K.R. v. Lauderdale County Department of Human Resources (Appeal from Lauderdale Juvenile Court: JU-10-176.05)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 04/19/2013 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, 2012-2013 2111220 K.R. v. Lauderdale County Department o f Human Resources 2120020 J.W. v. Lauderdale County Department o f Human Resources Appeals from Lauderdale J u v e n i l e Court (JU-10-176.05) 2111220 a n d 2120020 THOMAS, J u d g e . D.N.R. was b o r n i n Pennsylvania on J u l y 26, 1993. D.N.R.'s f a t h e r i s unknown, a n d T.D. ("the b i o l o g i c a l m o t h e r " ) consented 26, t o the termination of her parental rights 1998, i n t h e C o u r t o f Common P l e a s Pennsylvania ("the P e n n s y l v a n i a W.R.M. u n t i l W.R.M.'s d e a t h ; o f Lawrence court"). however, r e v e a l w h e t h e r W.R.M. a d o p t e d D.N.R. on June County, D.N.R. l i v e d the record with does n o t W.R.M. was s u r v i v e d b y h e r h u s b a n d J.M. The record contains a copy o f t h e P e n n s y l v a n i a A u g u s t 9, 2006, j u d g m e n t t h a t i n c o r p o r a t e d a c o n s e n t court's agreement e n t e r e d i n t o b y J.M. a n d J.W. ("the custodian"), the s i s t e r o f W.R.M. awarded 1 The P e n n s y l v a n i a court primary physical c u s t o d y a n d s o l e l e g a l c u s t o d y o f D.N.R. t o t h e c u s t o d i a n a n d awarded J.M. v i s i t a t i o n medical, dental, records. The j u d g m e n t provision and t h e r i g h t psychiatric, i n which t o review D.N.R.'s p s y c h o l o g i c a l , and academic of the Pennsylvania K.R. ("the c u s t o d i a n ' s court included a sister") would The c u s t o d i a n i s r e f e r r e d t o a s D.N.R.'s m a t e r n a l a u n t t h r o u g h o u t t h e r e c o r d ; h o w e v e r , b e c a u s e we c a n n o t d e t e r m i n e f r o m t h e r e c o r d t h a t W.R.M. ( o r W.R.M. a n d J.M.) a d o p t e d D.N.R., we c a n n o t c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e c u s t o d i a n i s D.N.R.'s maternal aunt by a d o p t i o n . 1 2 2111220 a n d 2120020 r e c e i v e c u s t o d y o f D.N.R. upon t h e i n c a p a c i t a t i o n o r d e a t h o f the c u s t o d i a n . 2 D.N.R. moved t o A l a b a m a w i t h t h e c u s t o d i a n i n 2006. On July petition D.N.R. 18, 2 0 1 1 , D.N.R.'s g u a r d i a n i n the Lauderdale was d e p e n d e n t awarded Juvenile ("DHR"). The p e t i t i o n custodian, that Court and r e q u e s t i n g t o the Lauderdale that Department alleged that ad l i t e m filed asserting her custody o f Human a that be Resources D.N.R. l i v e d with the D.N.R.'s m o t h e r was d e c e a s e d a n d h e r f a t h e r was unknown, t h a t t h e c u s t o d i a n was n o t p r o v i d i n g f o r D.N.R.'s care, support, or education, and w e l l b e i n g a n d t h a t D.N.R.'s h e a l t h , were a t r i s k . f o r J u l y 20, 2011. A shelter-care hearing At the shelter-care hearing, safety, was s e t the j u v e n i l e - c o u r t j u d g e s t a t e d : "We a r e h e r e t o d a y f o r a d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f the dependency and a 72-hour h e a r i n g . " DHR's a t t o r n e y a n d D.N.R.'s g u a r d i a n a d l i t e m s t i p u l a t e d t o D.N.R.'s d e p e n d e n c y ; however, stipulated the custodian, t o D.N.R.'s who was acting p r o se, never dependency; she a d m i t t e d only that D.N.R. h a d "a l o t o f i s s u e s . " Automatic-reversionary provisions regarding child-custody awards have no l e g a l e f f e c t i n Alabama. Daugherty v. D a u g h e r t y , 993 So. 2 d 8, 13 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 2 0 0 8 ) . 2 3 2111220 a n d 2120020 Nothing asserted i n the pleadings or stated atthe s h e l t e r - c a r e h e a r i n g w o u l d have r e v e a l e d t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e judgments although of the Pennsylvania court t o the j u v e n i l e court, we n o t e t h a t t h e a c t i o n u n d e r l y i n g t h e s e appeals i s c a s e number JU-10-176.05 a n d i t i s a p p a r e n t t o t h i s c o u r t t h a t D.N.R. had b e e n b e f o r e t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t a t l e a s t t h r e e times. Before juvenile-court delinquency scheduled day. witnesses judge were c a l l e d , had a d i s c u s s i o n the attorneys regarding c h a r g e a g a i n s t D.N.R. i n " t h e t o be h e a r d by t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t l a t e r certain t h a t was t h a t same 3 At t h e time o f t h e J u l y 20, 2011, shelter-care hearing, D.N.R. h a d l i v e d w i t h t h e c u s t o d i a n f o r more t h a n however, the j u v e n i l e - c o u r t j u d g e q u e s t i o n e d to and t h e a .04 c a s e " other whether she h a d "paperwork showing five years; t h e c u s t o d i a n as that [she] ha[d] Although i t i s n o t e n t i r e l y c l e a r , i t appears t h a t t h e d e l i n q u e n c y c h a r g e was e i t h e r d i s m i s s e d o r t h a t D.N.R. was found " n o t g u i l t y by reason o f mental d e f e c t . " S i m i l a r l y u n c l e a r a r e c e r t a i n o r a l and w r i t t e n statements i n v a r i o u s p l e a d i n g s and i n o n - t h e - r e c o r d d i s c u s s i o n s between a t t o r n e y s and t h e j u v e n i l e - c o u r t j u d g e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t D.N.R. s u f f e r e d from a mental impairment, l o w e r - t h a n - a v e r a g e i n t e l l i g e n c e , " m i l d MR," o r a m e n t a l d e f e c t . 