G.M. and P.M. v. T.W. and D.W.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 07/08/2011 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e Reporter o f Decisions, A l a b a m a 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 SPECIAL TERM, 2011 2100273 G.M. and P.M. v. T.W. and D.W. Appeal from J e f f e r s o n J u v e n i l e Court, Bessemer D i v i s i o n (JU-09-700184.01) PER CURIAM. I n M a r c h 2009, collectively T.W. a n d h e r h u s b a n d , D.W. as " t h e m a t e r n a l aunt (referred to and u n c l e " ) , dependency p e t i t i o n i n t h e J e f f e r s o n J u v e n i l e C o u r t , filed a Bessemer D i v i s i o n , i n w h i c h t h e y s o u g h t c u s t o d y o f Z.M.S. ("the c h i l d " ) 2100273 on t h e g r o u n d t h a t the c h i l d ' s p a r e n t s were deceased. The j u v e n i l e c o u r t , a c t i n g t h r o u g h a r e f e r e e , awarded t h e m a t e r n a l aunt and u n c l e emergency t e m p o r a r y custody of the c h i l d ; the r e f e r e e ' s o r d e r was c o n f i r m e d b y t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t . In A p r i l 2009, t h e m a t e r n a l g r e a t - g r a n d p a r e n t s o f t h e c h i l d , G.M. P.M., and moved t o i n t e r v e n e i n t h e d e p e n d e n c y p r o c e e d i n g . maternal great-grandparents petitioned f o r custody of were the allowed child. to The intervene juvenile of the c h i l d t o the maternal aunt and court d e c l a r e d t h e c h i l d t o be d e p e n d e n t and, on S e p t e m b e r 4, awarded c u s t o d y The 2009, and u n c l e and a w a r d e d t h e m a t e r n a l g r e a t - g r a n d p a r e n t s v i s i t a t i o n based on an a g r e e m e n t o f t h e p a r t i e s . An amended j u d g m e n t r e g a r d i n g agreed-upon was holiday visitation entered on November 19, 2009. Subsequently, the maternal aunt and uncle adopted c h i l d ; t h e a d o p t i o n j u d g m e n t was e n t e r e d on J u l y 14, 2010. November 2010, the maternal complaint i n the j u v e n i l e aunt and u n c l e maternal provided held great-grandparents filed the In a c o u r t s e e k i n g t o have t h e m a t e r n a l i n contempt great-grandparents to f o r i n t h e S e p t e m b e r 4, 2 for failing exercise to permit the the visitation 2009, j u d g m e n t a n d seeking 2100273 the i m p o s i t i o n of telephone a n d summer visitation. The m a t e r n a l a u n t a n d u n c l e moved t o d i s m i s s t h e m a t e r n a l g r e a t grandparents' contempt/modification complaint, arguing i n that motion that the maternal great-grandparents had n o t been entitled to the v i s i t a t i o n t h e y were a w a r d e d i n t h e j u v e n i l e court's judgment the maternal lacked Ala. because s t a n d i n g t o seek grandparent-visitation Code 1975, § 3 0 - 3 - 4 . 1 , w h i c h t h i s authorize L.R.M. visitation v . D.M., (recognizing awards rights 962 So. 2d 864, 875 r i g h t s under § under c o u r t had h e l d d i d not to great-grandparents. that great-grandparents seek v i s i t a t i o n great-grandparents 1 See ( A l a . C i v . App. 2007) were n o t a u t h o r i z e d t o 30-3-4.1). The m a t e r n a l a u n t a n d u n c l e a l s o f i l e d what t h e y entitled a " M o t i o n t o A l t e r o r Amend" t h e S e p t e m b e r 4, 2009, j u d g m e n t , S e c t i o n 30-3-4.1 h a s s i n c e b e e n h e l d u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l b y o u r supreme c o u r t i n Ex p a r t e E.R.G., [Ms. 1090883, June 10, 2011] So. 3d ( A l a . 2 0 1 1 ) . We n o t e t h a t , as m e n t i o n e d , the maternal great-grandparents were a w a r d e d visitation pursuant t o agreements r e g a r d i n g r e g u l a r v i s i t a t i o n and h o l i d a y v i s i t a t i o n reached by t h e p a r t i e s ; those agreements were t h e n i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t s on S e p t e m b e r 4, 2009, a n d November 19, 2009. The j u v e n i l e c o u r t was e x e r c i s i n g d e p e n d e n c y j u r i s d i c t i o n , a n d i t i s a p p a r e n t from t h e r e c o r d t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t d i d n o t award t h e m a t e r n a l g r e a t - g r a n d p a r e n t s v i s i t a t i o n p u r s u a n t t o § 30-3-4.1. 