P.A. and M.A. v. L.S. (Appeal from Escambia Juvenile Court: JU-07-85.03)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL: 8/12/2011 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 SPECIAL TERM, 2011 2100321 P.A. and M.A. v. L.S. 2100322 P.A. and M.A. v. L.S. Appeals from Escambia J u v e n i l e Court (JU-07-85.03 and JU-08-159.02) THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g Judge. On D e c e m b e r 1 7 , 2 0 0 9 , L . S . ( " t h e m o t h e r " ) f i l e d in the j u v e n i l e court seeking petitions a m o d i f i c a t i o n o f custody of her 2100321 and two 2100322 children, A.P. and K.P. In the mother a l l e g e d t h a t the an order their pertaining paternal grandfather. to petitions seeking children. The counsel On at an each paternal custody-modification an child ore and award of 2010, the on custody The mother. postjudgment motions The grandparents paternal consolidated On juvenile standard 1984). in this appeal, the court erred that P.A., paternal they step- the longer pro se of the represented by of each petitions. d e p e n d e n t " and paternal were denied timely mother's filed custody" were entered to juvenile court entered "no the custody opposed the and "full petitions, earlier their grandparents f i n d i n g t h a t e a c h c h i l d was to M.A., grandparents tenus hearing D e c e m b e r 8, awarding petitions, paternal modification j u v e n i l e c o u r t had grandmother, The her judgments awarding grandparents filed operation of law. appeals were by appealed. The court. paternal in set forth i n Ex This court has grandparents failing apply the M c L e n d o n , 455 parte to argue So. that evidentiary 2d 863 explained: " I n E x p a r t e M c L e n d o n , . .. o u r s u p r e m e court h e l d t h a t the proper standard t o be applied in child-custody c a s e s w h e r e i n a p a r e n t has either v o l u n t a r i l y f o r f e i t e d c u s t o d y o r has lost custody 2 the (Ala. 2100321 and 2100322 due t o a p r i o r j u d g m e n t i s w h e t h e r t h e r e h a s b e e n a m a t e r i a l change i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s s i n c e the prior judgment; whether a change in custody will m a t e r i a l l y promote the best i n t e r e s t s of the c h i l d ; and w h e t h e r t h e b e n e f i t s o f t h e change i n c u s t o d y will more t h a n o f f s e t the i n h e r e n t l y disruptive e f f e c t caused by u p r o o t i n g the c h i l d . 455 S o . 2d [ 8 6 3 , ] 865 [ ( A l a . 1 9 8 4 ) ] . " Barber v . M o o r e , 897 The paternal j u v e n i l e c o u r t had, custody" McLendon So. 2d ( A l a . C i v . App. argue that, in t h e m o t h e r was seeking to 2004). because i n e a r l i e r o r d e r s , awarded them standard With 1153 grandparents of the c h i l d r e n , children. 1150, the "temporary r e q u i r e d t o meet modify regard to those e a r l i e r custody the of the orders, the record on a p p e a l i n d i c a t e s t h a t , i n 2007, t h e E s c a m b i a County Department of Human R e s o u r c e s A.P. declared judgment awarding on modify court and June 27, The that juvenile finding custody of A.P. seeking court t o be her to to but, i n February petition. "temporary" Also order finding custody grandparents. 3 in dependent the of February him t o be to the a and paternal 2009, t h e K.P. have entered mother l a t e r p e t i t i o n e d the j u v e n i l e c o u r t e n t e r e d an awarding a petition The 2007, c u s t o d y o f A.P., denied juvenile dependent. "temporary" grandparents. to ("DHR") f i l e d court juvenile 2009, the dependent paternal 2100321 and This custody 2100322 court order has as explained the effect of a "temporary" follows: "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 i s an o r d e r t h a t is effective only during the pendency of the litigation i n an existing case and is usually r e p l a c e d by t h e e n t r y o f a f i n a l judgment. Hodge v. S t e