3 4 2111220 a n d 2120020 custody," t o which the custodian replied: "Not w i t h me." The j u v e n i l e - c o u r t judge s a i d : "The r e a s o n I'm a s k i n g t h e s e q u e s t i o n s b e c a u s e i f you a r e d e t e r m i n e d t o be [D.N.R.]'s l e g a l c u s t o d i a n , t h e n we p r o b a b l y n e e d t o have an a t t o r n e y appointed to r e p r e s e n t you and your i n t e r e s t s i n these cases o r i n t h i s c a s e . So i t w o u l d be v e r y b e n e f i c i a l t o a l l o f us i f you c o u l d f i n d t h a t paperwork and l e t us know b e c a u s e as f a r a s we know, t h e r e ' s no o r d e r t h a t we know o f s a y i n g y o u have c u s t o d y o f [D.N.R.], okay?" Sarah could The Hendershot, a DHR e m p l o y e e , n o t " e s t a b l i s h who t h e l e g a l j u v e n i l e court heard testimony testified guardian that DHR i s r i g h t now." t h a t DHR h a d t r e a t e d D.N.R. " l i k e a t e e n a g e r t h a t was f o u n d on t h e s t r e e t " b e c a u s e DHR h a d no proof although the that the custodian had l e g a l custody o f D.N.R., H e n d e r s h o t a l s o a g r e e d t h a t D.N.R. was a c c o m p a n i e d i n shelter-care hearing by h e r " p h y s i c a l custodian, her a u n t , " who "was p r o v i d i n g home, s u p e r v i s i o n , a n d c u s t o d y f o r [D.N.R.]." Hendershot testified that information i n d i c a t i n g that thecustodian emotionally abusive" D.N.R. Hendershot a n d h a d made said that DHR had received h a d been " p o s s i b l y "harmful statements" t o i f the j u v e n i l e court D.N.R.'s c u s t o d y t o DHR, p a r t o f t h e s e r v i c e s p r o v i d e d custodian would be the determination 5 awarded to the of the "status of 2111220 a n d 2120020 custody." for The j u v e n i l e court neither appointed an a t t o r n e y t h e c u s t o d i a n n o r a f f o r d e d h e r an o p p o r t u n i t y t o t e s t i f y or t o examine Hendershot. The f o l l o w i n g e x c h a n g e t o o k at place t h e end o f t h e s h e l t e r - c a r e h e a r i n g : "THE COURT: I t h i n k i t ' s s u f f i c i e n t . A l l r i g h t . B a s e d on t h e e v i d e n c e a n d t e s t i m o n y , a l o n g w i t h t h e s t i p u l a t i o n s of the p a r t i e s , the Court finds t h i s h e a r i n g i s b e i n g h e l d w i t h i n 72 h o u r s . T h i s p i c k - u p i s warranted and n e c e s s a r y under t h e c o n d i t i o n s s t a t e d a n d [D.N.R.] i s d e p e n d e n t a n d I w i l l d e c l a r e the c h i l d dependent today. T h e r e f o r e , custody w i l l r e m a i n w i t h [DHR] p e n d i n g an a d j u d i c a t o r y h e a r i n g w h i c h w i l l be s e t , I g u e s s , some t i m e w i t h i n t h e n e x t 60 d a y s . A n y t h i n g e l s e we n e e d t o t a k e up a t t h i s time? "[The "THE c u s t o d i a n ] : Judge? COURT: Y e s , ma'am. "[The c u s t o d i a n ] : Those p a p e r s [ i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e c u s t o d i a n was D.N.R.'s l e g a l c u s t o d i a n ] -- I ' v e been t r y i n g t o g e t somebody's a t t e n t i o n . I t h i n k t h e y ' r e d o w n s t a i r s , a n d I t h i n k I h a d them r e c o r d e d . "THE COURT: Okay. W e l l , i f you f i n d h e l p them a n d a s s i s t them. "[DHR's a t t o r n e y ] : I t ' s a good "[The c u s t o d i a n ] : I'm p r e t t y had them r e c o r d e d . " On J u l y 21, 2011, t h e j u v e n i l e t r a n s f e r r i n g pendente l i t e custody them, i t will start. sure I took them a n d court entered i t s order, o f D.N.R. t o DHR, a n d , in a handwritten a d d i t i o n t o i t s f i n d i n g s , i t i n c l u d e d a sentence 6 2111220 a n d 2120020 that reads: "The C o u r t f i n d s t h e minor c h i l d dependent." custodian d i d not appeal D.N.R. was p l a c e d court t h e J u l y 21, 2011, judgment. i n a foster s e t an a d j u d i c a t o r y h e a r i n g J u l y 26, 2 0 1 1 , D.N.R. r e a c h e d home, and t h e j u v e n i l e f o r August 18 y e a r s record. At that hearing "adopted mother" guardian." the i n which D.N.R.'s legal "diagnosed to and t h e c u s t o d i a n 26, 2 0 1 1 , h e a r i n g . evidence was r e f e r r e d t o as dependency, on A u g u s t dependent. that the custodian and a s s e r t e d that and t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t The c u s t o d i a n d i d n o t a p p e a l into h a d been D.N.R. h a d b e e n The c u s t o d i a n 26, 2 0 1 1 , a g a i n "the b y an a t t o r n e y a t DHR o f f e r e d a r e p o r t with Mental Retardation." D.N.R.'s judgment i tconfirmed guardian i s included i n W.R.M. was r e f e r r e d t o as t h e The c u s t o d i a n was r e p r e s e n t e d August 26, 2 0 1 1 . On o f age. A t r a n s c r i p t o f t h e A u g u s t 26, 2 0 1 1 , a d j u d i c a t o r y h e a r i n g the The stipulated entered adjudicating a D.N.R. t h e A u g u s t 26, 2 0 1 1 , judgment. The c a s e was s e t f o r a r e v i e w and, on J a n u a r y in which i n January 2012, 30, 2012, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r i t found reunification hearing "that reasonable [with the custodian] 7 efforts toward h a v e been made, a n d t h e 2111220 a n d 2120020 most a p p r o p r i a t e p l a n i s A d u l t C u s t o d i a l C a r e . " The c u s t o d i a n did not appeal D.N.R. w i t h t h e January 30, 2012, judgment. the biological mother DHR p l a c e d i n Pennsylvania i n June 2012. On June 27, 2 0 1 2 , t h e c u s t o d i a n ' s to sister i n t e r v e n e f o r the purpose o f seeking custody filed a motion o f D.N.R. On J u l y 20, 2 0 1 2 , t h e b i o l o g i c a l m o t h e r a n d h e r p a r t n e r , M.J.K., filed a petition juvenile court f o r custody signed o f D.N.R. T h a t same d a y , a permanency-hearing-order i n c l u d e d i t s f i n d i n g s t h a t DHR h a d made r e a s o n a b l e reunite 2012, who D.N.R. w i t h was d e n o t e d a n d t h a t , a s o f J u l y 12, as " t h e p a r e n t . " sister several f i l i n g s , opposed The c u s t o d i a n D.N.R.'s change mother]" and the o f custody i n i n c l u d i n g an emergency m o t i o n f o r t h e r e t u r n D.N.R. t o A l a b a m a a n d a m o t i o n d i f f e r e n t guardian ad l i t e m . J u l y 20, that efforts to D.N.R. s h o u l d be " r e t u r n e d t o [ t h e b i o l o g i c a l custodian's of the custodian form the f o r t h e appointment o f a A p e r m a n e n c y