1 3 2100273 s e e k i n g t o have t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t s e t a s i d e t h e September 2009, judgment, insofar as i t awarded visitation 4, to the m a t e r n a l g r e a t - g r a n d p a r e n t s , on t h e same l e g a l g r o u n d a s s e r t e d in t h e m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s ; a l t h o u g h l a b e l e d as a m o t i o n p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 59, A l a . R. C i v . P., t h e m o t i o n relied on Rule nomenclature 60(b), A l a . R. of a motion specifically C i v . P. Because i s not c o n t r o l l i n g , made s e e Ex the parte H a r t f o r d I n s . Co., 394 So. 2d 933, 935 ( A l a . 1981) ( c o n s t r u i n g a m o t i o n l a b e l e d as a " M o t i o n t o R e i n s t a t e " t o be a R u l e 6 0 ( b ) motion because for setting i t s t a t e d g r o u n d s u n d e r R u l e 6 0 ( b ) as a b a s i s aside maternal aunt seeking relief the dismissal of and u n c l e ' s motion was from t h e September the complaint), a Rule 4, 2009, the 60(b) m o t i o n judgment. The m a t e r n a l g r e a t - g r a n d p a r e n t s responded t o t h e m a t e r n a l aunt and u n c l e ' s motions by a r g u i n g f i r s t had the authority dependency (permitting dependency to jurisdiction, a juvenile award t h a t the j u v e n i l e c o u r t had them visitation A l a . Code 1975, § court c a s e t o "[m]ake making a under i t s 12-15-314(a)(4) disposition in a any o t h e r o r d e r as t h e j u v e n i l e court i n i t s d i s c r e t i o n s h a l l deem t o be f o r t h e w e l f a r e a n d best i n t e r e s t of the c h i l d " ) , and t h a t t h e p a r t i e s had agreed 4 2100273 on visitation, which agreement, argued the maternal great- g r a n d p a r e n t s , s h o u l d be e n f o r c e d . On December judgments 6, 2010, dismissing both contempt/modification uncle's motion judgment. stated the juvenile court entered complaint seeking r e l i e f postjudgment i t no longer motion directed judgment because expired and that the and from i t no contempt/modification had period the the maternal aunt September jurisdiction toward the for f i l i n g l o n g e r had complaint o p i n i o n i n Ex p a r t e T.C., two maternal great-grandparents' 4, and 2009, As t h e b a s i s f o r t h e d i s m i s s a l s , t h e j u v e n i l e that 2 the to consider September such a of 4, over this [Ms. 2090433, June 18, 2010] a 2009, motion jurisdiction because court had the court's So. We c a n n o t a g r e e t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t was w i t h o u t j u r i s d i c t i o n t o e n t e r t a i n t h e R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n f i l e d b y t h e m a t e r n a l a u n t and u n c l e b e c a u s e t h e t i m e f o r f i l i n g a R u l e 59 m o t i o n had e x p i r e d . U n l i k e a postjudgment m o t i o n made p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 59, w h i c h must be f i l e d w i t h i n 14 days o f t h e e n t r y o f t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t , see R u l e 1 ( B ) , A l a . R. Juv. P., a R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n , by i t s v e r y n a t u r e , i s d e s i g n e d t o be f i l e d a f t e r t h e j u d g m e n t has become f i n a l , i . e . , a f t e r the e x p i r a t i o n of the p e r i o d f o r f i l i n g postjudgment motions or a f t e r any s u c h m o t i o n s a r e d e n i e d . See Ex p a r t e L a n g , 500 So. 2d 3, 4 ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) ; Dubose v. Dubose, 964 So. 2d 42, 45 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 7 ) . However, t h e m a t e r n a l a u n t and u n c l e d i d n o t a p p e a l f r o m t h e d i s m i s s a l o f t h e i r R u l e 60 (b) m o t i o n , and we need n o t a d d r e s s t h i s i s s u e f u r t h e r . 