Ex parte Caroline M. Siderius. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: Kenneth V. Fordham v. Caroline M. Siderius)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 01/11/2013 Notice: This 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 OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 2111094 Ex p a r t e C a r o l i n e M. S i d e r i u s PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In r e : Kenneth V. Fordham v. C a r o l i n e M. S i d e r i u s ) (Mobile C i r c u i t Court, DR-11-900825) PITTMAN, J u d g e . C a r o l i n e M. S i d e r i u s court f o ra writ ("the m o t h e r " ) h a s p e t i t i o n e d t h i s o f mandamus t o be i s s u e d Circuit Court d i r e c t i n g entered i n a divorce that court t o the Mobile (a) t o v a c a t e a c t i o n brought against i t s order, t h e mother b y 2111094 K e n n e t h V. F o r d h a m ("the f a t h e r " ) , a w a r d i n g of temporary t h e p a r t i e s ' two m i n o r c h i l d r e n t o t h e f a t h e r , custody a n d (b) t o dismiss that p o r t i o n of the father's action seeking a custody determination. We deny the p e t i t i o n , which i s t h e second mandamus p e t i t i o n f i l e d b y t h e m o t h e r i n t h i s m a t t e r . parte Siderius (Ala. (No. 2110171, J a n u a r y 1 1 , 2 0 1 2 ) , So. 3d C i v . App. 2012) ( t a b l e ) . The a t t a c h m e n t s the See Ex father's t o t h e m o t h e r ' s mandamus p e t i t i o n s a n d t o responsive filings indicate that the p a r t i e s ' p r i o r ceremonial marriage, d u r i n g which the p a r t i e s ' c h i l d r e n were b o r n , was d i s s o l v e d i n 2002 b y t h e M o b i l e C i r c u i t Court; 1 h o w e v e r , t h e p a r t i e s have s t i p u l a t e d t h a t t h e y e n t e r e d i n t o a new m a r r i a g e County. a t common l a w i n 2006 w h i l e r e s i d i n g i n Mobile I n 2009, t h e m o t h e r o b t a i n e d employment t h a t r e q u i r e d her t o l i v e i n O r e g o n , a n d she moved t o O r e g o n t o a c c e p t t h a t e m p l o y m e n t ; t h e m o t h e r s u b s e q u e n t l y moved t o W a s h i n g t o n , for employment-related resident. purposes, a n d h a s become a W a s h i n g t o n The r e s i d e n c y o f t h e f a t h e r minor c h i l d r e n also and o f t h e p a r t i e s ' d u r i n g t h a t p e r i o d , however, a r e i s s u e s t h a t the p a r t i e s adamantly d i s p u t e , a l t h o u g h i t appears undisputed We have t a k e n j u d i c i a l n o t i c e o f t h e f i l i n g a n d m a t e r i a l s i n t h e mandamus p r o c e e d i n g p r e v i o u s l y f i l e d b y t h e m o t h e r . See G o e t s c h v. G o e t s c h , 990 So. 2d 403, 411 n.1 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 8. 1 2 2111094 t h a t the then the c h i l d r e n a l s o t r a v e l e d t o Oregon Washington to schools and that August Circuit enrolled 11, 2011, the father filed a divorce in in the Mobile from the mother an a w a r d o f c u s t o d y o f t h e m i n o r c h i l d r e n t o h i m ; he minor "emergency m o t i o n " s e e k i n g children frequently father on the order to an explanation l i v e with the letter The awarding him the or the in the a paramour thorough and We as exhibits to the custody of the father's A u g u s t 15, 2011, the the seeking father of the need to parties' an order upon a petition with request. in the Washington d i s s o l u t i o n o f t h e p a r t i e s ' m a r r i a g e and 3 a "emergency m o t i o n " S u p e r i o r C o u r t f o r Spokane C o u n t y , W a s h i n g t o n ("the court"), and c h i l d r e n pendente l i t e , mother f i l e d as affidavit Mobile C i r c u i t Court entered granting the attached note t h a t n e i t h e r the attached had of a strong the mother h a v i n g the r i g h t t o a r e v i e w h e a r i n g On care rendition minor c h i l d r e n f e e l the mother p a r t i e s ' minor daughter rather the were 2011, alone that sent t o the mother t h a t , the father." mandamus f i l i n g s . on A u g u s t 12, had "a o f why their of also immediate custody of basis t r a v e l with she contained stated children affidavit copy of a l e t t e r said, the left in exhibits and