h e a r i n g was h e l d on 2012. A t t h e J u l y 20, 2012, p e r m a n e n c y h e a r i n g , L a b r i s c a Cook, a DHR e m p l o y e e , was t h e o n l y w i t n e s s called to testify. Cook recommended t h a t D.N.R.'s p e r m a n e n c y p l a n s h o u l d be " r e t u r n t o 8 2111220 a n d 2120020 parent," referring to the biological mother Cook s a i d t h a t D.N.R. had b e e n i n f o s t e r c a r e t h a t a t t h e time o f the h e a r i n g biological mother biological mother Pennsylvania; Children the approved on t h e b i o l o g i c a l mother. financially f o r D.N.R. a n d t h a t a n d M.J.K. the b i o l o g i c a l mother. reason f o r which the been terminated; investigation parent in County consisted According Cook were testified capable of D.N.R. d e s i r e d that the providing to live with Cook s t a t e d t h a t DHR h a d i n v e s t i g a t e d b i o l o g i c a l mother's p a r e n t a l however, she of nothing b i o l o g i c a l mother f o r e x p l a n a t i o n custodian, foster Bureau o f I n v e s t i g a t i o n had completed background mother had t o Cook, t h e i n New C a s t l e , P e n n s y l v a n i a , a n d biological the According with the h e r h o u s e was a p p r o v e d b y t h e L a w r e n c e and Youth S e r v i c e s Federal checks an f o r one y e a r a n d s h e h a d been p l a c e d f o r one month. was as t h e p a r e n t . admitted more o f the that than reason. rights asking the 4 t o Cook, D.N.R. d i d n o t d e s i r e t o l i v e w i t h the custodian had not v i s i t e d with that the D.N.R. i n t h e The r e c o r d c o n t a i n s a c o p y o f t h e P e n n s y l v a n i a court's 1998 "order o f consent" i n which t h e b i o l o g i c a l mother c o n s e n t e d t o t h e a d o p t i o n o f D.N.R. a n d t o t h e t e r m i n a t i o n o f h e r p a r e n t a l r i g h t s t o D.N.R. W.R.M. i s n o t r e f e r r e d t o i n t h a t document. 4 9 2111220 a n d 2120020 past year, and t h e c u s t o d i a n had a t t e n d e d Individualized Service Plan meetings o n l y two o f t h r e e regarding D.N.R. She t e s t i f i e d t h a t , d u r i n g t h e t i m e t h a t D.N.R. h a d l i v e d w i t h t h e custodian, D.N.R. h a d n o t h a d a bedroom i n t h e c u s t o d i a n ' s " s p a c i o u s " h o u s e , a l t h o u g h a y o u n g e r c h i l d had a l a r g e bedroom w i t h an a t t a c h e d b a t h r o o m . a "little the loft" custodian Cook s a i d t h a t D.N.R. h a d s l e p t i n t h a t was n o t e n c l o s e d . h a d been "indicated bizarre discipline, well." On c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n of "indicated" resulted She and a l s o mental f o r p h y s i c a l abuse that s h e was [for] food n o t aware physical and emotional Cook a d m i t t e d from h e r " w i t h h o l d i n g said Cook t e s t i f i e d t h a t abuse, abuse as that the findings and b i z a r r e and water" whether from D.N.R. the p h y s i c a l abuse/bizarre discipline was t h a t D.N.R. h a d f a i l e d t o p r o v i d e w a t e r t o t h e testimony o c c u r r e d more t h a n discipline once, b u t t h e r e f a m i l y ' s p e t s , w h i c h was h e r c h o r e , a n d t h a t t h e c u s t o d i a n h a d once w i t h h e l d w a t e r method o f d i s c i p l i n e chore. f r o m D.N.R. f o r an unknown p e r i o d as a t o teach D.N.R. t h e i m p o r t a n c e of her Cook a d m i t t e d t h a t D.N.R. was " i n good h e a l t h " a n d o f normal weight when s h e e n t e r e d 10 foster care. 2111220 a n d 2120020 On J u l y 26, 2 0 1 2 , t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t s i g n e d an o r d e r t h a t stated that mother]," D.N.R. "shall be returned b u t i t f a i l e d t o address to [the b i o l o g i c a l the other pending On A u g u s t 6, 2012, t h e c u s t o d i a n a n d t h e c u s t o d i a n ' s motions. sister f i l e d s e p a r a t e m o t i o n s t o r e c o n s i d e r t h e J u l y 26, 2012, o r d e r , w h i c h t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t d e n i e d on A u g u s t 20, 2012. T h a t same day, the juvenile read, court entered the following judgment that i n i t s entirety: "BASED UPON t h e r e p o r t a n d r e c o m m e n d a t i o n o f t h e g u a r d i a n a d l i t e m s u b m i t t e d on J u l y 19, 2 0 1 2 , a n d t h e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n o f [DHR], l e g a l a n d p h y s i c a l custody o f [D.N.R.] i s hereby awarded t o t h e b i o l o g i c a l mother[]. " A l l other hereby denied." DHR f i l e d pending motions a postjudgment motion and r e q u e s t s a r e seeking a deletion the p o r t i o n o f t h e A u g u s t 20, 2012, judgment i n w h i c h t h e j u v e n i l e court had s p e c i f i e d t h a t i t h a d b a s e d i t s judgment on DHR's r e c o m m e n d a t i o n a n d an amendment o f t h e j u d g m e n t t o a l l o w DHR t o m o n i t o r D.N.R.'s p l a c e m e n t w i t h t h e b i o l o g i c a l m o t h e r . juvenile requested allowing six court entered an amended p o r t i o n o f i t s judgment DHR t o m o n i t o r judgment, on A u g u s t D.N.R.'s p l a c e m e n t months. 