B.B. v. D.H.

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 2110215 B.B. v. D.H. Appeal from J e f f e r s o n J u v e n i l e Court (JU-09-50941) MOORE, J u d g e . B.B. ("the m o t h e r " ) Jefferson custody appeals Juvenile ("the j u v e n i l e c o u r t " ) Court of her child, M.H. from a ("the c h i l d " ) , judgment with of the continuing the child's 2110215 paternal g r a n d m o t h e r , D.H. ("the p a t e r n a l grandmother"), and c l o s i n g the case. The record jurisdiction filed shows that the the child when over a petition was d e p e n d e n t . on A p r i l juvenile court the p a t e r n a l obtained grandmother 13, 2009, a l l e g i n g t h a t The j u v e n i l e c o u r t o r i g i n a l l y the child awarded c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d t o t h e p a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r b a s e d on a purported stipulation o f " t h e p a r t i e s " t h a t was m e m o r i a l i z e d i n an order entered the 2009, which by was mother juvenile-court confirmed was not by served the referee juvenile with the on A u g u s t court. dependency O c t o b e r 15, 2009, and, once she was n o t i f i e d 2009, order, t h e mother aside. Although juvenile court the immediately record granted that moved i s unclear motion, as However, petition "returned" t o t h e m o t h e r on O c t o b e r 3 0 , the until o f t h e A u g u s t 20, t o have i t set t o whether the record show t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t 20, does the clearly custody of the 2009. Over t h e c o u r s e o f t h e n e x t 15 months t h e m o t h e r custody of the c h i l d subject to c e r t a i n c o n d i t i o n s by, and p e r i o d i c Reports from reviews the conducted by, Jefferson County 2 retained established the j u v e n i l e Department child of court. Human 2110215 R e s o u r c e s ("DHR") d u r i n g t h a t p e r i o d i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e m o t h e r c o u l d p r o p e r l y and On February s a f e l y care 11, 2011, appear f o r a scheduled juvenile order, grandmother. 11, of 2011, 13, the as to 2011, child child for a juvenile rule court failed the child of the c h i l d the to the p a t e r n a l the j u v e n i l e c o u r t d i d not i t entered with to 8, 2011, finding the 2011, an by t h e order paternal vacate mother, maintaining grandmother and visitation. the mother a l l e g e d l y r e f u s e d to the p a t e r n a l grandmother f o l l o w i n g a v i s i t a t i o n , prompting the c h i l d ' s guardian motion had 2009, j u d g m e n t , as r e q u e s t e d some p o i n t i n May r e t u r n the mother judgment a awarding the mother u n s u p e r v i s e d At the n o t i n g t h e A u g u s t 20, awarding custody April custody order Subsequently, the February on an i t described d e p e n d e n t , and but, after child. r e v i e w h e a r i n g on F e b r u a r y court entered which f o r the nisi ordered and ad l i t e m t o f i l e for return of the the child be returned that child. a The to the custody of the p a t e r n a l grandmother, but i t r e s e r v e d r u l i n g on the motion f o r a r u l e n i s i on O c t o b e r 26, 2011. and s e t the case f o r a h e a r i n g On S e p t e m b e r 19, 2011, DHR f i l e d a motion f o r an i m m e d i a t e h e a r i n g a l l e g i n g t h a t i t w o u l d be i n t h e 3 best 2110215 interest mother. of the c h i l d f o r custody t o be returned to the T h a t m o t i o n was a l s o s c h e d u l e d t o be h e a r d on O c t o b e r 26, 2 0 1 1 . The mother hearing. i n which d i d not appear f o r the October 26, 2 0 1 1 , The j u v e n i l e c o u r t e n t e r e d a j u d g m e n t t h a t same day i t denied the motion mother's a t t o r n e y , f o r a continuance ordered that custody f i l e d by t h e of the c h i l d remain w i t h t h e p a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r , r e l i e v e d DHR o f s u p e r v i s i o n o f the child, and