R.J.G. v. Mobile County Department of Human Resources (Appeal from Mobile Juvenile Court: JU-10-2182.01)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 06/21/2013 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 R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a 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 2111166 and 2120351 R.J.G. v. Mobile County Department o f Human Resources Appeals from Mobile J u v e n i l e Court (JU-10-2182.01) MOORE, J u d g e . I n a p p e a l no. 2111166, R.J.G. ("the m o t h e r " ) a p p e a l s a judgment o f t h e M o b i l e J u v e n i l e C o u r t terminating her parental rights from ("the j u v e n i l e c o u r t " ) t o M.G. a p p e a l no. 2120351, t h e m o t h e r a p p e a l s ("the c h i l d " ) . from In an o r d e r o f t h e 2111166 and juvenile 60(b), 2120351 court A l a . R. denying her C i v . P., motion, seeking relief Procedural On May Resources 19, 2011, the February order 6, 2012, child's foster termination requested a that he released a a permanency parent. letter had On was continuance r e s p o n s e s t o him the him court s t a t e d t h a t he that the mother County J a i l that he had on had a by the date the the mother's provided mother's a t t o r n e y that attorney discovery also would be incarcerated letter in the him from case. on t h e Internet, South M i s s i s s i p p i mother, f a t h e r ' s a d d r e s s , as w e l l as a l e t t e r t o h e r 2 sent released residential burglary. to be prepare her and the stated would t h a t t h e m o t h e r had she On permanency m o t h e r i n q u i r i n g when she a charge of sent parental adoption l a t e r l e a r n e d , by c h e c k i n g was a 2012, the b e c a u s e DHR The of 2, i n c a r c e r a t i o n i n t i m e t o meet w i t h him He the entered plan July f r o m i n c a r c e r a t i o n and informing judgment. to terminate scheduled, t h a t day. written Rule t h e unknown f a t h e r o f t h e c h i l d . juvenile hearing from t h a t to M o b i l e C o u n t y D e p a r t m e n t o f Human the establishing pursuant History ("DHR") f i l e d a p e t i t i o n r i g h t s o f t h e m o t h e r and filed in He care stated of f a t h e r , and her that 2111166 a n d 2120351 n e i t h e r o f them h a d r e s p o n d e d . He s t a t e d t h a t Amy T u r n e r , a DHR w o r k e r , h a d , on t h e m o r n i n g o f t h e t e r m i n a t i o n shown h i m some indicating that incarceration, 2012. the released assured she h a d mother received would from be t h e mother released from a t t h e m o s t , one o r two months a f t e r May 18, The a t t o r n e y information, had letters hearing, he was stated that because uncertain from i n c a r c e r a t i o n . when of the c o n f l i c t i n g t h e mother He s t a t e d t h a t would be t h e mother had h i m t h a t she w o u l d s t a y i n t o u c h w i t h h i m b u t t h a t he n o t r e c e i v e d any o t h e r c o r r e s p o n d e n c e f r o m h e r s i n c e she r e s p o n d e d t o h i s l e t t e r i n q u i r i n g as t o when h e r i n c a r c e r a t i o n would end. He requested that the j u v e n i l e court consider r e s e t t i n g the t e r m i n a t i o n hearing t o a date i n August t o a l l o w him an o p p o r t u n i t y t o f i n d o u t when t h e m o t h e r was g o i n g t o be r e l e a s e d f r o m i n c a r c e r a t i o n a n d , i n t h e e v e n t she w o u l d be i n c a r c e r a t e d on t h e new h e a r i n g way f o r h e r t o a t t e n d t h e h e a r i n g . the motion f o r a continuance. 3 date, still w h e t h e r t h e r e was a The j u v e n i l e c o u r t denied 2111166 a n d 2120351 On J u l y 19, 2012, t h e j u v e n i l e terminating t h e mother's p a r e n t a l c o u r t e n t e r e d a judgment rights. h e r n o t i c e o f a p p e a l on J u l y 18, 2 0 1 2 . The m o t h e r 1 On December 3, 2012, t h e m o t h e r f i l e d a m o t i o n , to R u l e 6 0 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., s e e k i n g r e l i e f 19, 2012, j u d g m e n t mother alleged assistance requested 60(b) On she of counsel. that this motion; this January terminating her parental that 2, had On been filed provided December 4, pursuant from t h e J u l y rights. The ineffective 2012, t h e m o t h e r court grant her leave to f i l e the Rule c o u r t g r a n t e d t h a t r e q u e s t t h e same d a y . 