L.R.J. v. C.F.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 07/15/2011 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 2100437 L.R.J. v. C.F. Appeal from Montgomery J u v e n i l e Court (JU-10-49.01) MOORE, Judge. L.R.J. ("the m o t h e r " ) a p p e a l s from a judgment o f the Montgomery J u v e n i l e C o u r t ("the j u v e n i l e c o u r t " ) t o t h e e x t e n t 2100437 that i t awarded with L.A.F. participate On court, i n a coparenting 26, [ c h i l d ' s ] parents, both We d i s m i s s filed and P e t i t i o n " 2010, to she a l l e g e d t h a t and "[t]he to the appeal. a guardian, or other custodian, "Dependent for father "[t]he are unable t o the child." i s v e r b a l l y and t o w a r d [ ] t h e mother and p l a c e s t h e c h i l d w a y " ; she r e q u e s t e d be s u p e r v i s e d . the j u v e n i l e parents i n the j u v e n i l e that s h e be c u s t o d y " o f t h e c h i l d a n d t h a t any v i s i t a t i o n father visitation t h e c h i l d was d e p e n d e n t b e c a u s e p h y s i c a l l y aggressive harm's ordered class. responsibilities Specifically, in and supervised 1 2010, t h e m o t h e r Custody A f f i d a v i t a l l e g i n g that discharge ("the f a t h e r " ) ("the c h i l d " ) January Complaint C.F. Following court November 1, 2010, t h a t entered stated, a hearing a awarded awarded t o t h e on O c t o b e r "Temporary among o t h e r "sole Order" 18, on things: "THIS CAUSE comes b e f o r e t h e C o u r t f o r a P e t i t i o n f o r C u s t o d y f i l e d b y t h e M o t h e r .... T h e p a r t i e s were n e v e r m a r r i e d . A l t h o u g h t h e r e i s no i n d i c a t i o n t h a t p a t e r n i t y h a s e v e r been e s t a b l i s h e d , n e i t h e r party requested a p a t e r n i t y adjudication, the p a r t i e s r e f e r r e d t o C.F. as " t h e f a t h e r " t h r o u g h o u t t h e p r o c e e d i n g s , a n d t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t r e f e r r e d t o C.F. as " t h e f a t h e r " d u r i n g t h e t r i a l and i n t h e f i n a l judgment. 1 2 2100437 "Upon consideration of the relevant and admissible evidence presented herein, i n c l u d i n g the demeanor a n d v e r a c i t y o f t h e w i t n e s s e s , t h e C o u r t f i n d s and i t i s hereby, "ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS: " "3. The p a r t i e s have s u b m i t t e d CS-41's a n d a CS-42 t o t h i s Court. I t i s therefore Order[ed] t h a t the Father s h a l l pay t o the M o t h e r t h e sum o f $324.00 p e r month i n temporary child support. An [income w i t h h o l d i n g o r d e r ] s h a l l be i s s u e d t o t h e Father's employer. U n t i l s u c h t i m e as p a y m e n t s a r e made b y t h e e m p l o y e r , i t s h a l l be t h e F a t h e r ' s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o p a y t h e sum t o t h e Mother monthly beginning November 1, 2010. "4. The F a t h e r a n d [ t h e ] M o t h e r have a g r e e d t o v i s i t a t i o n as f o l l o w s : "a) "b) "5. The F a t h e r s h a l l e x e r c i s e v i s i t a t i o n a t t h e M a t e r n a l G r a n d p a r e n t s home w i t h the M a t e r n a l Grandparents and/or t h e Mother present. The F a t h e r s h a l l c o o r d i n a t e w i t h t h e Mother f o r a l lof h i s v i s i t a t i o n requests p r i o r t o h i s v i s i t a t i o n . The C o u r t t a k e s n o t i c e o f a R e s t r a i n i n g Order i s s u e d by the M u n i c i p a l Court o f Montgomery, A l a b a m a . The O r d e r s t a t e s i n p a r t t h a t t h e Father i s p r o h i b i t e d from telephoning or contacting the Mother; to s t a y away f r o m t h e home o f t h e M o t h e r ; a n d t o s t a y away f r o m t h e M o t h e r ' s employment. The C o u r t i s u n d e r t h e u n d e r s t a t i n g t h a t t h e p a r t i e s have a g r e e d t h a t t h e F a t h e r may 3 2100437 c o n t a c t t h e M o t h e r and go t o t h e M o t h e r ' s home f o r t h e s o l e p u r p o s e o f v i s i t i n g t h e m i n o r c h i l d . S h o u l d any a l t e r c a t i o n s o c c u r , t h i s C o u r t s h a l l be n o t i f i e d and t a k e any action i t deems necessary upon c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e f a c t s and t e s t i m o n y o f the p a r t i e s . "6. A F i n a l H e a r i n g on a l l m a t t e r s h e l d on J a n u a r y 31, 2011 " (Capitalization added.) On shall i n o r i g i n a l ; b o l d t y p e f a c e o m i t t e d ; emphasis January hearing; i t entered 31, 2011, the j u v e n i l e c o u r t h e l d a a j u d g m e n t t h a t same day, father supervised visitation, ordering c o m p l e t e anger-management c l a s s e s , and to p a r t i c i p a t e the mother f i l e d her n o t i c e of a p p e a l On appeal, the mother argues the On father February to t h i s that the the awarding ordering both i n a coparenting class. final awarding m o t h e r s o l e l e g a l and p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d , the be parties 2, 2011, juvenile court court. exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n awarding the f a t h e r v i s i t a t i o n in r e q u i r i n g her to p a r t i c i p a t e i n a coparenting t h e f a t h e r . I n i t i a l l y , h o w e v e r , we must d e t e r m i n e "[A] subject waiver to l a c k of