2 5 2100273 3d ___ , ___ read ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 0 ) , w h i c h t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t as r e q u i r i n g t h a t visitations, custody, domestic-relations seek review " a l l petitions t o modify o r c o n t e m p t must be f i l e d court." The m a t e r n a l involving with [the] great-grandparents o f t h e judgment d i s m i s s i n g t h e i r complaint. 3 T h i s c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n i n Ex p a r t e T.C., h o w e v e r , was n o t quite so b r o a d . In our o p i n i o n , this c o m p a r e d t h e l a n g u a g e o f A l a . Code 1975, restricts child a j u v e n i l e court's continuing court considered § 12-15-117(a), which jurisdiction t o c a s e s i n w h i c h a c h i l d has been d e c l a r e d delinquent, and o r i n need o f s u p e r v i s i o n , w i t h over a dependent, the language o f f o r m e r A l a . Code 1975, § 12-12-32, w h i c h d i d n o t so r e s t r i c t the c o n t i n u i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n had b e e n b e f o r e the juvenile it. o f t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t a c h i l d who B a s e d on t h e c l e a r r e s t r i c t i o n p l a c e d on court's continuing jurisdiction by § 12-15- The maternal great-grandparents originally sought mandamus r e v i e w ; h o w e v e r , b e c a u s e t h e d i s m i s s a l o f t h e i r complaint was a f i n a l j u d g m e n t c a p a b l e o f s u p p o r t i n g an a p p e a l , we have e x e r c i s e d o u r d i s c r e t i o n t o t r e a t their p e t i t i o n f o r t h e w r i t o f mandamus a s an a p p e a l . Weaver v . Weaver, 4 So. 3d 1171, 1173 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008) ( e x e r c i s i n g this court's d i s c r e t i o n t o t r e a t a p e t i t i o n f o r the w r i t of mandamus as an a p p e a l when t h e j u d g m e n t f r o m w h i c h t h e petition s o u g h t r e l i e f was a f i n a l judgment c a p a b l e o f s u p p o r t i n g an a p p e a l ) . 3 6 2100273 117 ( a ) , t h i s court concluded i n Ex p a r t e T.C. t h a t , under 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 , A l a Code 1975, 101 § 12-15- et seq., m o d i f i c a t i o n a c t i o n s r e l a t i n g to a custody o f t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t t h a t had that a child is dependent, s u p e r v i s i o n s h o u l d be We v. C.B. , [Ms. ___ ( A l a . C i v . App. delinquent, instituted have s i n c e c l a r i f i e d J.W. n o t b e e n p r e m i s e d on a our i n the or circuit in the award finding need of court. h o l d i n g i n Ex p a r t e 2100108, F e b r u a r y 25, 2011] T.C. 3d So. in , 2011): " P u r s u a n t t o the AJJA [the Alabama J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e A c t ] , i f a j u v e n i l e c o u r t has p r e v i o u s l y a d j u d i c a t e d a c h i l d t o be d e p e n d e n t , d e l i n q u e n t , o r i n need of s u p e r v i s i o n , the j u v e n i l e c o u r t has c o n t i n u i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h a t c h i l d u n t i l the c h i l d a t t a i n s t h e age o f 21 o r u n t i l t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t t e r m i n a t e s i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n over the c h i l d . See § 1 2 - 1 5 - 1 1 7 ( a ) ; and Ex p a r t e L.N.K., [Ms. 2090965, December 3, 2010] So. 3d , (Ala. C i v . App. 2010) ('By i t s p l a i n terms, § 12-15-117(a) does not grant juvenile courts c o n t i n u i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n over c h i l d r e n unless they have b e e n " a d j u d i c a t e d d e p e n d e n t , d e l i n q u e n t , o r i n need of s u p e r v i s i o n . " ' ) . N o t h i n g i n the AJJA l i m i t s a j u v e n i l e court's continuing j u r i s d i c t i o