c l o s e d mother f i l e d a motion court's judgment. the case. to alter, 1 On November 7, 2011, t h e amend, o r v a c a t e t h e j u v e n i l e She a l l e g e d t h a t she h a d b e e n u n a b l e to a t t e n d t h e O c t o b e r 26, 2 0 1 1 , h e a r i n g b e c a u s e o f t r a n s p o r t a t i o n i s s u e s a n d t h a t i t w o u l d be i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t o f t h e c h i l d f o r h e r t o be a w a r d e d c u s t o d y . mother's postjudgment motion The j u v e n i l e c o u r t d e n i e d t h e on November 8, 2011. f i l e d h e r n o t i c e o f a p p e a l on November 22, 2011. The m o t h e r The j u v e n i l e c o u r t c e r t i f i e d t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l as a d e q u a t e on J a n u a r y 6, 2012. See R u l e 2 8 ( A ) ( 1 ) ( a ) , A l a . R. J u v . P. By c l o s i n g the case, the j u v e n i l e court i m p l i e d l y denied the p e n d i n g motion f o r a r u l e n i s i f i l e d by t h e c h i l d ' s g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m . 1 4 2110215 On appeal, juvenile the mother essentially argues that the c o u r t d i d n o t , on O c t o b e r 26, 2 0 1 1 , have b e f o r e i t sufficient evidence to find t h e c h i l d d e p e n d e n t a n d t o award "permanent" custody t o the p a t e r n a l grandmother. We p r e t e r m i t d i s c u s s i o n o f t h o s e i s s u e s b e c a u s e we f i n d , ex mero motu, t h a t this appeal arises from a void judgment. See B.L.R. v. N.M.N., 69 So. 3d 868, 869 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2011) ( r e c o g n i z i n g duty of t h i s jurisdiction The court to consider a lack of subject-matter e x mero m o t u ) . orders o r judgments e n t e r e d by t h e j u v e n i l e court t h a t p u r p o r t t o a d j u d i c a t e t h e c h i l d dependent a r e v o i d . first order, entered on A u g u s t d e p e n d e n t b a s e d on a p u r p o r t e d 20, 2009, found the stipulation of the The child parties. However, t h e r e c o r d u n e q u i v o c a l l y shows t h a t t h e m o t h e r h a d n o t been s e r v e d when t h a t o r d e r was e n t e r e d a n d d i d n o t a p p e a r i n t h e c a s e b e f o r e O c t o b e r 15, 2009, when she was f i r s t w i t h t h e p a t e r n a l grandmother's dependency p e t i t i o n . the mother opportunity dependency had n o t been t o be h e a r d and on t h e m a t t e r a d j u d i c a t i o n was 2110179, F e b . 24, 2012] served void. So. 3d 5 was deprived served Because of i n A u g u s t 2009, See M.G. an that v. J.T., [Ms. ( A l a . C i v . App. 2012) . 2110215 The j u v e n i l e c o u r t a r g u a b l y f o u n d t h e c h i l d d e p e n d e n t on February 11, 2011, when i t n o t e d the August 20, 2009, and a w a r d e d c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d t o t h e p a t e r n a l order grandmother. 2 However, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t d i d n o t n o t i f y t h e m o t h e r t h a t i t was h o l d i n g an a d j u d i c a t o r y h e a r i n g on F e b r u a r y 8, 2011, d a t e o f t h e h e a r i n g upon w h i c h t h e F e b r u a r y 11, 2011, was based. In fact, judgment does February 8, not 2011. reflect that Moreover, 11, i t held the 2011, such juvenile a on court expressly judgment t h a t i t had found 20, 2009, A p a r e n t c a n n o t be d e p r i v e d o f t h e c u s t o d y o f a child w i t h o u t due App. notice 2011, hearing t h e c h i l d d e p e n d e n t b a s e d s o l e l y on t h e v o i d A u g u s t Civ. judgment t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s F e b r u a r y 11, s t a t e d i n i t s February order. the of c h i l d , M.H. p r o c e s s , T h o r n e v. T h o r n e , 1977), which, in this a h e a r i n g on the 344 So. 2d 165 context, requires issue the reasonable dependency the as w e l l as t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e of dependency of the child. ( A l a . C i v . App. of 2010), the v. Jer.W., 51 So. 3d 334 of (Ala. M.G., We supra. Because the note t h a t the j u v e n i l e c o u r t " r e t u r n e d " custody of the c h i l d t o t h e m o t h e r on O c t o b e r 30, 2009, and t h a t she m a i n t a i n e d c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d t h r o u g h F e b r u a r y 11, 2011. During t h a t time, the j u v e n i l e c o u r t e n t e r e d s e v e r a l o r d e r s , none o f w h i c h e x p r e s s l y f o u n d t h e c h i l d d e p e n d e n t . 