by subject-matter the parties, and with whether the jurisdiction i t is and class j u v e n i l e c o u r t had j u r i s d i c t i o n t o e n t e r i t s J a n u a r y 31, judgment. to our 2011, is not duty to c o n s i d e r a l a c k o f s u b j e c t - m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n ex mero motu." 4 2100437 Ex p a r t e T.C., [Ms. 2090433, J u n e 18, 2010] So. 3d , ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 0 ) . Pursuant to Ala. Code c o u r t s have j u r i s d i c t i o n 1975, § 12-15-114(a), over dependency a c t i o n s . juvenile T h a t Code s e c t i o n p r o v i d e s , however, t h a t a "dependency a c t i o n s h a l l n o t i n c l u d e a custody ___ d i s p u t e between p a r e n t s . " So. 3 d a t ___ , t h i s court held that, I n Ex p a r t e T.C., i n enacting that s t a t u t e , " [ t ] h e c l e a r i n t e n t o f t h e L e g i s l a t u r e was t o p r o v i d e that the j u v e n i l e courts d e c i d i n g custody of t h i s state should no l o n g e r be d i s p u t e s e x c e p t i n s o f a r as t h e i r r e s o l u t i o n i s d i r e c t l y i n c i d e n t a l t o core juvenile-court jurisdiction." "Juvenile courts arepurely creatures of statute and have e x t r e m e l y limited jurisdiction. See Ex p a r t e K.L.P., 868 So. 2d 454, 456 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2003). That l i m i t e d j u r i s d i c t i o n a l l o w s a j u v e n i l e court t o make a d i s p o s i t i o n of a c h i l d in a dependency p r o c e e d i n g o n l y a f t e r f i n d i n g t h e c h i l d d e p e n d e n t . V.W. v . G.W., 990 So. 2d 414, 417 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008) ( q u o t i n g K.B. v. C l e b u r n e C o u n t y Dep't o f Human Res., 897 So. 2d 379, 389 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2004) (Murdock, J . , c o n c u r r i n g i n t h e r e s u l t ) ) ( ' " [ I ] n o r d e r t o make a d i s p o s i t i o n o f a c h i l d i n the c o n t e x t o f a dependency p r o c e e d i n g , t h e c h i l d must i n f a c t be d e p e n d e n t a t t h e t i m e o f t h a t disposition."') T.B. v . T.H., 30 So. 3d 429, 431 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 9 ) ; s e e a l s o K.C.G. v . S.J.R., 46 So. 3d 499, 501-02 2010) ( A l a . C i v . App. ("If a j u v e n i l e court determines t h a t the c h i l d i s not 5 2100437 d e p e n d e n t , t h e c o u r t must d i s m i s s t h e d e p e n d e n c y p e t i t i o n . On the that other the hand, child proceedings i f , and is to only dependent, determine i f , a j u v e n i l e court the the court may then custodial disposition ... finds conduct of the child."). In the present petition that the case, child although was the mother a l l e g e d i n dependent, the juvenile her court t r e a t e d t h e c a s e as a p u r e c u s t o d y d i s p u t e between the mother and temporary order the father. In f a c t , before the Mother." beginning a petition mother." 2011, the court entered on the j u v e n i l e c o u r t s t a t e d t h a t the cause November 1, 2010, was on Petition Additionally, the Custody j u v e n i l e court of the f i n a l h e a r i n g : "We f o r temporary custody Furthermore, for i n the filed by the stated at the are here t h i s morning t h a t has b e e n f i l e d by juvenile court's January judgment, i t d i d not f i n d the c h i l d dependent. juvenile dependent, i t court the did lacked a f f e c t i n g the custody Thus, "a i n the not determine jurisdiction of the c h i l d . juvenile court's January 6 the child to enter T.B., 30 31, 2011, So. a on the 31, Because to be judgment 3d a t judgment 431. is 2100437 void. 2 S e e , e . g . , R.T. v . B.N.H., [Ms. 2090968, J a n . So. 3d required , to dismiss ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 1 ) . an a p p e a l from "'This a void 7, 2011] court i s judgment.' A c c o r d i n g l y , we d i s m i s s t h e [ m o t h e r ' s ] a p p e a l a s b e i n g ... from a v o i d judgment, a l b e i t w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n s t o t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t to vacate (quoting [its void judgment.]" R.T., So. 3 d a t Owens v. Owens, 51 So. 3 d 364, 367 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2010)). APPEAL DISMISSED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, P . J . , and Pittman, Bryan, a n d Thomas, JJ., concur. B e c a u s e t h e November 1, 2010, o r d e r i s n o t r e l e v a n t t o t h e d i s p o s i t i o n o f t h i s a p p e a l , we n e e d n o t d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r the j u v e n i l e court properly exercised i t s jurisdiction p u r s u a n t A l a . Code 1975, § 12-15-138, w h i c h p r o v i d e s t h a t a j u v e n i l e c o u r t , "on an e m e r g e n c y b a s i s , may e n t e r an o r d e r o f protection or r e s t r a i n t t o protect the health or safety of a child." We n o t e t h a t , e v e n i f t h a t o r d e r was p r o p e r l y e n t e r e d , a n y e m e r g e n c y s i t u a t i o n w o u l d have b e e n r e s o l v e d a t t h a t t i m e a n d w o u l d n o t have e x t e n d e d t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n t o e n t e r t h e J a n u a r y 31, 2011, judgment. See R.T., So. 3 d a t . 2 7

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.