n pursuant to § 12-15-117(a) t o p r o c e e d i n g s i n which the c h i l d i s a g a i n a l l e g e d t o be d e p e n d e n t , and n o t h i n g i n Ex parte T.C. should be construed as limiting a juvenile court's continuing j u r i s d i c t i o n i n that manner." Accordingly, we cannot agree t h a t the jurisdiction over the maternal j u v e n i l e court great-grandparents' 7 lacked complaint 2100273 b e c a u s e i t was r e q u i r e d t o be m a i n t a i n e d u n d e r Ex p a r t e i n the c i r c u i t T.C. However, we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t was jurisdiction to enforce or judgment f o r a n o t h e r r e a s o n . a settlement agreement modify custody uncle, i n which of the c h i l d and maternal the r e a c h e d between 4, 2009, the maternal a u n t and u n c l e the c h i l d was September without The j u d g m e n t a t i s s u e a r o s e g r a n d p a r e n t s and t h e m a t e r n a l proceeding court was awarded certain visitation great-grandparents. declared were Notably, great- i n a dependency dependent, to the maternal rights from aunt awarded that the and to the judgment also r e l i e v e d t h e J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s o f any f u r t h e r d u t y t o s u p e r v i s e t h e c h i l d . of t h a t judgment, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t Following the entry conducted a compliance h e a r i n g a n d e n t e r e d a November 13, 2009, j u d g m e n t i n w h i c h i t indicated "File Ordinarily, jurisdiction until closed." a juvenile o v e r a c h i l d who the c h i l d court retains continuing has b e e n a d j u d i c a t e d dependent r e a c h e s age 21; h o w e v e r , as an e x c e p t i o n t h a t r u l e , a j u v e n i l e c o u r t may t e r m i n a t e to i t s own jurisdiction o v e r a c h i l d who has been a d j u d i c a t e d d e p e n d e n t . See § 12-15- 8 2100273 117(a). The compliance its juvenile court closed or other hearings contemplated, continuing jurisdiction parties court time i t sfile sought a year to invoke later, the j u v e n i l e expired," and i t directed regarding their visitation domestic-relations have b e e n wrong jurisdiction, court. on dispute Although i t remains c l e a r of the juvenile that [the] c l o s e d the p a r t i e s as t o t h e p r o p e r When t h e court concluded order further thus t e r m i n a t i n g under § 12-15-117(a). the j u r i s d i c t i o n allowed to alter/amend w i t h no to file with the any basis case i s action appropriate the j u v e n i l e legal "the court may for declining that a l l of i t s actions from November 13, 2009, f o r w a r d s i g n a l i t s u n m i s t a k a b l e i n t e n t t o no l o n g e r a d j u d i c a t e any d i s p u t e s r e g a r d i n g t h e c u s t o d y o f t h e child, we i n c l u d i n g the v i s i t a t i o n conclude action filed that the j u v e n i l e controversy at issue. Thus, court p r o p e r l y dismissed the by t h e m a t e r n a l g r e a t - g r a n d p a r e n t s f o r l a c k o f subject-matter jurisdiction. Both p a r t i e s ' r e q u e s t s f o r t h e a w a r d o f an a t t o r n e y f e e on a p p e a l a r e d e n i e d . AFFIRMED. Thompson, P . J . , and P i t t m a n and Moore, J J . , c o n c u r . Thomas, J . , c o n c u r s specially, 9 which Bryan, J., joins. 2100273 THOMAS, J u d g e , c o n c u r r i n g I agree w i t h lacked t h e main jurisdiction 2009, judgment. specially. opinion t o enforce However, that the juvenile or modify I reach that t h e September conclusion d i f f e r e n t r e a s o n t h a n t h e one e x p r e s s e d i n t h e m a i n I cannot other agree similar continuing 1975, that that terms, t h e use o f t h e term should jurisdiction § 12-15-117(a). "file be c o n s t r u e d for a opinion. closed," or the under A l a . Code i n d i c a t i o n by a j u v e n i l e i t does n o t a n t i c i p a t e f u r t h e r 4, t o terminate of a j u v e n i l e court The court review court at i t s