Jeffrey L. Chafin v. Lynne Hales Chafin

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Rel: 7/27/2012 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l 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 Reporter o f Decisions, 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, 2012 2110421 J e f f r e y L. C h a f i n v. Lynne Hales C h a f i n Appeal from Madison C i r c u i t (DR-11-900044) Court THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e . Jeffrey L. Chafin ("the husband") judgment d i s m i s s i n g h i s c o m p l a i n t Hales Chafin ("the w i f e " ) . stated that, having appeals from t h e s e e k i n g a d i v o r c e f r o m Lynne I n i t s judgment, t h e t r i a l considered thepleadings, court i t determined 2110421 that i t d i d not a c t i o n or over The the custody record married have j u r i s d i c t i o n over of the p a r t i e s ' minor i n d i c a t e s the following. i n S c o t l a n d i n M a r c h 2006. the U n i t e d Kingdom. One the p a r t i e s ' d i v o r c e The c h i l d was The child. p a r t i e s were wife i s a citizen born d u r i n g the marriage; t h e c h i l d h o l d s d u a l c i t i z e n s h i p i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s and U n i t e d Kingdom. for a divorce court"), in Alabama. I n May in the which He he also 2010, the husband f i l e d Madison alleged sought Circuit that "emergency p r o h i b i t the w i f e from l e a v i n g the entered and both p a r t i e s were States with the represented action by counsel, child. and the trial resident temporary country. complaint ("the a enjoined The the The of relief" to trial from court wife's leaving wife initially litigation in the was the not divorce proceeded. W h i l e t h e d i v o r c e a c t i o n was an was a an o r d e r p e r m i t t i n g t h e h u s b a n d t o r e t a i n t h e passport, United he Court of attorney. District She Court initiated for the an Northern pending, the w i f e r e t a i n e d a c t i o n i n the District of United States Alabama ("the f e d e r a l - c o u r t action") seeking to return to Scotland with the child. was The petition i n i t i a t i n g the 2 federal-court action 2110421 filed pursuant to A r t i c l e Civil Aspects 2011, the trial of I n t e r n a t i o n a l C h i l d Abduction. wife proceedings" court 12 o f t h e Hague C o n v e n t i o n on t h e filed a i n the state entered motion court, a stay to stay a n d on May of the divorce On May the 5, "custody 10, 2 0 1 1 , t h e a c t i o n pending a r e s o l u t i o n of the f e d e r a l - c o u r t a c t i o n . On June 7, 2 0 1 1 , t h e h u s b a n d f i l e d a motion seeking the d i s m i s s a l of the divorce a c t i o n pursuant to Rule 41(a), A l a . R. C i v . P. had I n t h e motion, t h e husband s t a t e d t h a t t h e w i f e never f i l e d an answer o r any o t h e r On June 8, t h e t r i a l court entered responsive pleading. a judgment d i s m i s s i n g t h e divorce action. The same d a y t h a t t h e h u s b a n d f i l e d h i s motion seeking t h e d i s m i s s a l o f t h e d i v o r c e a c t i o n , he f i l e d a s e c o n d d i v o r c e action. staying On June 3 0 , 2 0 1 1 , t h e t r i a l the second d i v o r c e the federal-court action. the husband server. filed a In h i s b r i e f , court entered a c t i o n pending a f i n a l Nonetheless, motion requesting an ruling i n on O c t o b e r 11, 2 0 1 1 , a special the wife was process t h e husband s t a t e s t h a t t h e " c l e r k o f the c o u r t approved t h e motion" f o r the s p e c i a l process and order served with the complaint 3 server, i n the second 2110421 divorce action. 21, 2011, had s t a y e d t h e s e c o n d d i v o r c e a c t i o n by i t s o r d e r o f June 2011. The the However, t h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t on O c t o b e r trial trial court denied the motion, n o t i n g t h a t i t court also ordered w i t h a copy of the f i n a l r u l i n g , 30, the husband to p r o v i d e i t i f any, i n the f e d e r a l - c o u r t i n the federal-court action a c t i o n w i t h i n seven days. A j u d g m e n t had on O c t o b e r 13, been e n t e r e d 2011, and t h e h u s b a n d p r o v i d e d t h e t r i a l w i t h a c o p y o f t h a t j u d g m e n t on O c t o b e r 28, the federal-court appeal. In the judgment judgment, that evidence before is the included 2011. in to Scotland, where t h e y lived, of record on court i t i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e w i f e and t r a v e l e d t o t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s i n