2 6 2110215 juvenile court d i d not a f f o r d t h e mother due process, i t s F e b r u a r y 11, 2011, d e p e n d e n c y a d j u d i c a t i o n i s v o i d . So. 3d a t 338. failed The f a c t t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t to vacate the February 11, 2011, M.H., erroneously judgment does a f f e c t our d e c i s i o n because a v o i d judgment i s a l e g a l w i t h no f o r c e o r e f f e c t . 810, 811 See L e a t h e r s ( A l a . C i v . App. 51 not nullity v. G o v e r , 447 So. 2d 1984). The j u v e n i l e c o u r t n o t i f i e d to adjudicate the guardian the mother t h a t i t i n t e n d e d ad l i t e m ' s motion f o r a r u l e nisi and DHR's m o t i o n t o r e t u r n t h e c h i l d t o t h e m o t h e r on O c t o b e r 26, 2011. it The j u v e n i l e c o u r t d i d n o t n o t i f y t h e m o t h e r intended dependency t o c o n d u c t an a d j u d i c a t o r y h e a r i n g of the child or a that to decide the hearing to dispositional determine the "permanent" c u s t o d i a l s i t u a t i o n f o r the c h i l d a t that scheduled not p r o v i d e d M.H., hearing. Without such n o t i c e , the mother an o p p o r t u n i t y t o be h e a r d on t h o s e supra grandparents' (holding that due-process rights juvenile by issues. court holding was See violated adjudicatory dependency h e a r i n g a f t e r n o t i f y i n g g r a n d p a r e n t s t h a t t h e o n l y issue that modified). would be Because heard was whether the j u v e n i l e court 7 custody should be d i d not a f f o r d the 2110215 m o t h e r due p r o c e s s , i t s O c t o b e r 26, 2 0 1 1 , j u d g m e n t i s v o i d as well. M.H., 51 So. 3d a t 338. The record reflects that the c h i l d has never been a d j u d i c a t e d a d e p e n d e n t c h i l d i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h due p r o c e s s . When a judgment of dependency i s entered in a manner i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h due p r o c e s s , t h a t j u d g m e n t i s v o i d a n d w i l l n o t s u p p o r t an a p p e a l . M.H., 51 So. 3d a t 338. T h e r e f o r e , we d i s m i s s t h e mother's a p p e a l , a l b e i t with instructions to the j u v e n i l e c o u r t t o v a c a t e any a n d a l l j u d g m e n t s p u r p o r t i n g t o find the c h i l d petition dependent. has been p e n d i n g We note since A p r i l that t h e dependency 13, 2009, a n d t h a t t h e c h i l d h a s been w i t h h e l d f r o m t h e c u s t o d y o f t h e m o t h e r at l e a s t F e b r u a r y 11, 2011. court t o conduct conduct its 3 since We t h e r e f o r e o r d e r t h e j u v e n i l e an a d j u d i c a t o r y h e a r i n g forthwith and t o such o t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s as a r e n e c e s s a r y depending on d e t e r m i n a t i o n as t o t h e d e p e n d e n c y o f t h e c h i l d . APPEAL DISMISSED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, P . J . , a n d P i t t m a n a n d B r y a n , J J . , c o n c u r . Thomas, J . , c o n c u r s i n t h e r e s u l t , without writing. T h e r e c o r d i s u n c l e a r a s t o w h e t h e r t h e c h i l d was i n t h e p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y o f t h e p a t e r n a l grandmother o r t h e mother b e t w e e n A p r i l 13, 2009, a n d O c t o b e r 30, 2009. 3 8

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.