instance does n o t n e c e s s a r i l y f o r e c l o s e r e s u m p t i o n o f j u r i s d i c t i o n a t the instance of a party t o the proceedings. Reasons f o r c o n t i n u i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n w o u l d v a r y , d e p e n d i n g on t h e c a s e , a n d c o u l d i n c l u d e e n f o r c e m e n t o r m o d i f i c a t i o n a c t i o n s , when t h o s e actions Instead, may be p r o p e r l y instituted i n the juvenile I conclude that the e f f e c t of the adoption on t h e d e p e n d e n c y j u d g m e n t was t o t e r m i n a t e of t h e j u v e n i l e court t o enforce court. judgment the j u r i s d i c t i o n o r m o d i f y t h e S e p t e m b e r 4, 2009, j u d g m e n t . "'The r i g h t o f a d o p t i o n ... i s p u r e l y s t a t u t o r y , and was n e v e r r e c o g n i z e d b y t h e r u l e s o f common l a w . ' Hanks v . H a n k s , 281 A l a . 92, 99, 199 So. 2d 169, 176 ( 1 9 6 7 ) . ' A d o p t i o n ... i s a s t a t u s c r e a t e d 10 2100273 by t h e s t a t e a c t i n g as p a r e n s p a t r i a e , t h e s o v e r e i g n p a r e n t . ' Ex p a r t e B r o n s t e i n , 434 So. 2d [780,] 781 [(Ala. 1983)]." Ex p a r t e D.W., 835 Ala. § 26-10A-29(a), " [ a ] f t e r a d o p t i o n , the adoptee Code 1975, s h a l l be 2d 186, and After uncle S e p t e m b e r 4, no the ( A l a . 2002). status comes the Steed, D o u g l a s v. had Pursuant of the adopting adoption, custody by the to parent maternal virtue of the 2009, j u d g m e n t ; t h e y became t h e n a t u r a l p a r e n t s c h i l d by v i r t u e v. judgment of longer of the Steed 190 t r e a t e d as t h e n a t u r a l c h i l d or p a r e n t s . " aunt So. of the superior 877 So. Harrelson, right 2d 454 adoption 602, So. to custody that the child. 2003); 984, 986 child and of With ( A l a . C i v . App. 605 2d judgment. (Ala. Civ. App. 1984). The changed statuses of a u n t and u n c l e a r e p i v o t a l . Ex parte Bronstein, 434 " [ a ] d o p t i o n i s not merely the of the maternal As o u r supreme c o u r t e x p l a i n e d i n So. 2d 780, 781-82 (Ala. 1983), an a r r a n g e m e n t b e t w e e n t h e n a t u r a l and a d o p t i v e p a r e n t s , b u t i t i s a s t a t u s c r e a t e d by t h e s t a t e acting as adoption child parens patriae, the sovereign j u d g m e n t , i n c r e a t i n g t h e new and the maternal aunt 11 and parent l e g a l s t a t u s e s of uncle, extinguished The the the 2100273 v i s i t a t i o n rights of the maternal great-grandparents p r o v i d e d i n t h e S e p t e m b e r 4, 2009, j u d g m e n t . v. Rado, Sup. one 54 Misc. C t . 1967) that custody a and 2d 843, 845, See P e o p l e ex r e l . L e v i n e 283 N.Y.S.2d 483, ( h o l d i n g i n a case remarkably previous a court maternal order awarding grandmother 485 similar a (N.Y. to this paternal aunt visitation rights was e x t i n g u i s h e d by t h e a d o p t i o n o f t h e c h i l d by t h e p a t e r n a l a u n t and her husband w r o u g h t by the based on adoption). the permanent This result c u s t o d y and v i s i t a t i o n j u d g m e n t was status but was instead custodial situation a change determination s e r v i n g the best i n t e r e s t As our of of the c h i l d supreme court "[B]y i t s v e r y n a t u r e , custody i s always temporary and n e v e r p e r m a n e n t . A l t h o u g h t h e t e m p o r a r y c u s t o d y o f a c h i l d may have b e e n p l a c e d w i t h someone, t h e c o u r t always r e t a i n s j u r i s d i c t i o n to modify custody under the a p p r o p r i a t e c i r c u m s t a n c e s . T h i s i s t o say t h a t temporary c u s t o d y i s a c t u a l l y permanent c u s t o d y s u b j e c t t o change." 641 So. 2d 276, 12 278 ( A l a . 