11 The deleting the 2 3 , 2012, a n d f o r a minimum o f 2111220 and DHR 2120020 and the guardian requesting an custodian's order ad l i t e m a l s o f i l e d requiring sister to the cease custodian publishing i n f o r m a t i o n " i n v i o l a t i o n o f A l a . Code 1975, Exhibits attached advertisement to the f o r a Web regarding the guardians ad narrative i n which joint litem. motion family court, The she custodian's identified and the § 12-15-133(g). newspaper c o u l d p o s t comments DHR caseworkers, sister the motion "confidential included a s i t e where p e r s o n s Lauderdale a joint had posted or a j u v e n i l e - c o u r t judge, DHR e m p l o y e e s , and a t t o r n e y s i n v o l v e d i n t h e u n d e r l y i n g a c t i o n by name, but D.N.R., t h e persons, Web she used custodian, fictitious and the or shortened biological i n c l u d i n g t h e c u s t o d i a n , had p o s t e d site. The custodian's comment d i d n o t names mother. for Other comments on the i n c l u d e D.N.R.'s name. On A u g u s t 20, and desist 2012, order," the juvenile forbidding court entered a the custodian "cease and the c u s t o d i a n ' s s i s t e r f r o m " d i s s e m i n a t i o n o f names, i d e n t i t i e s [ , ] or other statu[t]e, confidential via the information newspaper, which internet are protected website s o c i a l n e t w o r k i n g m e d i a , a n d / o r by any o t h e r f o r m . " 12 and by other On A u g u s t 2111220 a n d 2120020 31, 2012, t h e c u s t o d i a n separate appeals with mero motu on O c t o b e r and t h e c u s t o d i a n ' s this 5, c o u r t , which sister filed we c o n s o l i d a t e d e x 2012. DHR's L e t t e r Brief DHR, i n a l e t t e r b r i e f t o t h i s c o u r t , u r g e s t h i s c o u r t t o dismiss the appeals, contending t h a t D.N.R. was 18 y e a r s o f age when s h e was a d j u d i c a t e d d e p e n d e n t on A u g u s t 26, 2 0 1 1 . If t h a t were t r u e , we w o u l d g r a n t DHR's r e q u e s t , b e c a u s e , i n o r d e r f o r a c h i l d t o be 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 , she must contained meet the definition o f t h e term "child" i n A l a . Code 1975, § 1 2 - 1 5 - 1 0 2 ( 3 ) : 5 he o r that i s "An i n d i v i d u a l u n d e r t h e age o f 18 y e a r s , o r u n d e r 21 y e a r s o f age a n d b e f o r e the juvenile court that individual's f o r a delinquency 18th birthday acknowledge t h e j u v e n i l e July 21, 2011, o r d e r " arising addition to i t s t h a t i n c l u d e d t h e sentence: dependent on J u l y "The C o u r t We c o n c l u d e t h a t D.N.R. was 21, 2011, which t h e age o f 18. she reached cannot be d i s m i s s e d on t h e g r o u n d t h a t DHR a s s e r t s . DHR d i d n o t f i l e Therefore, was 5 d a y s before 5 a f o r m a l b r i e f on a p p e a l . 13 before However, DHR f a i l s t o court's handwritten f i n d s the minor c h i l d dependent." adjudicated matter the appeals 2111220 and 2120020 The The Custodian's custodian's s i s t e r juvenile court received s u p p o r t i t s J u l y 21, 2011, Sister's seeks clear our and Appeal review of whether convincing evidence custodian's s i s t e r ' s August 20, 2012, by the motion to juvenile i n t e r v e n e was court. The However, denied motion t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t e x c e e d e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n by d e n y i n g t o i n t e r v e n e and, t h a t argument on likewise, she has failed appeal. "'"Unless a person i s a p a r t y to a j u d g m e n t , he [cannot] a p p e a l from t h a t j u d g m e n t . T h a t f u n d a m e n t a l p r i n c i p l e i s one of the o l d e s t i n Alabama j u r i s p r u d e n c e . " D a u g h t r y v. M o b i l e C o u n t y S h e r i f f ' s D e p ' t , 536 So. 2d 953, 954 ( A l a . 1 9 8 8 ) . "One must have been a p a r t y t o t h e j u d g m e n t b e l o w i n o r d e r t o have s t a n d i n g t o a p p e a l any i s s u e a r i s i n g o u t o f t h a t j u d g m e n t . " Mars H i l l B a p t i s t C h u r c h o f A n n i s t o n v. Mars H i l l M i s s i o n a r y B a p t i s t C h u r c h , 761 So. 2d 975, 980 ( A l a . 1999) (emphasis added [in B o s c h e r t ] ) . See a l s o T r i p l e J C a t t l e , I n c . v. Chambers, 621 So. 2d 1221 ( A l a . 1993) . " ' B o s c h e r t has n e v e r b e e n a d e f e n d a n t , a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e , o r a member o f the p l a i n t i f f c l a s s i n the Naef case. I t i s not an i n t e r v e n o r . C o n s e q u e n t l y , t h e n o t i c e o f a p p e a l f i l e d by B o s c h e r t f a i l e d t o i n v o k e 14 on custodian's s i s t e r f a i l e d t o r a i s e an a r g u m e n t i n h e r p o s t j u d g m e n t motion to d e p e n d e n c y f i n d i n g and o f w h e t h e r the j u v e n i l e c o u r t had j u r i s d i c t i o n over the cause. the the to her raise 2111220 and 2120020 the a p p e l l a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h i s Court. For these reasons, the appeal must be dismissed.' " [ B o s c h e r t M e r r i f i e l d C o n s u l t a n t s , I n c . v. M a s o n i t e C o r p . , ] 897 So. 2d [1048,] 1051-52 [ ( A l a . 2 0 0 4 ) ] . " McCollum 2008). nor v. Keating, Likewise, the 5 So. 3d 1283, custodian's 1287 (Ala. Civ. s i s t e r was App. neither a party an i n t e r v e n o r i n t h e u n d e r l y i n g a c t i o n . The custodian's s i s t e r has f a i l e d to invoke the a p p e l l a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h i s c o u r t , and her The appeal Custodian's The custodian issues. i s therefore i s A p p e a l -- issues dependency order court's are court lacked subject-matter 2011, Subject-matter seeks t h i s Among h e r dismissed. Jurisdiction review of a number assertions that the juvenile j u r i s d i c t i o n t o e n t e r i t s J u l y 21, and that, therefore, i t lacked j u r i s d i c t i o n under the Uniform C h i l d Custody J u r i s d i c t i o n Enforcement 30-3B-101 Act et ("UCCJEA"), seq., b i o l o g i c a l m o t h e r on No with the 6 a t 23 one to directives codified award J u l y 26, argued to the of of at custody 2012. Ala. of Code D.N.R. 1975, to and § the 6 j u v e n i l e c o u r t t h a t i t must c o m p l y the UCCJEA, and no one informed the P e n n s y l v a n i a has a l s o a d o p t e d t h e UCCJEA. I t i s c o d i f i e d Pa. Cons. S t a t . § 5401 e t s e q . 