c h i l d r e n were Court a complaint seeking f i l e d an nor the and i n those s t a t e s . On and f a t h e r and an 2111094 award of that custody petition, jurisdiction of the p a r t i e s ' minor she to W a s h i n g t o n was averred award that custody the to children to h e r ; i n Washington her because, court she had said, t h e "home s t a t e " o f t h e c h i l d r e n by v i r t u e of t h e i r p u r p o r t e d l y having " l i v e d i n Washington w i t h a parent or a person acting months." The as a parent Washington f o r at least c o u r t e n t e r e d on s i x consecutive t h a t day a show- c a u s e o r d e r t h a t , among o t h e r t h i n g s , p u r p o r t e d t o d i r e c t t h a t the c h i l d r e n would r e s i d e w i t h the mother d u r i n g the pendency of proceedings "return i n that children to c o u r t and instructed Spokane, W a s h i n g t o n m o t h e r a l s o f i l e d on t h a t day, the father immediately." i n the Mobile C i r c u i t to The Court, a motion to d i s m i s s the f a t h e r ' s d i v o r c e a c t i o n pursuant to Rule 1 2 ( b ) ( 2 ) , A l a . R. jurisdiction to C i v . P., which r e f e r e n c e s l a c k of p e r s o n a l as a b a s i s f o r d i s m i s s a l ; t h e m o t h e r a l s o e n f o r c e t h e W a s h i n g t o n c o u r t ' s show-cause o r d e r . It appears that, because of the e x i s t e n c e of c u s t o d y p r o c e e d i n g s , an a u d i o t e l e c o n f e r e n c e was the sought presiding judges of the Mobile W a s h i n g t o n c o u r t on A u g u s t 30, 31, 2011, Circuit the mother f i l e d Court, alleging h e l d between Court 2 0 1 1 ; t h e n e x t day, a motion lack Circuit parallel and on A u g u s t to d i s m i s s i n the of s u b j e c t - m a t t e r Mobile jurisdiction and a s s e r t i n g v a r i o u s m a t t e r s t e n d i n g , i n t h e m o t h e r ' s 4 the view, 2111094 to support the e x c l u s i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n of the Washington as to the Court, children. a f t e r having O c t o b e r 4, 2011, denied the whether O c t o b e r 7, held hearings 2011, on at which testimony mother's i t s denial personal On "motion to only Mobile S e p t e m b e r 30, was 2011, the October 7, minimum c o n t a c t s 2011, dismiss" without specifying motion challenging the order with" the motion to Alabama p e r s o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n was and o f f e r e d i n open c o u r t , challenging m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n , or b o t h m o t i o n s ; however, the in Circuit only encompassed jurisdiction, the court the references mother's indicates that subject- "sufficient the the s o l e matter decided. issue The of mother p e t i t i o n e d t h i s c o u r t f o r a w r i t o f mandamus s e e k i n g dismissal of Court the father's complaint in the Mobile v a c a t i o n o f t h a t c o u r t ' s A u g u s t 12, 2011, orders; that Siderius Civ. (No. App. On petition denied by this February 17 complaint court. 10, court months Ex 2011, parte So. 3d (Ala. the mother, (table). 2012, at issued the an behest of order in d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e m i n o r c h i l d r e n had for and and O c t o b e r 7, 2110171, J a n u a r y 11, 2 0 1 2 ) , 2012) Washington was Circuit before i n the Mobile t h e W a s h i n g t o n c o u r t was the father had which that court r e s i d e d i n Washington filed his C i r c u i t C o u r t i n A u g u s t 2011 the divorce and "proper court" to determine 5 the that the 2111094 custody minor of the children; daughter had t h a t order noted returned to the t h a t the parties' mother's care in W a s h i n g t o n , w h i l e t h e p a r t i e s ' m i n o r son r e m a i n e d i n A l a b a m a i n the care of the f a t h e r . the Washington court's Mobile C i r c u i t Court The m o t h e r t h e n s o u g h t t o r e g i s t e r February father resisted order, averring residency and jurisdiction law. The that over 2011, enforcement that 2012, he the the had the Court a p p e a r s t h a t no testimony and was due denying an order Washington c o u r t ' s February vacate i t s August 12, c u r r e n t p e t i t i o n seeks As Oct. is an we recently 5, 2 0 1 2 ] ___ So. 10, 2011, 2012, custody i n Ex 3d ___ of (1) a clear order. 