s h o u l d be f o u n d t o be i n c o n t e m p t o f c o u r t 75 s e p a r a t e t i m e s b e c a u s e of t h e [ f a t h e r ' s ] w i l l f u l f a i l u r e t o pay s u p p o r t as p r e v i o u s l y o r d e r e d . A c c o r d i n g l y , [the f a t h e r ] s h o u l d be s e n t e n c e d t o 5 d a y s f o r each s e p a r a t e a c t o f contempt t o run c o n s e c u t i v e l y f o r a t o t a l o f 375 d a y s i n the Madison County J a i l . S a i d sentences s h o u l d e a c h be s u s p e n d e d f o r a p e r i o d o f 2 y e a r s , w i t h each term o f p r o b a t i o n running consecutively. "3. The [ f a t h e r ] s h o u l d p a y $100.00 p e r month toward c h i l d support arrearage totaling $22,430.73 i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e $158.00 p e r month he was p r e v i o u s l y o r d e r e d t o p a y . The [ f a t h e r ] s h o u l d p a y i n t e r e s t on t h e above a r r e a r a g e t o t a l i n g $24,276.43. S a i d c h i l d s u p p o r t a r r e a r a g e p a y m e n t s s h a l l commence on December 2 1 , 1996, a n d s h a l l c o n t i n u e e v e r y month t h e r e a f t e r . C u r r e n t support payments shall continue as p r e v i o u s l y o r d e r e d . S h o u l d an a r r e a r a g e e x i s t when t h e minor child emancipates, the [father] s h o u l d be r e q u i r e d t o c o n t i n u e p a y i n g b o t h t h e c u r r e n t s u p p o r t a n d a r r e a r s payment amounts u n t i l a l l a r r e a r s a n d i n t e r e s t i s paid i n f u l l . "4. S a i d sums s h o u l d be r e d u c e d t o a j u d g m e n t f o r w h i c h e x e c u t i o n may i s s u e . I n t e r e s t 5 2100266 s h o u l d c o n t i n u e t o a c c r u e on s a i d child s u p p o r t a r r e a r a g e u n t i l t h e j u d g m e n t has b e e n s a t i s f i e d i n f u l l as p r o v i d e d i n A l a . Code [1975,] § 8 - 8 - 1 0 ( 1 9 7 5 ) . II "7. A l l other p r o v i s i o n s of the Court's p r e v i o u s Orders not a f f e c t e d h e r e i n should r e m a i n i n f u l l f o r c e and e f f e c t . " On December 7, 2010, order ratifying the the j u v e n i l e - c o u r t judge e n t e r e d findings and recommendations of an the r e f e r e e , m a k i n g s a i d f i n d i n g s and r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s t h e o r d e r o f the court. referee's court's See Rule findings order 2(G), and ratifying Ala. to t h i s "Although jurisdiction, the P. The party has Neither nor same d i s p o s e d the the of juvenile father's 2010. questioned must c o n s i d e r w h e t h e r we this have court's jurisdiction over t h i s appeal, because ' " j u r i s d i c t i o n a l matters are of m a g n i t u d e t h a t we t a k e n o t i c e o f them a t any e v e n ex mero motu."'" K e l l e y v. Thomas, 878 (Ala. (quoting Wallace 689 Nunn C i v . App. So. v. 2d 2003) 210, 211 ( A l a . C i v . App. Baker, 518 So. 2d 711, 6 the father f i l e d his notice c o u r t on December 17, neither we Juv. recommendations motion to e s t a b l i s h v i s i t a t i o n . of appeal R. 712 time and So. 2d 1168, v. Tee 1997), (Ala. J a y s Mfg. quoting 1987)). do such so 1171 Co., i n turn "The 2100266 question whether a judgment is final is a jurisdictional q u e s t i o n , and t h e r e v i e w i n g c o u r t , on a d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t t h e judgment is not final, has So. duty 2d to case." 2006). supreme c o u r t has d e f i n e d a " f i n a l j u d g m e n t " as d e c i s i o n by a court of 1192 the Hubbard, terminative 1191, dismiss H u b b a r d v. Our 935 a (Ala. Civ. competent App. "a jurisdiction w h i c h d e m o n s t r a t e s t h e r e has b e e n c o m p l e t e a d j u d i c a t i o n o f a l l matters in cognizance controversy between the litigants o f t h a t c o u r t . T h a t i s , i t must be certain in i t s e l f . " J e w e l l v. J a c k s o n 331 within the conclusive ( A l a . 1976). So. 2d In 623, the adjudication parties 625 present of case, a l l the because the 2010, order not been i n controversy a Co., complete between to e s t a b l i s h the visitation B e c a u s e t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s December ratifying t h e r e f e r e e was jurisdiction matters has f a t h e r ' s motion remains u n a d j u d i c a t e d . 7, there & W h i t s i t t Cotton and the f i n d i n g s and recommendations of n o t a f i n a l j u d g m e n t , t h i s c o u r t does n o t have over the father's appeal. We, therefore, d i s m i s s t h e f a t h e r ' s a p p e a l as b e i n g f r o m a n o n f i n a l j u d g m e n t . See H u b b a r d , 935 So. 2d a t 1192. APPEAL DISMISSED. Thompson, P.J., and Pittman, concur. 7 Bryan, and Thomas, J J . ,

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.