1994). the at which i s explained: Ex p a r t e J . P . , the n o t a p e r m a n e n t change o f temporary subject to modification. status o b t a i n s because t h e t i m e and u n d e r t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s t h e n e x i s t i n g , always in has 2100273 The not s t a t u s t h a t an a d o p t i o n j u d g m e n t c o n v e y s , h o w e v e r , i s subject to circumstances. modification Although i n c i d e n t to a divorce new an a a new relating not action changed determine to of custody or to prove dependency of a c h i l d under action. A survive or the else change Although e a r l i e r 166, 190 So. in i t would a d o p t i o n j u d g m e n t and 163, previous t o a c h i l d b a s e d on judgment the enforce prevent status undermine a c t i o n would dependency order former s t a t u s could wrought the by the permanency like E v a n s v. Rosser, 718-19 ( 1 9 6 6 ) , and against of the oust the 280 i n d i c a t e t h a t the j u v e n i l e court Ala. t h e c a s e on w h i c h of adoption jurisdiction to i t s 2009 j u d g m e n t s , I do not b e l i e v e t h a t t h o s e c a s e s the conclusion I reach. Evans does state [ t h e power of t h e t o w i t h d r a w c u s t o d y f r o m a n a t u r a l or a d o p t i v e do adoption s t a t u s i t conveys. " [ a ] d o p t i o n proceedings cannot defeat court or h i s or her cases, 2d 716, custody r e l i e s , might, at f i r s t g l a n c e , judgment d i d not and showing c i r c u m s t a n c e s c o u l d a f f e c t t h a t s t a t u s , the be it upon not judicially determine a natural parent," 280 the right A l a . a t 166, 190 of So. equity parent], custody 2d a t h o w e v e r , t h a t p a r t i c u l a r s t a t e m e n t o f law a p p e a r s t o be 13 that as 719; dicta, 2100273 because that i t was the not adoption r e q u i r e d to decree without the consent of the c h i l d 190 So. 2d relies, under 718. In indicates quotation In addition, that i s the word Praytor, the holding properly was court's entered had " ' l o s t divorce proceedings.'" P r a y t o r v . C o l e , 247 (1945), review o f t h e f a t h e r , who through at support our the the key 280 260, word A l a . at upon case A l a . 259, guardianship which 23 in So. sought prevent that jurisdiction at 259, 23 supreme pending from the court particular considered child. adoption if an the child in circuit court from whether exercising over the custody of the c h i l d . 2d exercising 2d of a t 713. The adoption proceeding importance So. circuit So. an before the to Ala. the proceeding a t 713. adoption 259-60, holding had Under the petitioner 23 concluded. 1940 So. 14 the 2d the 247 to the that at 713. fact satisfaction of Of that 260, adoption the court custody A l a . at v e r s i o n of the proved equity the c i r c u i t over i n P r a y t o r was not its would P r a y t o r , 247 A l a . d i d not p r e v e n t at court, Praytor court decided i t s equity jurisdiction 247 713 "proceedings." custody the Evans 2d 713, a d o p t i o n p r o c e e d i n g , begun by m a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s father 165, the 23 code, of the 2100273 probate of court that the order child, an the probate r e g a r d i n g the at basis least by the an one official precursor Resources. to Ala. a final the c h i l d had year and from what had adoption visited Department now 1940 , the T i t . 27, § that the custody d e t e r m i n e d by t h e c i r c u i t power over 2d at the custody of a the of Human Because the the c o u r t p r o p e r l y child could still be court exercising i t s inherent equity of the c h i l d . 