i n w i n d e r , 919 So. 2 d 1 1 7 9 , 1182 (Ala. Civ. App. 2005). Pendente l i t e custody orders allow a t r i a l c o u r t to take i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n developments i n the l i v e s o f t h e c h i l d and t h e p a r t i e s t h a t n a t u r a l l y o c c u r d u r i n g t h e gap i n t i m e b e t w e e n t h e f i l i n g o f an a c t i o n and t h e f i n a l h e a r i n g i n t h e m a t t e r . Id. "However, a 'temporary custody award' or a ' t e m p o r a r y o r d e r ' as t o c u s t o d y i s a ' f i n a l ' custody award or j u d g m e n t . D e s p i t e i t s name, a t e m p o r a r y o r d e r as t o c u s t o d y i s i n t e n d e d t o r e m a i n e f f e c t i v e until a party seeks to modify i t . I t may be m o d i f i e d i f the t r i a l c o u r t reviews the case and determines t h a t changed circumstances that warrant a m o d i f i c a t i o n h a v e come i n t o e x i s t e n c e s i n c e the l a s t custody award. 919 So. 2d a t 1 1 8 2 - 8 3 . S u c h an award i s not a pendente l i t e award. Id." T.J.H. v. See S.N.F., 960 a l s o R i c h v. R i c h , 2004) (plurality awards In case 2d 669, 887 So. 2d opinion) of pendente a So. lite 289, ( A l a . C i v . App. 299-302 ( d i s c u s s i n g the custody involving our 672 custody order, supreme seeking to modify that order the and are 4 (Ala. Civ. temporary has held App. d i f f e r e n c e between modification court 2006). custody). of that a the r e q u i r e d t o meet t h e temporary parties McLendon 2100321 and 2100322 standard. Ex parte supreme c o u r t J.P., 641 So. 2d 276 (Ala. 1994). The explained: " 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 been p l a c e d w i t h someone, t h e c o u r t a l w a y s 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 circumstances. This i s to say that temporary custody i s a c t u a l l y permanent custody subject to change. T h e r e m u s t be a s e n s e o f f i n a l i t y t o c h i l d placement, but t h a t placement i s always subject to c h a n g e b y t h e c o u r t when t h e f a c t s a n d l a w before the c o u r t i n d i c a t e t h a t a change i s r e q u i r e d . " 641 So. 2d When custody to at a 278 juvenile of that custody standard in order C.B., So. 3d 12 So. 681 this So. 3d court added). has a dependent c h i l d modify 56 (emphasis 1217, 2 d 208 court dependent to 693, 1219-20 and custody of ( A l a . C i v . App. awarding 1996). custody to award i s McLendon s t a n d a r d judgment meet the the order a seeking McLendon child. J.W. 2 0 1 0 ) ; M.B. I n M.B. awarding a parent 2 0 0 9 ) ; and t h a t , e v e n when an i n d i c a t i o n s t h a t the custody must meet t h e must ( A l a . C i v . App. ( A l a . C i v . App. explained a a relative, judgment regain 699 to entered v. v. a child contains "temporary," the parent i n a subsequent m o d i f i c a t i o n proceeding: "We t h a t the a l s o n o t e t h a t , e v e n i f we h a d concluded j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s J u l y 26, 2006, o r d e r c o u l d 5 F.W. supra, finding relative S.B., In re S.B., v. 2100321 and 2100322 p r o p e r l y be c o n s i d e r e d t o b e a t e m p o r a r y o r d e r , t h a t c o n c l u s i o n would not s u p p o r t the mother's argument t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t was not r e q u i r e d to apply the McLendon standard in ruling on her custody-modification petition. See A . L . v. S.J., 827 So. 2d 828, 834-35 (Ala. Civ. App. 2002) ( q u o t i n g C.G. v . C.G., 594 So. 2d 147, 149 (Ala. C i v . App. 1 9 9 1 ) ) ( ' " [ T ] e m p o r a r y c u s t o d y a w a r d s , as opposed to pendente lite awards, are generally i n t e n d e d t o l a s t u n t i l t h e c o u r t i s p e t i t i o n e d by one of the p a r t i e s to modify the [judgment] and c o n s t i t u t e f i n a l o r d e r s f r o m w h i c h an a p p e a l may l i e to t h i s c o u r t . " ' ) . " 