F e b r u a r y 2010, returned A copy the federal district court found child had b u t w o u l d have i n May 2010 i f the h u s b a n d had n o t f i l e d t h e f i r s t d i v o r c e a c t i o n and r e c e i v e d an order t h a t p r o h i b i t e d the w i f e the U n i t e d S t a t e s . In f a c t , from removing the child from the f e d e r a l c o u r t noted, the wife t r a v e l e d t o t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s on a 9 0 - d a y v i s i t o r ' s v i s a , she had which e n r o l l e d the was scheduled child to i n the begin S c o t t i s h education in April 2010. and system, However, the f e d e r a l c o u r t f o u n d , b e f o r e t h e w i f e and c h i l d c o u l d r e t u r n t o 4 2110421 S c o t l a n d , t h e h u s b a n d h a d f i l e d an e m e r g e n c y c u s t o d y and took the c h i l d ' s passport. The petition federal court held that t h e c h i l d h a d been w r o n g f u l l y d e t a i n e d i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s as o f May 15, 2010, when t h e h u s b a n d d e n i e d the child's passport. and c h i l d were r e s i d e n t s o f S c o t l a n d petition to appropriate return custody The f e d e r a l c o u r t to Scotland proceedings the wife to found t h a t the w i f e and g r a n t e d with could access the the w i f e ' s child, where begin. On November 14, 2011, t h e w i f e f i l e d a m o t i o n s e e k i n g t h e d i s m i s s a l of the second d i v o r c e a c t i o n , arguing, things, that, residents of because Alabama, j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r them. the wife the and trial the child court among did other were not not have The t r i a l c o u r t a g r e e d w i t h t h e w i f e , and on November 21, 2011, i t e n t e r e d a j u d g m e n t d i s m i s s i n g t h e second divorce expressly action. found t h a t In the judgment, i t d i d n o t have the t r i a l jurisdiction p a r t i e s ' d i v o r c e a c t i o n or over the custody court over the of the c h i l d . On December 16, 2011, t h e h u s b a n d f i l e d a p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n and requested o r a l argument. motion without The t r i a l c o u r t d e n i e d t h e h u s b a n d ' s allowing oral argument. appealed. 5 The husband timely 2110421 The husband dismissing contends the divorce jurisdiction the trial court a c t i o n on t h e g r o u n d over the d i v o r c e the p a r t i e s ' minor c h i l d . husband c i t e s that that erred i t lacked a c t i o n or over the custody In support in of of h i s contention, the § 30-2-5, A l a . Code 1975, w h i c h provides: "When t h e d e f e n d a n t i s a n o n r e s i d e n t , t h e o t h e r p a r t y t o t h e m a r r i a g e must have b e e n a bona f i d e r e s i d e n t o f t h i s s t a t e f o r s i x months n e x t b e f o r e t h e f i l i n g o f t h e c o m p l a i n t , w h i c h must be a l l e g e d i n t h e c o m p l a i n t and p r o v e d . " For res, the Alabama a trial complaining party f o r s i x months divorce. (Ala. court to gain L i v i n g s t o n v. C i v . App. 2 0 0 2 ) . i n personam j u r i s d i c t i o n jurisdiction must before have This been filing Livingston, over the m a r i t a l a 835 a resident complaint So. 2d of for a 1021, 1023 c o u r t has d i s c u s s e d t h e r o l e o f i n the context of a divorce a c t i o n , explaining: "We f i r s t n o t e t h a t A l a b a m a s t a t u t e s do n o t r e q u i r e t h a t a c o u r t have i n p e r s o n a m j u r i s d i c t i o n over both p a r t i e s to grant a d i v o r c e . The w i f e a l l e g e d and p r o v e d h e r r e s i d e n c e i n t h e S t a t e o f A l a b a m a p u r s u a n t t o § 30-2-5, A l a . Code 1975. T h i s was s u f f i c i e n t t o a l l o w j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e w i f e and t h e m a r i t a l r e s . L i g h t e l l v. L i g h t e l l , 394 So. 2d 41, 42 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1981) . However, a potential judgment awarding custody and child s u p p o r t n e c e s s a r i l y f i x e s upon a [ p a r e n t ] a p e r s o n a l o b l i g a t i o n f o r t h e c a r e and s u p p o r t o f t h e m i n o r c h i l d r e n and r e q u i r e s i n p e r s o n a m j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r 6 2110421 the [ p a r e n t ] . May v. A n d e r s o n , 345 U.S. 528, 534, 73 S. C t . 840, 97 L. Ed. 1221 ( 1 9 5 3 ) , and L i g h t e l l , 394 So. 2d a t 42-43." Coleman v. C o l e m a n , 864 So. 2d 371, 374 In Fuller 2010), this jurisdiction divorce court Fuller, court was 51 So. determined to divorce complaint complaint, resident v. was 3d that ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 3 ) . 