247 A l a . a t 260, situation i n the present case 23 So. than is different s i t u a t i o n s p r e s e n t e d i n e i t h e r Evans or P r a y t o r . this case appeared decree to has been determine, d i d not concluded. in dicta, "judicially h o l d i n g was Although that determine a g a i n s t a n a t u r a l p a r e n t , " 280 that Welfare, the 713. The in quarterly Public 4. could petitioner Department a d o p t i o n had not been c o n c l u d e d i n P r a y t o r , determined decree on of interest interlocutory r e s i d e d w i t h the been the is Code i n the best c o u r t c o u l d e n t e r an adoption; n o t be e n t e r e d u n t i l for a d o p t i o n w o u l d be even the q u e s t i o n a b l e then under the p r e s e n t a d o p t i o n code. 15 and the a right A l a . a t 166, The 190 Evans final court adoption of custody So. 2d a t is clearly Although adoption a pending as 719, incorrect adoption 2100273 proceeding parties, does not d e t e r m i n e a completed necessarily Section a adoption reduced determine the custody 26-10A-29 responsibilities spouse of the custody clearly rights to a f i n a l rights states adopting judgment does of a n a t u r a l parent. that the stepparent, rights and i n the case of the n a t u r a l parents, except an of competing of are terminated. C o l l a t e r a l a t t a c k s a g a i n s t an a d o p t i o n a r e l i m i t e d t o a p e r i o d of one year, kidnapped The which Code of cases where of fraud. an the adoptee A l a . Code 1975, § adoption judgment under code i s i n s t a r k c o n t r a s t t o e a r l i e r permitted parents in or i n cases finality adoption except either to p e t i t i o n 1907, § 5202; Alabama Code, parents parents developed were A l a . Code to unaware 1923, the § the their the where Even duties conditions. on E v a n s a n d o l d e r c a s e s to where 1940, 16 1940 adopting the child parent the or child T i t . 27, i s problematic, because of t h e changes i n our a d o p t i o n code over or See A l a . i n the the adopting A l a . Code codes, parent annulled. possibility, present adoption adopting 9308. been 26-10A-25. c o u l d be s e t a s i d e i f t h e perform of or the adoption or, i n situations certain Reliance child t o have the adoption failed "faithfully" the has § 4. partly the years and 2100273 partly because equity powers inherent e.g., of power limited situations courts. unlike is outlined T.B. v. extremely K . L . P . , 868 T.H., does court's 2d not 454, preclude and judgment, the Allowing child the which the 3d rights which means arises only creating 431 in the the juvenile App. and 2003). the those Civ. also that its statute of see by that in (Ala. creatures conclusion Ex parte Therefore, the juvenile entry maternal of the aunt and statuses of p a r e n t s and child. court entertain the maternal awarded judgment w o u l d undermine the is The the 429, to g r e a t - g r a n d p a r e n t s ' contempt c l a i m visitation (1933). over and created juvenile 675 of ( A l a . C i v . App. new See, court purely my court children. of jurisdiction."); 456 the a statute are on that court, statute, So. give So. 2009 j u d g m e n t s were e x t i n g u i s h e d adoption the 147 part its jurisdiction derives 30 courts which circuit the large custody inherent in in court, A l a . 468, from limited So. rely the the that not ("Juvenile Evans 226 children jurisdiction have determine jurisdiction of also circuit Price, court, custody 2009) cases the to W r i g h t v. juvenile uncle those and in status 17 to p o t e n t i a l l y the of September the 4, enforce 2009, maternal aunt and 2100273 u n c l e as a d o p t i v e p a r e n t s , who natural parents. h a v e , by s t a t u t e , t h e r i g h t s o f Those r i g h t s i n c l u d e , i n most c i r c u m s t a n c e s , the r i g h t to r e f u s e v i s i t a t i o n w i t h the c h i l d ' s or other t h i r d p a r t i e s . grandparents I n an a d o p t i o n by anyone o t h e r than a stepparent, the n a t u r a l parents l o s e a l l p a r e n t a l r i g h t s the adoptee. a § 26-10A-29(b). relationship natural So. a right to the parents' relationship relationships 434 or Thus, a l l o t h e r s who 2d and at rights 782. to to the As child the child. explained by by child Ex the may virtue claim of also lose to the their parte Bronstein, Bronstein court, " a d o p t i o n , l i k e b i r t h c r e a t e s l e g a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s under which the adoptive parents gain certain r i g h t s which pre-empt v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s by n a t