12 So. 3d In at 1219-20 this case, n.3. prior orders of d i v e s t e d the mother of custody of her "temporary" grandparents. custody of Those 1 the properly S.N.F., court supra. erred McLendon filed in failing standard in her to to we the petitions. require the modification paternal contain no orders modification See T.J.H. that the mother to actions. had awarded custody to possible conclude court had orders were p e n d e n t e l i t e modification Accordingly, c h i l d r e n and custody r a t h e r than awards of c u s t o d y s u b j e c t upon juvenile children earlier i n d i c a t i o n that those orders the We v. juvenile meet the reverse As our supreme c o u r t has o b s e r v e d , " [ s ] e m a n t i c a l l y , t h i s e n t i r e m a t t e r w o u l d be s i m p l e r i f a l l c o u r t s d e c l i n e d t o u s e t h e p h r a s e ' t e m p o r a r y c u s t o d y ' and s i m p l y u s e d ' p e n d e n t e l i t e ' o r ' c u s t o d y ' as t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s r e q u i r e . " Ex p a r t e J.P., 641 So. 2 d a t 278. 1 6 2100321 and 2100322 the judgments and remand t h e causes f o r the juvenile court to r e c o n s i d e r i t s judgments i n l i g h t o f t h e proper a p p l i c a t i o n o f the McLendon s t a n d a r d t o t h e f a c t s of this case. 2100321 REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. 2100322 REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Pittman, Moore, Bryan, a n d Thomas, J . , concurs J J . , concur. i n the result, with 7 writing. 2100321 a n d 2100322 MOORE, J u d g e , I concur L.M.D., concurring i n the result. i n the result. As I explained [Ms. 2 1 0 0 4 6 6 , J u l y 2 2 , 2 0 1 1 ] So. 3d C i v . App. 2011) (Moore, J . , c o n c u r r i n g juvenile order court places a child the public mandates that policy the parent a juvenile court ceases. determines and awards c u s t o d y i nthe result), family custody that when a reunification when t h e need f o r On t h e o t h e r continuing f a m i l y r e u n i f i c a t i o n no l o n g e r s e r v e child (Ala. the parental-rehabilitation favoring regain temporary p r o t e c t i v e custody , v. temporarily with a nonparent i n t o protect the child during process, i n D.E.F. the best of the child to end t h e dependency o f t h e c h i l d , hand, efforts when toward interests of the t o a nonparent i n order that final dispositional j u d g m e n t may b e m o d i f i e d o n l y b y s a t i s f y i n g t h e m o r e s t r i n g e n t standard 1984). the set forth D.E.F., So. 3d a t carefully no l a n g u a g e intended K.P. M c L e n d o n, 455 So. 2 d 863 (Moore, (Ala. J . ,concurring i n result). After find i n Ex p a r t e reviewing indicating t h e two judgments that t h e Escambia Juvenile t h a t P.A. a n d M.A. w o u l d e x e r c i s e c u s t o d y only f o r protective purposes 8 during at issue, I Court o f A.P. a n d the parental- 2100321 and 2100322 rehabilitation language and i n the f a m i l y - r e u n i f i c a t i o nprocess. judgments t h a t i n t e n t w o u l d be the reference to the arguably awarded. custody i s , i n a s e n s e , t e m p o r a r y , and, to of be that the main o p i n i o n p o i n t s out, term does not i n t e r i m or signal imply that of the however, a l l the custody is So. intended 3d . be final dispositional judgments, s u b j e c t to m o d i f i c a t i o n only through For court the erred the McLendon foregoing in failing standard. reasons, to apply due juvenile to be court reversed to apply and that I the custody-modification proceedings are to at I of judgments the Accordingly, satisfaction those an under Alabama law, c o n d i t i o n a l i n nature. consider only such "temporary" nature custody use As could The agree causes standard. 9 the juvenile McLendon s t a n d a r d b e l o w and the that in the t h a t i t s judgments remanded for the
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.