1053 the t h e p a r t i e s when, filed, a resident of M i s s i s s i p p i . ( A l a . C i v . App. trial at the time t h e f a t h e r , who o f Alabama In reaching and court had f i l e d had the the t h e m o t h e r was our c o n c l u s i o n , a this explained: "The p l a i n t i f f i n t h i s c a s e , t h e f a t h e r , a l l e g e d i n h i s c o m p l a i n t f o r a d i v o r c e t h a t he h a d been a bona f i d e r e s i d e n t o f t h i s s t a t e f o r more t h a n s i x months b e f o r e he f i l e d h i s c o m p l a i n t . N e i t h e r of the p a r t i e s r a i s e d any i s s u e i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t o r on appeal q u e s t i o n i n g the residency of the f a t h e r . Thus, t h e t r i a l c o u r t had j u r i s d i c t i o n t o d i v o r c e t h e p a r t i e s , and t h e p a r t o f i t s j u d g m e n t d i s s o l v i n g t h e m a r r i a g e i s due t o be a f f i r m e d . " Id. a t 1058. In t h i s case, divorce complaint the husband a l l e g e d i n the second t h a t he was a r e s i d e n t o f A l a b a m a and t h a t he h a d been a r e s i d e n t f o r more t h a n s i x c o n s e c u t i v e months a t the time the complaint that the husband was filed. i s an A l a b a m a conclude that the t r i a l The w i f e does n o t d i s p u t e resident. Accordingly, we c o u r t had j u r i s d i c t i o n t o d i v o r c e the 7 2110421 parties. divorce Therefore, court erred i n d i s m i s s i n g the action i n i t s entirety. The trial jurisdiction appeal, the t r i a l court also found that i t did over the custody of the c h i l d . not have In h i s b r i e f the husband s t a t e s i n a p a r e n t h e t i c a l phrase t h a t the trial c o u r t had j u r i s d i c t i o n make a supportive legal over the c h i l d , argument or cite b u t he does n o t to any legal authority. T h u s , t h e h u s b a n d ' s argument i s i n s u f f i c i e n t warrant t h i s court's to this Smith, issue. 964 appellant's review of the t r i a l See Jimmy Day 2d 1, So. 9 Plumbing ( A l a . 2007) three-sentence court's j u d g m e n t as & Heating, (holding argument and c i t a t i o n to I n c . v. that the t o one case i n s u p p o r t o f a g e n e r a l p r o p o s i t i o n o f l a w was i n s u f f i c i e n t invoke Rule on review to o f t h e argument r a i s e d by t h e a p p e l l a n t ) ; and 28(a)(10), A l a . R. App. husband failed c o u r t e r r e d as t o t h i s demonstrate t h a t the t r i a l P. The to issue. Out o f an abundance o f c a u t i o n , h o w e v e r , we n o t e t h a t , t o t h e e x t e n t one c o u l d c o n s t r u e t r i a l c o u r t had j u r i s d i c t i o n it the a l s o had j u r i s d i c t i o n argument must fail. t h e h u s b a n d ' s argument t h a t t h e o v e r t h e w i f e as an argument t h a t to determine custody of the Alabama's 8 version of the child, Uniform 2110421 C h i l d Custody J u r i s d i c t i o n and Enforcement Act c o d i f i e d a t § 30-3B-101 e t s e q . , basis f o r subject-matter ("the UCCJEA"), A l a . Code 1975, s e t s o u t t h e jurisdiction in a child-custody p r o c e e d i n g , w h i c h i n c l u d e s an i n i t i a l c u s t o d y d e t e r m i n a t i o n i n a divorce Section proceeding. 30-3B-201(a) § 30-3B-102(4), A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 . o f t h e UCCJEA p r o v i d e s , i n pertinent part: "(a) E x c e p t a s o t h e r w i s e p r o v i d e d i n Section 30-3B-204, a c o u r t o f t h i s s t a t e h a s j u r i s d i c t i o n t o make an i n i t i a l c h i l d c u s t o d y d e t e r m i n a t i o n o n l y i f : "(1) T h i s s t a t e i s t h e home s t a t e o f t h e c h i l d on t h e d a t e o f t h e commencement o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g , o r was t h e home s t a t e o f t h e c h i l d w i t h i n s i x months b e f o r e t h e commencement o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g a n d t h e c h i l d i s absent from t h i s state but a parent or person acting as a p a r e n t continues t o l i v e i n this state; "(2) A c o u r t o f a n o t h e r s t a t e does n o t have j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r s u b d i v i s i o n ( 1 ) , o r a c o u r t o f t h e home s t a t e o f t h e c h i l d h a s d e c l i n e d t o e x e r c i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n on t h e ground that this state i s t h e more a p p r o p r i a t e f