15 2111220 a n d 2120020 j u v e n i l e c o u r t i n p l e a d i n g s o r a t t h e J u l y 20, 2 0 1 1 , s h e l t e r care hearing t h a t t h e Pennsylvania c o u r t h a d made 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 as t o D.N.R. I n f a c t , the f i r s t mention of the j u r i s d i c t i o n a l appeal to this requirements o f t h e UCCJEA comes on court. "However, i n t h e c o n t e x t o f a c u s t o d y matter c o n t r o l l e d b y t h e UCCJEA, ' j u r i s d i c t i o n t o make a child custody determination i s subject matter j u r i s d i c t i o n , ' a n d 'an a g r e e m e n t o f t h e p a r t i e s t o confer jurisdiction on a c o u r t t h a t w o u l d n o t o t h e r w i s e have j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r t h e [UCCJEA] i s i n e f f e c t i v e . ' A l a . Code 1975, § 30-3B-201, O f f i c i a l Comment ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . " M.B.L. v . G.G.L., 1 So. 3 d 1048, 1051 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 2 0 0 8 ) . "'[S]ubject-matter jurisdiction court's lack of subject-matter any time by any p a r t y mero motu.'" may n o t be w a i v e d ; jurisdiction a may be r a i s e d a t a n d may e v e n be r a i s e d b y a c o u r t e x S.B.U. v . D.G.B., 913 So. 2d 452, 455 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2005) ( q u o t i n g C . J . L . v . M.W.B., 868 So. 2d 451, Civ. App. 2 0 0 3 ) ) . Questions o f law, 453 ( A l a . s u c h as w h e t h e r a c o u r t has 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 , a r e r e v i e w e d de novo. BT S e c . Corp. v . W.R. Huff Asset Mgmt. Co., 891 So. 2d 310 (Ala. 2004). In custody this case, the Pennsylvania determination court made an as t o D.N.R., a n d t h e j u v e n i l e 16 initial court 2111220 a n d 2120020 modified case that determination. i s controlled requirements state by t h e UCCJEA, We must determine jurisdiction t o modify pursuant § to we custody conclude which t h a t must be met i n o r d e r t o m o d i f y an i n i t i a l state. Thus, 7 f o r a court of this of another t h e j u v e n i l e court had the Pennsylvania 30-3B-201(a)(1) this prescribes the determination whether that or court's judgment ( 2 ) , A l a . Code 1975, ( d i s c u s s e d i n f r a ) a n d e i t h e r § 30-3B-203(1) o r ( 2 ) , A l a . Code 1975. S e c t i o n 30-3B-203 p r o v i d e s , i n i t s entirety: "Except as o t h e r w i s e provided i n Section 30-3B-204, a c o u r t o f t h i s s t a t e may n o t m o d i f y a c h i l d custody d e t e r m i n a t i o n made b y a c o u r t o f another s t a t e u n l e s s a c o u r t o f t h i s s t a t e has j u r i s d i c t i o n t o make an i n i t i a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n u n d e r S e c t i o n 3 0 - 3 B - 2 0 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) o r (2) a n d : "(1) The c o u r t o f t h e o t h e r s t a t e d e t e r m i n e s i t no l o n g e r h a s c o n t i n u i n g , exclusive jurisdiction under Section 30-3B-202 o r t h a t a c o u r t o f t h i s s t a t e w o u l d be a more c o n v e n i e n t forum under S e c t i o n 30-3B-207; o r A l a b a m a Code " m o d i f i c a t i o n " as 7 1975, § 30-3B-102(11), broadly defines "[a] child custody determination that changes, r e p l a c e s , s u p e r s e d e s , o r i s o t h e r w i s e made a f t e r a p r e v i o u s d e t e r m i n a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g t h e same c h i l d , w h e t h e r o r n o t i t i s made b y t h e c o u r t t h a t made t h e previous determination." 17 2111220 a n d 2120020 "(2) A c o u r t o f t h i s s t a t e o r a c o u r t of t h e other s t a t e determines t h a t t h e c h i l d , t h e c h i l d ' s p a r e n t s , and any p e r s o n a c t i n g a s a p a r e n t do n o t p r e s e n t l y r e s i d e i n t h e other s t a t e . " On J u l y 20, 2 0 1 1 , H e n d e r s h o t t e s t i f i e d t h a t D.N.R. "was without a parent, a n a t u r a l parent, m o t h e r o r f a t h e r , t h a t was t h i s day able o r capable o f p r o v i d i n g supervision ha[s] or control." f o r h e r immediate Hendershot no k n o w l e d g e , no p r o o f t h a t testified [D.N.R.]'s a l l e g e d m o t h e r [W.R.M.], e v e r h a d l e g a l c u s t o d y . and s o [W.R.M.'s] s i s t e r , with her "[DHR] adopted She i s now d e c e a s e d , [ t h e c u s t o d i a n ] , h a s [D.N.R.] l i v i n g [ i n Alabama]." requirements that care, Thus, o f § 30-3B-203(2) we conclude are satisfied that the because t h e j u v e n i l e court hadbefore i t evidence i n d i c a t i n g that D.N.R., n o r h e r p a r e n t s , n o r any p e r s o n a c t i n g as h e r p a r e n t resided i n Pennsylvania. requirements of either Next, 8 § we analyze 30-3B-201(a)(1) neither whether t h e or (2) were satisfied. Section 3 0 - 3 B - 2 0 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) a n d (2) r e a d : We have n o t o v e r l o o k e d t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t J.M. m i g h t be D.N.R.'s p a r e n t b y a d o p t i o n a n d t h a t he m i g h t r e s i d e i n Pennsylvania. However, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t was n o t p r e s e n t e d w i t h e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t J.M. h a d a d o p t e d D.N.R. 8 18 2111220 a n d 2120020 "(a) E x c e p t as o t h e r w i s e p r o v i d e d i n S e c t i o n 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 to l i v e i n t h i s 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 appropriate 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, a n d : " a . The c h i l d a n d t h e c h i l d ' s parents, or the c h i l d and a t 1 ^ ^ 4^ least one p a r e n t o r a p e r s o n acting as a p a r e n t , have a s i g n i f i c a n t connection with this s t a t e o t h e r t h a n mere p h y s i c a l p r e s e n c e ; and "b. S u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e i s available in this state concerning the child's care, protection, training, and personal relationships." We determine that A l a b a m a was D.N.R.'s home s t a t e a n d t h a t t h e c u s t o d i a n was t h e p e r s o n a c t i n g a s h e r p a r e n t on J u l y 20, 2011. pertinent Section part, 30-3B-102(7) defines "home s t a t e , " i n as " [ t ] h e s t a t e i n w h i c h a c h i l d l i v e d w i t h a 19 2111220 a n d 2120020 