D.B. v. A.K.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 04/13/2012 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, 2011-2012 2110180 D.B. v. A.K. Appeal from Morgan J u v e n i l e Court (CS-08-250.01) MOORE, J u d g e . D.B. a p p e a l s ("the f r o m a j u d g m e n t o f t h e Morgan J u v e n i l e C o u r t j u v e n i l e court") dismissing his petition t h e p a t e r n i t y o f A.L.K. ( " t h e c h i l d " ) . toestablish We r e v e r s e . 2110180 Procedural History On September 19, 2011, D.B. a petition of b i r t h ("the was i n the j u v e n i l e D.B. asserted m o t h e r " ) , h a d been m a r r i e d t o J.K. a t t h e t i m e t h e c h i l d born; D.B. and that J.K. had been serving with i n I r a q at the time of the c h i l d ' s the United conception. f u r t h e r a l l e g e d t h a t , on J a n u a r y 24, 2008, t h e m o t h e r h a d filed i n the divorce Morgan Circuit Court a complaint of b i r t h No o t h e r of the marriage c h i l d r e n are expected." a l l e g e d t h a t J.K. h a d " s i g n e d child, p a r t i e s " ; that agreement C.K.; were d i v o r c e d that part: the of the D.B. also an Answer and W a i v e r w h e r e i n he a d m i t t e d ] t h a t t h e r e were no c h i l d r e n o t h e r settlement a (1) m i n o r c h i l d , n a m e l y [ C . K . ] , whose d a t e i s December 22, 2005, b o r n p a r t i e s hereto. the seeking f r o m J.K. i n w h i c h she h a d s t a t e d , i n p e r t i n e n t " T h e r e has b e e n one that t h a t he i s t h e f a t h e r o f t h e c h i l d ; t h a t t h e c h i l d ' s m o t h e r , A.K. States m i l i t a r y to court t o e s t a b l i s h t h e p a t e r n i t y o f t h e c h i l d , whose d a t e i s December 21, 2007. biological filed mother addressing and issues than [C.K.] born J.K. had signed r e l a t e d to only a one a n d t h a t , on June 16, 2008, t h e m o t h e r and J.K. by a j u d g m e n t o f t h e Morgan judgment had incorporated 2 Circuit the mother Court and and J.K.'s 2110180 settlement agreement. The child documents r e l a t i n g t o t h e d i v o r c e D.B. further asserted j u v e n i l e c o u r t had e n t e r e d was not mentioned i n the proceedings. that, on F e b r u a r y ordering that certificate reflect D.B.'s amended to a w a r d i n g D.B. v i s i t a t i o n w i t h t h e c h i l d . mother had default filed a motion to a l t e r , judgment, 2009, the a d e f a u l t judgment a d j u d g i n g him t o be t h e f a t h e r o f t h e c h i l d , be 4, i n which she 1 the c h i l d ' s paternity, or vacate that she m a r r i e d t o J.K. a t t h e t i m e o f t h e c h i l d ' s c o n c e p t i o n he was l i s t e d as t h e f a t h e r on t h e c h i l d ' s b i r t h the j u v e n i l e c o u r t s u b s e q u e n t l y e n t e r e d and He a l l e g e d t h a t t h e amend, stated birth had the been and t h a t certificate; an o r d e r s e t t i n g a s i d e t h e d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t as v o i d , s t a t i n g t h a t J.K. i s t h e c h i l d ' s legal f a t h e r , m a k i n g J.K. a p a r t y mother t o p r o v i d e appear J.K.'s a d d r e s s , a n d o r d e r i n g t h e p a r t i e s t o f o r genetic receive notice neither D.B. testing. t o appear that D.B. f o r that asserted that he d i d n o t t e s t i n g and t h a t , n o r J.K. a p p e a r e d f o r t h e g e n e t i c j u v e n i l e court entered 1 t o the case, o r d e r i n g the after t e s t i n g , the an o r d e r on May 26, 2009, s t a t i n g t h a t , The mother had f i l e d judgment. the p e t i t i o n 3 t h a t had r e s u l t e d i n 2110180 a t t h e t i m e t h e c h i l d was J.K., t h a t J.K. certificate, was and named as t h e t h a t J.K. of p a t e r n i t y of the D.B. seeking asserted joint standing. In 2 w h i c h he the married to child's not t h a t he had subsequently f i l e d of the birth renounced h i s presumption child affidavit o f J.K. and that the a petition mother had on t h e g r o u n d t h a t D.B. lacked motion to dismiss, support of her an f a t h e r on had that p e t i t i o n attached t h e m o t h e r was child. custody moved t o d i s m i s s conceived, mother signed on O c t o b e r 4, the 2010, in stated: " I u n d e r s t a n d t h a t I am t h e l e g a l f a t h e r