u r a l p a r e n t s o r g r a n d p a r e n t s . " any Id. at 783. I note t h a t the maternal great-grandparents' i n s o f a r as i t s o u g h t a d d i t i o n a l v i s i t a t i o n be maintained in great-grandparents seeking those the juvenile lacked rights. court standing Although to rights, because Ala. Code 1975, § institute the not maternal an n a t u r a l grandparents 26-10A-30, 18 could the awarded p o s t a d o p t i o n v i s i t a t i o n i n c e r t a i n r e l a t i v e see complaint, action may be adoptions, maternal great- 2100273 grandparents do not grandparents" contained i n that juvenile c o u r t would adoption judgment over permit court, adoption proceedings, action. 1990), Thus, Palmer r e v ' d on the v. within statute; visitation which has term other grounds, 574 § the 26-10A-30, jurisdiction forum f o r such 2d 42 (Ala. Civ. So. 2d 44 g r e a t - g r a n d p a r e n t s , i n my the to modify exclusive So. "natural i n addition, under i s the proper B o l t o n , 574 maternal the have l a c k e d j u r i s d i c t i o n to because the probate fall an App. ( A l a . 1990). opinion, lack s t a n d i n g t o s e e k an a w a r d o f g r a n d p a r e n t v i s i t a t i o n u n d e r t h e adoption code. Although jurisdiction 4 the juvenile court o v e r t h e S e p t e m b e r 4, may have had continuing 2009, j u d g m e n t u n t i l e n t r y of the a d o p t i o n judgment, I c o n c l u d e t h a t the court lacked j u r i s d i c t i o n provisions judgment of t h a t because to enforce or modify the judgment a f t e r of the maternal and juvenile visitation the e n t r y of the aunt the uncle's adoption changed As n o t e d i n t h e m a i n o p i n i o n , i n Ex p a r t e E.R.G., [Ms. 1090883, June 10, 2011] So. 3d ( A l a . 2011), our supreme court h e l d A l a . Code 1975, § 30-3-4.1, the grandparent-visitation statute, unconstitutional. Therefore, I d e c l i n e t o a d d r e s s t h e m a t e r n a l a u n t and u n c l e ' s argument t h a t the maternal great-grandparents a l s o l a c k e d s t a n d i n g to pursue v i s i t a t i o n under t h a t s t a t u t e . 4 19 2100273 s t a t u s as a d o p t i v e p a r e n t s , p r o v i d i n g them a s u p e r i o r r i g h t t o custody of the child, and because the maternal great- g r a n d p a r e n t s no l o n g e r have any b a s i s upon w h i c h t o p r e d i c a t e a right to seek v i s i t a t i o n with the child i n the juvenile court. To a l l o w t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t t o r e t a i n j u r i s d i c t i o n enforce or modify the j u d g m e n t w o u l d do adoption code p r o v i s i o n s of violence and would to the the September spirit infringe on and the 4, 2009, letter of probate to the court's e x c l u s i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n t o award g r a n d p a r e n t v i s i t a t i o n i n the l i m i t e d circumstances because this court the complaint So. juvenile judgment 790 affirm a the foregoing trial by considered, Byrom v. Byrom, ("[A]n a p p e l l a t e judgment even great-grandparents' See 2007) record, or the reasons. court's the judgment of dismissing ( A l a . C i v . App. ground presented g r o u n d was affirm court f o r the 3d 783, 'may the juvenile may Therefore, v a l i d l e g a l ground, I would a f f i r m the c o u r t on any of p r o v i d e d f o r i n § 26-10A-30. on regardless i f i t was trial c o u r t . " ' " ) ; see a l s o F e r g u s o n v. Inc., 910 96 ( A l a . 2005) trial court's] on a ground d i f f e r e n t So. 2d 85, ruling 20 "any of court valid legal whether that r e j e c t e d , by B a p t i s t Health ("While we 47 Sys., affirm from the the [the ground 2100273 cited by exceptions the not trial applicable judgment o f t h e t r i a l any v a l i d l e g a l Bryan, court, this in this Court, case, subject can only affirm c o u r t i f t h a t judgment i s s u p p o r t e d ground."). J . , concurs. 21 to the by

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.