parent or a person acting as a p a r e n t c o n s e c u t i v e months i m m e d i a t e l y child custody proceeding. a "person f o rat least s i x b e f o r e t h e commencement o f a ... " Section 30-3B-102(13)defines a c t i n g a s a p a r e n t " as "[a] person, o t h e r t h a n a p a r e n t , who: "a. Has p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d or has had p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y f o r a p e r i o d o f six c o n s e c u t i v e months, i n c l u d i n g any temporary absence, within one year i m m e d i a t e l y b e f o r e t h e commencement o f a c h i l d custody proceeding; and "b. Has b e e n a w a r d e d l e g a l c u s t o d y b y a court or claims a r i g h t t o l e g a l custody under t h e l a w o f t h i s s t a t e . " The juvenile court received undisputed evidence i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e c u s t o d i a n h a d p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y o f D.N.R. as d e f i n e d b y § 3 0 - 3 B - 1 0 2 ( 1 4 ) . " P h y s i c a l custody" i sdefined i n t h a t s t a t u t e s i m p l y as " [ t ] h e p h y s i c a l c a r e a n d s u p e r v i s i o n of a child." or person custody I d . A l a b a m a was D.N.R.'s home s t a t e ; no p a r e n t acting as h e r p a r e n t o f D.N.R. w i t h i n evidence presented i n Pennsylvania had p h y s i c a l s i x months o f J u l y to the juvenile court 20, 2 0 1 1 . The satisfied the r e q u i r e m e n t s o f § 3 0 - 3 B - 2 0 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) . Thus, we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e c u s t o d i a n ' s argument t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t l a c k e d s u b j e c t matter jurisdiction t o enter i t s July 20 21, 2011, dependency 2111220 a n d 2120020 order and t h a t custody i tlacked continuing o f D.N.R. t o t h e b i o l o g i c a l The Custodian's jurisdiction m o t h e r must Remaining fail. Issues F o r p u r p o s e s o f d i s c u s s i o n , we c a t a g o r i z e t h e remaining 2011, and (2) i s s u e s r e g a r d i n g (3) an i s s u e regarding the custodian violated her right juvenile court shelter-care t h e August argues hearing to provide would her with be a the juvenile she complains her with i t clear order. h e a r i n g and r e p r e s e n t a t i o n b y an a t t o r n e y a t and c o n v i n c i n g evidence v i e w s on t h e m e r i t s o f t h e s e upon that the Furthermore, she a l l e g e s t h a t the j u v e n i l e d i d have b e f o r e rule court that the notice "dependency" t h a t D.N.R. was d e p e n d e n t on J u l y 21, 2011. to order, 20, 2 0 1 2 , c e a s e - a n d - that t o due p r o c e s s ; failed t o provide that hearing. not t h e J u l y 26, 2012, order. First, failed custodian's i s s u e s as f o l l o w s : (1) i s s u e s r e g a r d i n g t h e J u l y 2 1 , order, desist t o award any i s s u e s "Written days o f t h e date Regardless a r g u m e n t s , we l a c k shall of the entry o f order o f our jurisdiction pertaining to the July n o t i c e of appeal from, whether t h e appeal indicating be f i l e d o r judgment 21, 2011, w i t h i n 14 appealed i s t o an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t o r t o t h e 21 2111220 a n d 2120020 c i r c u i t court for t r i a l The de n o v o . " custodian's n o t i c e of appeal R u l e 2 8 ( C ) , A l a . R. J u v . P. as t o t h e J u l y o r d e r was r e q u i r e d t o have b e e n f i l e d no l a t e r 2011, t o be t i m e l y . 21, t h a n A u g u s t 3, Because t h e c u s t o d i a n d i d n o t f i l e a p p e a l u n t i l A u g u s t 3 1 , 2012 -- 2011, this more t h a n a y e a r a f t e r t h e 14-day p e r i o d h a d e x p i r e d -- t h i s c o u r t h a s no j u r i s d i c t i o n t o consider her appeal insofar See R u l e as i t c h a l l e n g e s t h e J u l y 20, 2011, order. shall be d i s m i s s e d i f t h e n o t i c e o f a p p e a l filed t o invoke the j u r i s d i c t i o n R.P.M. v . P.D.A., , 2 ( a ) ( 1 ) , A l a . R. App. P. ("An a p p e a l was n o t t i m e l y of the appellate court."); [Ms. 2110915, Nov. 30, 2012] ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 2 ) . So. 3 d We, t h e r e f o r e , d i s m i s s t h e custodian's appeal i n part. In t h e s e c o n d s e t o f r e m a i n i n g i s s u e s -- t h o s e p e r t a i n i n g to t h e J u l y 26, 2 0 1 2 , o r d e r -- t h e c u s t o d i a n a r g u e s (1) t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t d i d n o t have b e f o r e i t c l e a r a n d c o n v i n c i n g evidence 2012, indicating that D.N.R. was d e p e n d e n t on J u l y 26, a n d (2) t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t s h o u l d have g r a n t e d h e r postjudgment motion, D.N.R. t o A l a b a m a , h e r emergency m o t i o n and h e r motion 22 f o rthe return of f o r t h e appointment of a 2111220 a n d 2120020 d i f f e r e n t guardian ad l i t e m . the dependency d e t e r m i n a t i o n We a d d r e s s t h e i s s u e regarding first. "With r e g a r d t o t h e s t a n d a r d t h i s c o u r t a p p l i e s i n r e v i e w i n g a dependency d e t e r m i n a t i o n , t h i s c o u r t has s t a t e d : "'A f i n d i n g o f d e p e n d e n c y must be s u p p o r t e d by c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e . [Former] § 1 2 - 1 5 - 6 5 ( f ) [ , A l a . Code 1975 (now c o d i f i e d a t § 12-15-310, A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 ) ] ; M.M.S. v. D.W., 735 So. 2d 1230, 1233 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 9 ) . However, m a t t e r s o f dependency a r e w i t h i n t h e sound d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t , and a t r i a l c o u r t ' s r u l i n g on a d e p e n d e n c y a c t i o n i n which evidence i s presented ore tenus w i l l n o t be r e v e r s e d a b s e n t a s h o w i n g t h a t t h e r u l i n g was p l a i n l y a n d p a l p a b l y wrong. R.G. v. C a