o f [ t h e c h i l d ] u n d e r A l a b a m a law. I do n o t w i s h t o have a g e n e t i c t e s t i n t h i s m a t t e r . [The c h i l d ] i s not m e n t i o n e d i n my D e c r e e o f D i v o r c e . However, I w i s h t o a s s e r t my p a r e n t a l r i g h t s w i t h r e g a r d t o [ t h e c h i l d ] . I am a s k i n g t h i s C o u r t t o e n t e r a s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g of p a t e r n i t y w i t h regard to [ t h e c h i l d ] . I am t h e f a t h e r o f [ t h e c h i l d ] . " Finally, and had paid D.B. a l l e g e d t h a t he had child support for the v i s i t e d w i t h the child. D.B. child attached D.B. d i d n o t s t a t e i n w h i c h c o u r t he had f i l e d h i s c u s t o d y p e t i t i o n , t h e c a s e number t h a t was a s s i g n e d t o t h e p e t i t i o n , o r t h e outcome o f t h a t a c t i o n ; h o w e v e r , i t can be i n f e r r e d f r o m t h e r e c o r d t h a t he f i l e d h i s c u s t o d y p e t i t i o n i n t h e Morgan C i r c u i t C o u r t , t h a t t h e a c t i o n was a s s i g n e d c a s e no. DR-10-624, and t h a t t h e c a s e was u l t i m a t e l y d i s m i s s e d on O c t o b e r 20, 2010. 2 4 2110180 documentation supporting his allegations. He r e q u e s t e d that t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t o r d e r a p a t e r n i t y t e s t t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t he is the father of the c h i l d . On November 1, 2011, the j u v e n i l e court entered a j u d g m e n t h o l d i n g t h a t D.B.'s p a t e r n i t y c l a i m was b a r r e d b y t h e d o c t r i n e o f r e s j u d i c a t a a n d t h a t he l a c k e d s t a n d i n g the p a t e r n i t y p e t i t i o n because J.K., had to bring the c h i l d ' s l e g a l f a t h e r , c h o s e n n o t t o d i s a v o w h i s p a r e n t a l r i g h t s t o t h e c h i l d as e v i d e n c e d b y h i s O c t o b e r 4, 2010, a f f i d a v i t . 2011, 3 D.B. f i l e d h i s n o t i c e o f a p p e a l t o t h i s On November 14, court. We n o t e t h a t , b e c a u s e t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t D.B. l a c k e d s t a n d i n g t o b r i n g h i s a c t i o n , t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t lacked subject-matter j u r i s d i c t i o n t o f u r t h e r determine that the d o c t r i n e o f r e s j u d i c a t a b a r r e d h i s a c t i o n . See, e . g . , C a d l e Co. v . S h a b a n i , 4 So. 3d 460, 463 ( A l a . 2008) ("When t h e absence o f s u b j e c t - m a t t e r jurisdiction i s n o t i c e d by, o r pointed out t o , the t r i a l court, that court h a s no j u r i s d i c t i o n t o e n t e r t a i n f u r t h e r motions o r pleadings i n the c a s e . I t c a n do n o t h i n g b u t d i s m i s s t h e a c t i o n f o r t h w i t h . " ) ; and S t a t e v . P r o p e r t y a t 2018 R a i n b o w D r i v e , 740 So. 2d 1 0 2 5 , 1028 ( A l a . 1999) ("When a p a r t y w i t h o u t s t a n d i n g p u r p o r t s t o commence an a c t i o n , t h e t r i a l c o u r t a c q u i r e s no 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 . " ) . T h e r e f o r e , t h a t p o r t i o n o f the t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t d i s m i s s i n g t h e c a s e on t h e g r o u n d o f r e s j u d i c a t a i s v o i d , a n d we n e e d n o t c o n s i d e r i t f u r t h e r . However, we a g r e e w i t h t h e p r i n c i p l e s e t f o r t h i n J u d g e Thomas's s p e c i a l w r i t i n g t h a t a t r i a l c o u r t may n o t d i s m i s s a c o m p l a i n t s u a s p o n t e on t h e g r o u n d o f r e s j u d i c a t a . ___ So. 3d a t ___ (Thomas, J . , concurring i n the r e s u l t ) . 