2013, t h e j u v e n i l e court denying t h e mother's Rule 60(b)(2) motion entered an order and s t a t i n g : "The above s t y l e d c a s e comes b e f o r e t h e C o u r t on RESPONDENT'S/MOTHER'S RULE 60(B) MOTION FOR R E L I E F FROM ORDER TERMINATING RESPONDENT'S PARENTAL RIGHTS, w i t h p e r m i s s i o n f r o m t h e C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s . The C o u r t n o t e s t h a t t h e c a s e i s on a p p e a l t o t h e C o u r t of C i v i l A p p e a l s w h i c h c o u r t a u t h o r i z e d t h e f i l i n g of t h e m o t i o n made t h e s u b j e c t o f t h i s o r d e r . "Upon r e v i e w o f t h e m o t i o n a n d t h e c a s e l a w presented therein, the Court finds that the a r g u m e n t s p r e s e n t e d b y c o u n s e l i n t h e 60(B) m o t i o n are d e p e n d e n t i n l a r g e p a r t upon a r e v i e w o f t h e c o u r t r e c o r d t o determine whether o r not t h e f a c t s The m o t h e r ' s n o t i c e o f a p p e a l was h e l d i n a b e y a n c e u n t i l t h e j u d g m e n t was e n t e r e d . See R u l e 4 ( a ) ( 4 ) , A l a . R. App. P. 1 4 2111166 a n d 2120351 contained w i t h i n the record support the conclusions reached by counsel. "The arguments of C i v i l therefore the C o u r t denied." undersigned i s o f the opinion that those c a n be most p r o p e r l y made b e f o r e t h e C o u r t A p p e a l s as g r o u n d s f o r r e v e r s a l , a n d i t i s ORDERED, ADJUDGED, a n d DECREED b y t h a t t h e m o t i o n u n d e r 60(B) i s h e r e b y (Capitalization i noriginal.) filed her notice of appeal d e n y i n g h e r R u l e 60(b) On J a n u a r y 4, 2 0 1 3 , t h e m o t h e r from t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s order motion. Discussion In appeal juvenile no. court 2120351, erred t h e mother i n denying her Rule argues that the 60(b) m o t i o n . We i n i t i a l l y note t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s order it d i d not reach the juvenile the merits court o f t h e mother's m o t i o n ; i n s t e a d , mistakenly determined s h o u l d do so i n t h e f i r s t i n s t a n c e . alleging ineffective assistance determined by t h e t r i a l c o u r t . Cnty. Dep't 2012). that this court To t h e c o n t r a r y , a m o t i o n of counsel must first be S e e , e . g . , K.H. v. J e f f e r s o n o f Human R e s . , 106 So. 3d 420 ( A l a . C i v . App. " [ I ] t i s g e n e r a l l y the duty of a t r i a l court t o f i r s t consider trial indicates that a l l i s s u e s r a i s e d by t h e p a r t i e s , and o n l y a f t e r t h e court h a s done so i s r e v i e w 5 b y an a p p e l l a t e court 2111166 a n d 2120351 possible." 755 W o o d r u f f v. C i t y of Tuscaloosa, ( A l a . 2012) . A c c o r d i n g l y , we r e v e r s e t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s o r d e r e n t e r e d on t h e m o t h e r ' s R u l e 60(b) the 101 So. 3d 749, cause f o r the j u v e n i l e court m o t i o n , a n d we remand t o enter an o r d e r on t h e m e r i t s o f t h e mother's motion. B e c a u s e we a r e r e v e r s i n g appeal no. 2120351, raised i n appeal and remanding we p r e t e r m i t no. 2111166 discussion addressed t e r m i n a t i n g the mother's p a r e n t a l r i g h t s . v. U.S. Bank, 2012). remand N.A., However, may regard t o of the issues t o t h e judgment See, e.g., Congress 98 So. 3 d 1 1 6 5 , 1170 ( A l a . C i v . because affect with the juvenile t h e judgment court's terminating actions App. on t h e mother's p a r e n t a l r i g h t s , we remand t h a t a c t i o n t o t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t as w e l l . The j u v e n i l e c o u r t s h a l l make a r e t u r n t o t h i s w i t h i n 42 d a y s a f t e r t h e d a t e o f t h i s court opinion. 2111166 -- REMANDED. 2120351 -- REVERSED AND REMANDED. Thompson, P . J . , and Pittman, concur. 6 Thomas, a n d D o n a l d s o n , J J . ,

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.