l h o u n C o u n t y Dep't o f Human Res., 716 So. 2d 219 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 8 ) ; G.C. v. G.D., 712 So. 2d 1091 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 7 ) ; a n d J.M. v. S t a t e Dep't o f Human Res., 686 So. 2d 1253 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1996).' "J.S.M. v. P . J . , 902 So. 2d 89, 95 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2004). ' C l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e ' i s " ' [ e ] v i d e n c e t h a t , when w e i g h e d a g a i n s t evidence i n o p p o s i t i o n , w i l l produce i n the mind o f t h e t r i e r o f f a c t a f i r m c o n v i c t i o n as t o e a c h e s s e n t i a l e l e m e n t o f t h e c l a i m and a high probability as t o the c o r r e c t n e s s o f t h e c o n c l u s i o n . Proof by c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g evidence r e q u i r e s a l e v e l o f proof g r e a t e r than a preponderance of the evidence or the s u b s t a n t i a l weight of t h e evidence, b u t l e s s than beyond a reasonable doubt.' 23 2111220 and 2120020 "§ 6 - 1 1 - 2 0 ( b ) ( 4 ) , A l a . Code 1975." T.E.W. v. T.S., 97 So. 3d 157, 161 The c u s t o d i a n , to discount i n a one-page the testimony ( A l a . C i v . App. 2012). argument, urges t h i s of the only witness court to t e s t i f y at t h e J u l y 20, 2012, p e r m a n e n c y h e a r i n g b e c a u s e i t " c o n s i s t e d o f a l o t o f h e a r s a y s t a t e m e n t s and l e a d i n g q u e s t i o n s " and b e c a u s e "nothing clearly was d e p e n d e n t . " and c o n v i n c i n g l y However, established that she has f a i l e d t o r e f e r t h i s t o r e l e v a n t l e g a l a u t h o r i t y s u p p o r t i n g h e r argument. c i t a t i o n t o M.G. v. J.T., 90 So. 3d 762 does n o t s u p p o r t h e r a r g u m e n t . did not have before i t clear an [D.N.R.] dependency because conducted. Her l o n e ( A l a . C i v . App. 2012), In t h a t case a j u v e n i l e c o u r t and adjudicatory convincing hearing evidence 90 So. 3d a t 766. had not " ' I t i s the a p p e l l a n t ' s burden t o r e f e r t h i s C o u r t t o l e g a l a u t h o r i t y t h a t s u p p o r t s i t s argument. R u l e 2 8 ( a ) ( 1 0 ) , A l a . R. App. P., r e q u i r e s t h a t t h e argument i n an a p p e l l a n t ' s b r i e f i n c l u d e " c i t a t i o n s t o t h e c a s e s , s t a t u t e s , [and] o t h e r a u t h o r i t i e s ... r e l i e d o n . " C o n s i s t e n t w i t h R u l e 28, " [ w ] e have s t a t e d that i t i s not the f u n c t i o n of t h i s court to do a p a r t y ' s l e g a l r e s e a r c h . " S p r a d l i n v. S p r a d l i n , 601 So. 2d 76, 78 ( A l a . 1992) ( c i t i n g H e n d e r s o n v. A l a b a m a A & M U n i v e r s i t y , 483 So. 2d 392, 392 ( A l a . 1986) ("'Where an a p p e l l a n t fails to cite any a u t h o r i t y , we may a f f i r m , f o r i t i s n e i t h e r o u r d u t y nor f u n c t i o n t o p e r f o r m a l l the l e g a l r e s e a r c h f o r 24 court of been 2111220 and 2120020 an a p p e l l a n t . ' G i b s o n v. N i x , 460 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1984).")).'" Mullins v. Sellers, 80 So. 3d So. 935, 2d 1346, 945 1347 (Ala. Civ. 2011) ( q u o t i n g B o a r d o f W a t e r & Sewer Comm'rs o f C i t y o f v. Bill Harbert Constr. Co., 27 So. 3d 1223, App. Mobile 1254 (Ala. 2009)). Furthermore, the custodian d e p e n d e n c y a t t h e A u g u s t 26, did not testify or call p e r m a n e n c y h e a r i n g , and o f c l e a r and 6, 2012, appeal. See juvenile at the f o r the next is court first address court to D.N.R.'s July 20, she 2012, she d i d n o t r a i s e t h e i s s u e o f a l a c k of dependency i n her Thus, we raising should may not the 612 consider on August cannot c o n s i d e r i t for Andrews v. M e r r i t t O i l Co., 1992)(this We she stipulated adjudicatory hearing, witnesses postjudgment motion. because presented 2011, convincing evidence argument (Ala. had first So. time 2d 409, the have custodian's granted argument her August that on 410 appeal). time arguments her that 6, p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n , w h i c h i n c l u d e d a vague r e f e r e n c e t o are the 2012, her previously filed emergency m o t i o n f o r t h e r e t u r n o f D.N.R. t o Alabama motion and her for the 25 appointment of a different 2111220 and 2120020 guardian litem, entered ad a as to which the j u v e n i l e court had not ruling. " I n g e n e r a l , w h e t h e r t o g r a n t o r t o deny a p o s t t r i a l m o t i o n i s w i t h i n t h e sound d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t , and t h e e x e r c i s e o f t h a t d i s c r e t i o n w i l l n o t be d i s t u r b e d on a p p e a l u n l e s s by i t s r u l i n g t h e c o u r t a b u s e d some l e g a l r i g h t and t h e r e c o r d p l a i n l y shows t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d . See G r e e n T r e e A c c e p t a n c e , I n c . v. S t a n d r i d g e , 565 So. 2d 38 (Ala. 1990)." Flagstar Enters., I n c . v. F o s t e r , 779 So. 2d 1220, 1221 ( A l a . 2000). The custodian's bare court t h a t "the f a i l u r e allegation i n her brief to this of the j u v e n i l e court i n not setting a s i d e i t s o r d e r s and r e t u r n i n g [D.N.R.] t o t h e c u s t o d y of [the custodian] was p l a i n l y wrong and an abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n " not demonstrate cites Hamrick 1987), App. error to t h i s v. Hamrick, and Phillips 1981), which judgment i f discretion. the court. 