o r u m u n d e r S e c t i o n 30-3B-207 o r 30-3B-208 " The trial court's judgment d i s m i s s i n g did not specify the basis that i t d i d n o t have child. for the t r i a l jurisdiction the divorce court's over action determination the custody of the We n o t e , h o w e v e r , t h a t , i n h e r m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s , t h e 9 2110421 wife referred action t o t h e judgment e n t e r e d i n which the federal court i n the f e d e r a l - c o u r t found that " t h e r e was no i n t e n t o f t h e p a r t i e s f o r A l a b a m a t o be t h e p r i m a r y of t h e c h i l d " the child and g r a n t e d the wife's request t o t h e i r home i n S c o t l a n d . to return with The w i f e a l s o p o i n t e d out t h a t t h e f e d e r a l c o u r t ' s judgment s t a t e d t h a t regarding Scotland. the custody of the c h i l d residence were proceedings to continue in 1 Section 30-3B-105, A l a . Code 1975, governs the i n t e r n a t i o n a l a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e UCCJEA a n d p r o v i d e s : "(a) A c o u r t o f t h i s s t a t e s h a l l t r e a t a f o r e i g n c o u n t r y as i f i t were a s t a t e o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s for the purpose of applying this article [§§ 30-3B-101 t h r o u g h 30-3B-112] a n d A r t i c l e 2 [§§ 30-3B-201 t h r o u g h 3 - 3 B - 2 1 0 ] . "(b) E x c e p t a s o t h e r w i s e p r o v i d e d i n s u b s e c t i o n ( c ) , a c h i l d c u s t o d y d e t e r m i n a t i o n made i n a f o r e i g n c o u n t r y under f a c t u a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n s u b s t a n t i a l conformity with the j u r i s d i c t i o n a l standards of t h i s c h a p t e r [ i . e . , t h e UCCJEA] must be r e c o g n i z e d a n d e n f o r c e d under A r t i c l e 3 [§§ 30-3B-301 through 30-3B-114]. The h u s b a n d makes no a s s e r t i o n t h a t t h e f i n d i n g s o f f a c t c o n t a i n e d i n t h e f e d e r a l - c o u r t j u d g m e n t c a n n o t be u s e d a s t h e b a s i s f o r t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t i t d i d n o t have j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d i n t h e c a s e on appeal. 1 10 2110421 "(c) A c o u r t o f t h i s s t a t e need n o t a p p l y t h i s chapter i f the c h i l d custody law of a f o r e i g n c o u n t r y v i o l a t e s f u n d a m e n t a l p r i n c i p l e s o f human rights." T h e r e h a s b e e n no s u g g e s t i o n t h a t the c h i l d - c u s t o d y law o f S c o t l a n d " v i o l a t e s f u n d a m e n t a l p r i n c i p l e s o f human § 30-3B-105(a); "shall treat States [Scotland] for the jurisdictional determination that therefore, pursuant rights," t o § 30-3B-105(a), as i f i t were a s t a t e o f t h e U n i t e d purpose provisions. of applying" Based on the the UCCJEA's federal court's t h a t t h e c h i l d ' s r e s i d e n c e was i n S c o t l a n d a n d the c h i l d was n o t a r e s i d e n t o f A l a b a m a , t h e n , commencement o f t h e s e c o n d d i v o r c e a c t i o n , t h e c h i l d ' s s t a t e " was S c o t l a n d . Because another case. So. , [Ms. 2101011, A p r i l 13, 2012] ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 2 ) . Therefore, c o u r t p r o p e r l y d e t e r m i n e d t h a t i t d i d n o t have over the custody For jurisdiction child-custody determination i n the present See F u l l e r v . F u l l e r , 3d "home t o t h e UCCJEA, c o u r t i n Alabama l a c k e d s u b j e c t - m a t t e r t o make an i n i t i a l at the " s t a t e " had j u r i s d i c t i o n to enter a c h i l d - c u s t o d y determination pursuant the t r i a l we the t r i a l jurisdiction of the c h i l d . the reasons set forth above, we reverse the t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t i t d i s m i s s e d t h e husband's 11 2110421 s e c o n d d i v o r c e a c t i o n on t h e g r o u n d that the t r i a l court d i d n o t have j u r i s d i c t i o n t o d i v o r c e t h e p a r t i e s . We a f f i r m portion dismissing the action o f t h e judgment on t h e g r o u n d of the t r i a l that i t d i d n o t have determine the custody of the c h i l d . the t r i a l court jurisdiction opinion. AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED. Bryan, Thomas, a n d Moore, J J . , c o n c u r . J . , concurs i n the r e s u l t , without 12 to T h i s c a u s e i s remanded t o court f o r further proceedings consistent with Pittman, that writing. this

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.