6 right on to Mobile of the to The mother's 2012, order. [Ms. 2110879, 2012), mandamus parte A.J., ( A l a . C i v . App. legal the o r d e r and d e c l i n i n g e x t r a o r d i n a r y remedy t h a t i s t o be showing enforced; enforcement r e v i e w o f t h a t J u l y 12, noted issue o f f e r e d at that hearing Circuit of federal the t o be On J u l y 12, 2012, entered Alabama consistent with supplement c o u n s e l ' s arguments. Court court's exercise h e l d a h e a r i n g on was vacated. his Court's the requested Washington abandoned Circuit children Mobile C i r c u i t of never Mobile with c u s t o d y o r d e r be w h e t h e r t h e W a s h i n g t o n c o u r t ' s o r d e r was it order f o r enforcement purposes t h a t t h a t c o u r t ' s A u g u s t 12, The 10, i s s u e d o n l y upon a the part of the 2111094 petitioner t o the order that the p e t i t i o n e r seeks; (2) t h e e x i s t e n c e o f b o t h an i m p e r a t i v e d u t y upon t h e r e s p o n d e n t t o perform and a r e f u s a l adequate remedy; t o do s o ; (3) t h e a b s e n c e o f a n o t h e r and (4) the proper reviewing court's j u r i s d i c t i o n . invocation See of the So. 3d a t . There i s no s e r i o u s d i s p u t e t h a t t h i s c o u r t may p r o p e r l y c o n s i d e r a mandamus p e t i t i o n t o r e v i e w t h e p r o p r i e t y o f an i n t e r l o c u t o r y order denying a challenge t o a t r i a l court's j u r i s d i c t i o n to consider a domestic-relations action an appeal from any f i n a l judgment an a c t i o n as t o w h i c h would necessarily within the appellate j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h i s court. v. Coleman, Ala. 864 So. 2d 3 7 1 , 373 See Coleman ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 3 ) , a n d Code 1975, §§ 12-3-10 a n d 12-3-11. Thus, the s a l i e n t issues p r e s e n t e d by t h e mother's p e t i t i o n relief and, i f any, t h e d u t y o f t h e M o b i l e C i r c u i t perform appropriate actions to e f f e c t that The m o t h e r c o n t e n d s fall are her right to Court t o relief. that the Mobile C i r c u i t Court's July 12, 2012, o r d e r , a n d i n d e e d a l l o f i t s o r d e r s t o d a t e t o u c h i n g and void concerning custody f o r lack of of the p a r t i e s ' subject-matter minor children, are jurisdiction. She h a s a s s e r t e d , b o t h i n t h e M o b i l e C i r c u i t Court and i n t h i s that Washington, children n o t Alabama, f o r purposes i s t h e "home state" of determining j u r i s d i c t i o n 7 court, of the under t h e 2111094 Uniform C h i l d Custody J u r i s d i c t i o n UCCJEA") as c o d i f i e d i n A l a b a m a 101 e t seq.). temporary adopted Generally emergency, i t (such courts a n d E n f o r c e m e n t A c t ("the (see A l a . Code 1975, § 30-3B- speaking, t h e UCCJEA, as Alabama o f an a d o p t i n g custody determination state unless and i n t h e absence o f a i n the states and Washington), from making that have forbids the an i n i t i a l child- (1) t h e f o r u m 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 o r was t h e c h i l d ' s "home s t a t e " d u r i n g t h e preceding parent the s i x months continues i f a parent to reside i n that c h i l d ' s "home s t a t e " d e c l i n e exists a necessity that or a person state; as a (2) t h e c o u r t s o f jurisdiction; t h e forum acting state o r (3) t h e r e assert custody j u r i s d i c t i o n i n t h e absence o f any c o u r t t h a t would o t h e r w i s e have s u c h j u r i s d i c t i o n . A l a . Code 1975, § 3 0 - 3 B - 2 0 1 ( a ) . In t u r n , a c h i l d ' s "home s t a t e " u n d e r t h e UCCJEA i s t h e s t a t e i n w h i c h he o r s h e h a s l i v e d w i t h a p a r e n t o r a p a r e n t a l for at least s i x consecutive months before a figure custody p r o c e e d i n g i s commenced, i n c l u d i n g t e m p o r a r y a b s e n c e s . A l a . Code 1975, § 3 0 - 3 B - 1 0 2 ( 7 ) . The mother contends that, a t the time that the father i n i t i a t e d t h e d i v o r c e a c t i o n i n t