508 v. P h i l l i p s , explain record Hamrick, 508 In her postjudgment that So. 282 So. this So. 2d a t p o i n t out t o the j u v e n i l e c o u r t 2d 395 discloses motion, However, t h e court a custodian (Ala. Civ. 2d 1040 can manifest App. (Ala. Civ. reverse a abuse of 284. the custodian continued i t s alleged failings to at the J u l y 20, 2011, s h e l t e r - c a r e h e a r i n g , a t w h i c h , she s a i d , 26 does "her 2111220 and 2120020 r i g h t s as a t h e l e g a l g u a r d i a n were n o t o n l y v i o l a t e d b u t a l s o disregarded." We might manifest of discretion abuse shelter-care the record hearing does agree and not that the regarding the J u l y 21, disclose a record the July 2011, similar discloses a order; manifest d i s c r e t i o n w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e J u l y 26, 2012, order. 20, however, abuse Thus, a f f i r m the j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s d e n i a l of the c u s t o d i a n ' s 6, 2012, 2011, of we August postjudgment motion. Finally, the custodian argues that the juvenile v i o l a t e d h e r F i r s t Amendment r i g h t t o f r e e s p e e c h by DHR's and the guardian ad court granting l i t e m ' s j o i n t motion to cease and desist. "'A c o u r t has a duty to avoid constitutional q u e s t i o n s u n l e s s e s s e n t i a l to the proper d i s p o s i t i o n o f t h e c a s e . D o u g h t y v. T a r w a t e r , 261 A l a . 263, 73 So. 2d 540 ( 1 9 5 4 ) ; Moses v. T a r w a t e r , 257 A l a . 361, 58 So. 2d 757 ( 1 9 5 2 ) ; Lee v. Macon Co. B o a r d o f E d u c a t i o n , 231 F. Supp. 743 (M.D. A l a . 1 9 6 4 ) . ' " Lowe v. trial F u l f o r d , 442 So. 2d 29, 33 ( A l a . 1983) ( q u o t i n g the court's order). We do not reach the custodian's constitutional question b e c a u s e we d e t e r m i n e t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t i s i n c o r r e c t t h a t the Code custodian 1975, and § the custodian's 12-15-133(g), 27 sister which had violated pertains to Ala. the 2111220 and 2120020 confidentiality Subsection of the records (g) p r o v i d e s of juvenile proceedings. in i t s entirety: "(g) E x c e p t f o r t h e p u r p o s e s p e r m i t t e d and i n the manner p r o v i d e d by this section, whoever d i s c l o s e s o r makes use o f o r k n o w i n g l y p e r m i t s t h e use of i n f o r m a t i o n i d e n t i f y i n g a c h i l d , or the family of a child, who i s o r was under the jurisdiction of the j u v e n i l e c o u r t , where this i n f o r m a t i o n i s d i r e c t l y or i n d i r e c t l y d e r i v e d from the records of the j u v e n i l e c o u r t or a c q u i r e d i n the c o u r s e o f o f f i c i a l d u t i e s , upon c o n v i c t i o n t h e r e o f , s h a l l be g u i l t y o f a C l a s s A m i s d e m e a n o r u n d e r t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t and a l s o may be s u b j e c t t o c i v i l s a n c t i o n s . P r o v i d e d , however, t h a t nothing in this s e c t i o n s h a l l be construed to p r o h i b i t or o t h e r w i s e l i m i t c o u n s e l from d i s c l o s i n g c o n f i d e n t i a l i n f o r m a t i o n o b t a i n e d from the j u v e n i l e c o u r t f i l e o f t h e c h i l d as n e e d e d t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e case of the c l i e n t or prepare a defense f o r t h a t client, provided that the disclosure is in furtherance of counsel's representation of the party." We have reviewed m o t i o n t o c e a s e and the exhibits desist, and we attached to agree w i t h the the joint custodian t h a t t h e e x h i b i t s d i d n o t i d e n t i f y D.N.R. o r D.N.R.'s f a m i l y . F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e i n f o r m a t i o n c o n t a i n e d i n t h e e x h i b i t s was derived from the records 12-15-133 i s i n t e n d e d not DHR judges, its employees, we remand t h e A u g u s t 20, 2012, of the juvenile court. to p r o t e c t the guardians ad litem, cause f o r the cease-and-desist 28 identity or Because § of j u v e n i l e s , juvenile-court j u v e n i l e court to order. not vacate 2111220 a n d 2120020 2111220 APPEAL DISMISSED. Thompson, P . J . , a n d P i t t m a n , a n d D o n a l d s o n , J J . , c o n c u r . Moore, J . , c o n c u r s 2120020 PART AND i n the result, without writing. APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART; JUDGMENT AFFIRMED IN REVERSED IN PART; AND CAUSE REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Donaldson, J . , concurs. Moore, J . , c o n c u r s Thompson, with writing, i n the result, without P.J., concurs which i n part and d i s s e n t s i n p a r t , Pittman, J . , j o i n s . 29 writing. 2111220 a n d 2120020 THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e , c o n c u r r i n g i n p a r t and d i s s e n t i n g i n p a r t i n c a s e no. 2120020. I w o u l d n o t remand t h i s court t o vacate action to require the juvenile t h e A u g u s t 20, 2 0 1 2 , c e a s e - a n d - d e s i s t order. Even a s s u m i n g t h a t t h e e x h i b i t s a t t a c h e d t o t h e m o t i o n seeking the order d i d n o t i d e n t i f y D.N.R. o r D.N.R.'s f a m i l y , a s t h e m a i n o p i n i o n a s s e r t s , t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s o r d e r does nothing more t h a t r e q u i r e K.R. a n d J.W. t o c o m p l y w i t h § 1 2 - 1 5 - 1 3 3 ( g ) , Ala. Code 1975. "dissemination information In ordering o f names, which K.R. a n d J.W. identities are protected t o cease t h e or other by confidential statu[t]e, v i a the newspaper, i n t e r n e t w e b s i t e and o t h e r s o c i a l n e t w o r k i n g and/or by any o t h e r (emphasis added), t h e t r i a l essentially applicable form" p u t them i n this on case notice and that that § media, court 12-15-133(g) was the dissemination of c o n f i d e n t i a l i n f o r m a t i o n was p r o h i b i t e d b y l a w . I f i n d no b a s i s on w h i c h t o r e q u i r e t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t t o vacate that the cease-and-desist portion juvenile order; of the opinion court t o vacate remanding that remainder o f t h e o p i n i o n . Pittman, J., therefore, I dissent concurs. 30 t h e cause order. I concur from for the with the

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.