3 5 2110180 Discussion On appeal, dismissing D.B. his argues t h a t the petition based on a j u v e n i l e court lack of erred standing. in We agree. Pursuant AUPA"), to Ala. the Code Alabama 1975, presumed f a t h e r of the § Uniform 26-17-101 Parentage et c h i l d because the seq., J.K. c h i l d was and b o r n d u r i n g t h e m o t h e r ' s m a r r i a g e t o J.K. § 26-17-204(a)(1) & (2). Act is any other paternity." the conceived A l a . Code 1975, " I f the presumed f a t h e r p e r s i s t s i n h i s s t a t u s as t h e l e g a l f a t h e r o f a c h i l d , n e i t h e r t h e nor ("the i n d i v i d u a l may A l a . Code 1975, maintain an action to § 26-17-607(a). disprove court h e l d , however, t h a t "a man a c h i l d born during t h e m o t h e r ' s m a r r i a g e t o a n o t h e r man be given the opportunity evidentiary hearing bearing his 327, 331 of establish standing and others may present presumed f a t h e r ... had W.D.R. v. H.M., paternity." ( A l a . C i v . App. has to e s t a b l i s h p a t e r n i t y to where he whether the presumption n o t be had on seeking This mother of must in an evidence persisted in 897 So. 2d 2004) ( s t a t i n g t h a t , b e c a u s e i t c o u l d d e t e r m i n e d as a m a t t e r o f law t h a t t h e p r e s u m e d p e r s i s t e d i n h i s presumption of p a t e r n i t y , the 6 father juvenile 2110180 c o u r t must h o l d a h e a r i n g A.C., on t h a t i s s u e ) ; s e e a l s o R.D.B. v. 27 So. 3d 1283, 1287-88 that, because the ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009) biological father's (holding "allegations ... c a l l [ e d ] i n t o q u e s t i o n whether t h e l e g a l f a t h e r p e r s i s t [ e d ] i n his presumption of p a t e r n i t y , " permit the b i o l o g i c a l father the juvenile "should to present and o t h e r s court evidence r e g a r d i n g whether t h e l e g a l f a t h e r p e r s i s t s i n h i s presumption o f p a t e r n i t y " ) ; a n d J . O . J . v . R.R., 895 So. 2d 336 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2004) determine there (holding that evidentiary hearing whether the b i o l o g i c a l was no e v i d e n c e regarding father whether must be h e l d t o had standing when the c h i l d ' s l e g a l f a t h e r had p e r s i s t e d i n h i s presumption of p a t e r n i t y ) . I n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , b a s e d on D.B.'s a l l e g a t i o n s i n h i s p e t i t i o n a n d t h e a t t a c h m e n t s t h e r e t o , D.B. p r e s e n t e d t h e t r i a l court with a controversy as t o w h e t h e r J.K. h a d p e r s i s t e d i n h i s p r e s u m p t i o n o f p a t e r n i t y , and, t h u s , should court n o t h a v e d e t e r m i n e d t h a t i s s u e on a m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s . Accordingly, dismissing hearing the juvenile we conclude D.B.'s that petition t o determine without whether presumption of p a t e r n i t y . the j u v e n i l e holding an reverse erred i n evidentiary J.K. h a s p e r s i s t e d We t h e r e f o r e 7 court inhis the juvenile 2110180 c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t a n d remand t h i s c a u s e f o r t h e j u v e n i l e to hold an evidentiary hearing i n accordance court with opinion. REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, P . J . , a n d P i t t m a n and Bryan, J J . , concur. Thomas, J . , c o n c u r s i n t h e r e s u l t , 8 with writing. this 2110180 THOMAS, J u d g e , I concurring i n the result. concur i n the r e s u l t because, a l t h o u g h I do n o t a g r e e w i t h t h e r a t i o n a l e e x p r e s s e d i n f o o t n o t e 3 o f t h e main o p i n i o n and would juvenile ordinarily court consider both for i t s dismissal bases of advanced D.B.'s by t h e petition, e s p e c i a l l y when, a s i n t h i s c a s e , t h e a p p e l l a n t f a i l s t o r a i s e an a r g u m e n t on a p p e a l r e g a r d i n g relied on b y t h e t r i a l court, one o f t h e g r o u n d s Campton v. M i l l e r , expressly 19 So. 2d 245, 250 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 0 ) , I do n o t b e l i e v e t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t was f r e e t o d i s m i s s ground of r e s j u d i c a t a . (Ala. 2007) (Ala. C i v . App. 2004)) D.B.'s p e t i t i o n Ex p a r t e Beck, ( q u o t i n g W a i t e v. W a i t e , s u a s p o n t e on t h e 988 So. 2d 950, 955 891 So. 2d 3 4 1 , 343-44 (concluding that a t r i a l c o u r t may n o t d i s m i s s an a c t i o n s u a s p o n t e on a g r o u n d t h a t w o u l d c o n s t i t u t e an a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e t h a t may be w a i v e d i f n o t a s s e r t e d b y the opposing p a r t y ) . 9

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.