h e M o b i l e C i r c u i t Court from which t h i s petition a r i s e s , t h e p a r t i e s ' minor c h i l d r e n had l i v e d i n Oregon a n d W a s h i n g t o n f o r a p e r i o d o f o v e r two y e a r s 8 2111094 and t h a t A l a b a m a was n o t t h e m i n o r c h i l d r e n ' s "home s t a t e " f o r that reason. However, t h e m o t h e r h a s s u b m i t t e d no e v i d e n c e t h a t s h e m i g h t have r e l i e d upon i n t h e M o b i l e C i r c u i t C o u r t a s p o t e n t i a l l y s u p p o r t i n g h e r p o s i t i o n ; s h e h a s , i n b o t h mandamus proceedings, filed copies o n l y o f h e r motions the orders of t h e Washington c o u r t . of, and t h e l e t t e r which 2 Notably, the a f f i d a v i t a u t h o r e d by, t h e p a r t i e s ' minor documents were s u b m i t t e d b y t h e f a t h e r C i r c u i t Court i n support o f h i s August not been transcript and b r i e f s and submitted to or statement this court, of evidence daughter, to the Mobile 11, 2 0 1 1 , f i l i n g s , n o r do adduced we have have any i n the Mobile C i r c u i t C o u r t on September 30, 2 0 1 1 , a n d O c t o b e r 4, 2 0 1 1 , t h a t might have p e r s u a d e d the Washington t h a t c o u r t t o conclude t h a t i t , and n o t court, had "home state" jurisdiction The o r d e r o f t h e W a s h i n g t o n c o u r t t h a t t h e m o t h e r s o u g h t to r e g i s t e r , although c o n t a i n i n g statements s u p p o r t i v e o f t h e mother's p o s i t i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e r e s i d e n c y o f t h e p a r t i e s ' m i n o r c h i l d r e n , a p p e a r s t o have b e e n p r e p a r e d b y t h e m o t h e r ' s W a s h i n g t o n a t t o r n e y a n d t o h a v e b e e n t h e p r o d u c t o f an ex p a r t e p r o c e e d i n g r a t h e r t h a n an a d v e r s a r i a l p r o c e s s i n v o l v i n g l i t i g a t i o n o f j u r i s d i c t i o n a l q u e s t i o n s . We n o t e t h a t , u n d e r A l a b a m a l a w , a d e f e n d a n t i n a f o r e i g n c i v i l a c t i o n , s u c h as the f a t h e r here, i s f r e e t o i g n o r e j u d i c i a l p r o c e e d i n g s and t o l a t e r c h a l l e n g e t h a t j u d g m e n t on j u r i s d i c t i o n a l g r o u n d s i n a c o l l a t e r a l p r o c e e d i n g , such as t h e mother's p r o c e e d i n g t o register the foreign judgment i n Alabama. See L a n i e r W o r l d w i d e , I n c . v. Crum, 976 So. 2d 4 5 1 , 453 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2007) . 2 9 2111094 n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g the extended f a t h e r from absences o f t h e c h i l d r e n and t h e Alabama. As was t h e c a s e i n Ex p a r t e A . J . , have no way evidentiary of knowing hearings what So. 3d a t transpired s o as t o be a b l e , "we during" to properly those conclude t h a t t h e M o b i l e C i r c u i t C o u r t has a c t e d o u t s i d e i t s d i s c r e t i o n in determining mother's that filings relatively in i t has the jurisdiction; Mobile Circuit Court, evidence. See i d . force, are not before privy and b e c a u s e t h e r e i s no i n d i c a t i o n i t evidence entry conclude of that the r e l i e f The petition are t o which of her f i r s t this court court's July t h a t t h e mother 12, 2012, o r d e r , sought i n her p e t i t i o n . i s not Circuit mandamus p e t i t i o n a n d t h a t t h e mother has demonstrated to The themselves any e v i d e n t i a r y m a t e r i a l s t o t h e M o b i l e Court between t h e d e n i a l the although B e c a u s e t h e M o b i l e C i r c u i t C o u r t h a d some evidence presented the l e n g t h y and p r e s e n t i n g h e r p o s i t i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e children's residency with singular similarly, we a clear legal Ex p a r t e A . J . , cannot right supra. i s , t h e r e f o r e , denied. mother's and t h e f a t h e r ' s r e q u e s t s f o r a t t o r n e y f e e s denied. PETITION DENIED. Thompson, P . J . , a n d B r y a n Thomas, J . , r e c u s e s a n d Moore, J J . , c o n c u r . herself. 10

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.