J.A.W. and T.L.W. v. G.H.

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL: 05/27/2011 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, 2010-2011 2100286 J.A.W. and T.L.W. v. G.H. Appeal from Etowah J u v e n i l e Court (JU-10-135.01) THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e . T h i s m a t t e r came b e f o r e this c o u r t b y way o f a p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus. The m a t e r i a l s s u b m i t t e d indicate 2010, f o l l o w i n g t h e b i r t h ("the that i nApril tothis court o f E.R.H. c h i l d " ) , t h e E t o w a h 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 2100286 ("DHR") f i l e d juvenile a petition court") i n t h e Etowah J u v e n i l e C o u r t ("the a l l e g i n g that the c h i l d was d e p e n d e n t . In i t s d e p e n d e n c y a c t i o n , DHR a l l e g e d t h a t t h e c h i l d ' s m o t h e r was facing c r i m i n a l charges r e l a t e d t o the death o f one o f t h e c h i l d ' s s i b l i n g s a n d t h a t G.H., t h e c h i l d ' s f a t h e r , h a d t e s t e d positive f o r t h e use o f i l l e g a l medications entered an o r d e r finding the c h i l d The a l l e g a t i o n s o f t h e p a r t i e s working with hearing been report prepared The dependent. i n d i c a t e t h a t DHR b e g a n the f a t h e r toward r e u n i f i c a t i o n with the child. f o r an O c t o b e r 28, 2 0 1 0 , r e v i e w i n d i c a t e s , among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h a t t h e f a t h e r h a d n o t compliant social and p r e s c r i p t i o n f o r w h i c h he d i d n o t have a p r e s c r i p t i o n . j u v e n i l e court A DHR c o u r t drugs with goals worker assigned established t o t h e c h i l d ' s c a s e recommended DHR f i l e a p e t i t i o n t o t e r m i n a t e to the c h i l d . b y DHR a n d t h a t t h e that the parents' parental r i g h t s 1 W h i l e t h e d e p e n d e n c y a c t i o n was p e n d i n g i n t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t , J.A.W. a n d T.L.W., t h e c h i l d ' s f o s t e r p a r e n t s , f i l e d an A t t h e time o f t h a t c o u r t r e p o r t , t h e mother h a d been sentenced t o s e v e r a l p r i s o n terms f o r f e l o n y charges r e l a t e d to t h e death o f t h e c h i l d ' s s i b l i n g , i n c l u d i n g a 20-year sentence f o r a g g r a v a t e d c h i l d abuse. 1 2 2100286 action in seeking to adopt the c h i l d . court the entered Etowah an Probate Court final i n t e r l o c u t o r y order dispositional ordered that notice hearing of the to the On court motion proceeding probate other with court. things, t h a t DHR be the foster parents, for December adoption The probate the to enjoin that 30, The that he was filed the 2010, be the parents and from in alleged, cooperating" e s t a b l i s h e d by DHR a juvenile pending father "fully served court. i n the then and father f i l e d foster action motion, probate scheduled proceeding father adoption In the among with the t h a t , at the last t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t had d e n i e d a r e c o m m e n d a t i o n allowed rights. 2010, seeking r e u n i f i c a t i o n goals review hearing, the a d o p t i o n p r o c e e d i n g i n the probate December 20, a 2010, court"), of a d o p t i o n i n which i t p u r s u a n t t o § 26-10A-17, A l a . Code 1975. contest probate On November 18, g r a n t e d custody of the c h i l d t o the a ("the father to seek the foster parents juvenile court from not file the the f a t h e r f i l e d h i s motion to e n j o i n the entered an order 3 in similar the motion parental in proceeding a of h i s court. On t h e same day did termination probate purporting to court, the enjoin the 2100286 foster parents from " p r o c e e d i n g with the adoption [action] f i l e d " i n t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t and p u r p o r t i n g t o o r d e r t h e f o s t e r parents t o c o o p e r a t e w i t h DHR's e f f o r t s t o r e u n i t e t h e f a t h e r and t h e c h i l d . court also I n t h a t December 20, 2010, o r d e r , t h e j u v e n i l e specified that the f o s t e r parents' failure comply w i t h t h a t o r d e r would r e s u l t i n a contempt The parties evidence hearing agree that at the scheduled i n the adoption participated i n that the probate a c t i o n and t h a t hearing. relief of the c h i l d . from adoption. court's We make no c o n c l u s i o n f o s t e r parents court lacked order purporting adoption parents received the foster 3 0 , 2010, t h e the foster parents' d i d n o t seek judgment appellate approving a determination jurisdiction to enjoin to enter them a c t i o n i n the probate that i t s December from proceeding court. court, the j u v e n i l e Although 20, 2010, with their the f o s t e r f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus i n t h i s 4 the the adoption. f o r a w r i t o f mandamus t o t h i s seek parents as t o t h e p r o p r i e t y o f t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t ' s judgment approving the court On December The f a t h e r the probate In their petition finding. December 3 0 , 2010, d i s p o s i t i o n a l p r o b a t e c o u r t e n t e r e d a judgment approving adoption to court, 2100286 the proper method circumstances Bd. , 45 the So. i s by 3d appropriate of obtaining t a k i n g an 751, 754 appeal. ( A l a . 2010) e l e c t e d to t r e a t the The parte these State Pers. when t h e activity Accordingly, t h i s court petition has for a writ of However, we appeal. their raise several jurisdictional Under c e r t a i n circumstances, order " r e s t r a i n i n g the j u v e n i l e c o u r t has Code 1975 under (holding that appeal i s f o s t e r parents' f o s t e r parents conclude that Ex method o f a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w o f a n o n p a r t y has b e e n e n j o i n e d ) . mandamus as an review a (emphasis a d d e d ) . argument i s j u v e n i l e court conduct obtained issues. of any party jurisdiction." The 2 dispositive. may enter over whom an the § 12-15-131, A l a . f o s t e r parents argue that t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t l a c k e d j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r them b e c a u s e , t h e y contend, they pending i n the were not parties to the dependency action juvenile court. The f o s t e r p a r e n t s a l s o p o i n t o u t t h a t § 12-15-131 r e q u i r e s t h a t t h e y be a f f o r d e d n o t i c e o f t h e f a t h e r ' s m o t i o n and an o p p o r t u n i t y t o be h e a r d on t h a t m o t i o n ; t h e y c o n t e n d t h e y were a f f o r d e d n e i t h e r . However, b e c a u s e we r e s o l v e t h i s a p p e a l on o t h e r g r o u n d s , we p r e t e r m i t d i s c u s s i o n o f t h a t issue. 2 5 2100286 The the S t a t e J u d i c i a l I n f o r m a t i o n S y s t e m ("SJIS") r e p o r t dependency action attorney f i l e d a notice indicates that the foster for parents' o f appearance i n t h e j u v e n i l e court. However, t h e f o s t e r p a r e n t s d i d n o t move t o i n t e r v e n e i n t h e dependency action, a n d no p a r t y t o t h e dependency s o u g h t t o j o i n t h e f o s t e r p a r e n t s as p a r t i e s . SJIS indicates making that the foster the juvenile parents pending i n the j u v e n i l e The the parties court Nothing i n the entered any t o t h e dependency order action court. f a t h e r concedes i n h i s submissions t o t h i s c o u r t f o s t e r p a r e n t s were n o t p a r t i e s in the juvenile parents action were court. t o t h e dependency However, he c o n t e n d s t h a t "voluntary participants" that action the foster i n the r e u n i f i c a t i o n p r o c e s s d e s i g n e d b y DHR a n d i n t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t p r o c e e d i n g s arising from argues, the foster juvenile court's j u r i s d i c t i o n . As DHR's dependency parents petition. "availed the foster parents point Thus, the themselves" father of the We c a n n o t a g r e e . out, i n B.V. v. Macon 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 , 14 So. 3d 1 7 1 , 175 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 9 ) , t h i s c o u r t h e l d t h a t f o s t e r p a r e n t s who h a d f a i l e d t o i n t e r v e n e i n a d e p e n d e n c y a c t i o n were n o t p a r t i e s 6 to that 2100286 action. So. See 2d a l s o Duncan v. 270, intervene 273-74 (appellants who p a r t i e s before c o u r t ) ; C o m m i t t e e Comments on 1973 Adoption necessary Tipton, Ex Personnel of the the 1 F.R.D. 694 parte State based compensation p l a n ; entered, that claims becomes Tenn. grant the supra, allowed therefore, held litigation below. because the to that party. the pertaining to State employees a deferred- a defendant, The among trial Board's motion to i n t e r v e n e , but i t t h i n g s , an o r d e r p u r p o r t i n g t o Our Ala. course, a Employees A s s o c i a t i o n . issue litigation. w r i t o f mandamus. been trial 1941)."). Board, a c t i o n named as a u t h o r i t y to r e l a t e d to the that, on among o t h e r Board's not (E.D. not o f R u l e 24, intervenor Personnel the Alabama S t a t e c o u r t d i d not the the B o a r d s o u g h t t o i n t e r v e n e i n an a c t i o n by State others, would-be 573 did order a u t h o r i z i n g i n t e r v e n t i o n i s , of before Cowan v. In ("An action 1990) not C i v . P. an (Ala. N a t ' l Bank o f J a s p e r , were R. in First The certain discovery restrict subpoenas Board f i l e d a p e t i t i o n for a supreme c o u r t n o t e d t h a t t h e B o a r d intervene in the was Board Accordingly, B o a r d was not 7 the the not trial a court party supreme c o u r t a party to the to had and, the concluded litigation 2100286 pending i n the t r i a l to restrict process." In were court, the t r i a l t h e Board's actions c o u r t " h a d no a u t h o r i t y through the discovery Ex p a r t e S t a t e P e r s . B d . , 45 So. 3 d a t 755. this case, i ti s undisputed that the foster parents n o t p a r t i e s t o t h e dependency a c t i o n i n t h e j u v e n i l e court. See B.V. v. Macon C o u n t y Dep't o f Human R e s . , A c c o r d i n g l y , we c o n c l u d e supra. 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 have j u r i s d i c t i o n t o e n t e r i t s December 20, 2010, o r d e r p u r p o r t i n g to enjoin the actions of the foster parents. Pers. Bd., s u p r a . person, Full When a c o u r t lacks Ex p a r t e jurisdiction any o r d e r d i r e c t e d a t t h a t p e r s o n i s v o i d . Circle Distrib., State over Ex p a r t e L L C , 883 So. 2d 638, 644 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) ; M.M. v . B.L., 926 So. 2d 1038, 1042 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2005) . v o i d o r d e r o r judgment w i l l Sears, a not support an a p p e a l . A Jones v. R o e b u c k & Co., 342 So. 2 d 16, 17 ( A l a . 1 9 7 7 ) ; M.M. v . B.L., s u p r a . A c c o r d i n g l y , we d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l the j u v e n i l e c o u r t t o vacate APPEAL DISMISSED WITH i t s December and i n s t r u c t 20, 2010, o r d e r . INSTRUCTIONS. Pittman and Bryan, J J . , concur. Thomas a n d Moore, J J . , concur writings. 8 i n the r e s u l t , without

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.