J.D. v. Lauderdale County Department of Human Resources and T.T.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 02/01/2013 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 Reporter of Decisions, 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 2111221 J.D. v. Lauderdale County Department o f Human Resources and T.T. Appeal from Lauderdale J u v e n i l e Court (JU-12-240.01) THOMAS, J u d g e . J.D. judgment ("the f a t h e r " ) appeals of the Lauderdale ("the c h i l d " ) from Juvenile an A u g u s t Court 20, declaring 2012, T.T.D. dependent and awarding c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d t o t h e L a u d e r d a l e C o u n t y D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s ("DHR"). 2111221 B e c a u s e we conclude t h a t the f a t h e r i s c o r r e c t i n arguing the 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 - m a t t e r its dependency instructions 2012, that the dependency custody orders explained we 17, and that entered 2012, T.T. district court's with the parent by the vacate i t amend by the 256th court"), ("the virtue to judgment, the child. appeal with i t s August 20, i t s temporary § 30-3B-204, as 1 home i n T e x a s , where he was custodial dismiss j u v e n i l e court judgment j u r i s d i c t i o n to enter t o c o m p l y w i t h A l a . Code 1975, below. On May his judgment, that of mother") t o o k the c h i l d r e s i d i n g w i t h the f a t h e r , h i s a District temporary-custody Court of Alabama. Under m o t h e r had only Based on from information Texas the judgment ("the Texas supervised indicating c h i l d had b e e n k i d n a p p e d by h i s n o n c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t , Texas district visitation that the the child B e c a u s e we f i n d t h e f a t h e r ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n a l argument d i s p o s i t i v e , we p r e t e r m i t t h e f a t h e r ' s o t h e r argument on appeal. See L.R. v. C.G., 78 So. 3d 436, 442 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2011) ( c i t i n g F a v o r i t e Mkt. S t o r e v. W a l d r o p , 924 So. 2d 719, 723 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2005)) ( s t a t i n g t h a t t h i s c o u r t would p r e t e r m i t d i s c u s s i o n of c e r t a i n i s s u e s i n l i g h t of the d i s p o s i t i v e nature of another i s s u e ) . 1 2 2111221 was removed City from t h e custody o f t h e mother by t h e Florence Police. DHR sought and r e c e i v e d a pick-up order granting i t t e m p o r a r y c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d on May 18, 2012. A t t h e t i m e the child was p l a c e d regarding him a l l e g e d p h y s i c a l and s e x u a l by h i s f a t h e r . petition though court i n DHR's c u s t o d y , seeking t o have t h e c h i l d a custody Laura proceeding p e n d i n g i n t h e Texas d i s t r i c t declared Traynor, disclosures abuse p e r p e t r a t e d On May 2 1 , 2012, DHR f i l e d i t s caseworker that he made a dependency dependent. informed regarding upon DHR, the juvenile the c h i l d was court. On May 23, 2012, t h e f a t h e r f i l e d a " L i m i t e d R e s p o n s e t o P e t i t i o n and M o t i o n t o R e s t o r e Custody t o C u s t o d i a l Parent." I n t h a t m o t i o n , t h e f a t h e r i n f o r m e d t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t t h a t he had been awarded c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d i n an A p r i l 2012 o r d e r of t h e Texas d i s t r i c t c o u r t , t h a t t h e mother had been awarded only supervised v i s i t a t i o n with the c h i l d i n that order, that t h e m o t h e r h a d k i d n a p p e d t h e c h i l d f r o m T e x a s on May 17, 2012, t h a t t h e a l l e g a t i o n s o f p h y s i c a l a n d s e x u a l abuse made a g a i n s t him had been Department investigated of Family and "ruled and P r o t e c t i v e 3 o u t " by Services, t h e Texas and t h a t t h e 2111221 m o t h e r had unsuccessfully proceeding dismissed sought based on to have the Texas jurisdictional custody grounds. father attached as e x h i b i t s t o h i s m o t i o n , among o t h e r the custody April 2012 order, documentation The things, r e l a t e d to the T e x a s D e p a r t m e n t o f F a m i l y and P r o t e c t i v e S e r v i c e s ' r u l i n g him o u t as a p e r p e t r a t o r the o f p h y s i c a l and sexual abuse a g a i n s t c h i l d , and an o r d e r f r o m t h e T e x a s d i s t r i c t c o u r t s t a t i n g t h a t i t would not d e c l i n e to e x e r c i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n over the of the c h i l d and d e c l a r i n g t h a t i t had exclusive, custody continuing j u r i s d i c t i o n over the c h i l d ' s custody under Texas's v e r s i o n the ("the Uniform C h i l d Custody J u r i s d i c t i o n U C C J E A " ) , c o d i f i e d a t Tex. and Enforcement F a m i l y Code Ann. of Act § 152.101 e t seq. On care May order ordering 23, the maintaining that the c h i l d . 2012, neither j u v e n i l e court custody of the entered child p a r e n t have u n s u p e r v i s e d a shelter- with DHR and contact with T h a t o r d e r a l s o s e t an a d j u d i c a t o r y h e a r i n g m a t t e r f o r J u n e 19, 2012. On J u n e 18, 2012, the t h e f a t h e r moved t o have t h e s h e l t e r - c a r e o r d e r v a c a t e d , a r g u i n g t h a t the d i d n o t c o m p l y w i t h t h e d i r e c t i v e s o f A l a . Code 1975, 4 on order § 30-3B- 2111221 204, a p a r t o f A l a b a m a ' s v e r s i o n o f t h e UCCJEA. 3B-204 r e a d s , S e c t i o n 30- i n pertinent part: "(a) A court of this s t a t e has temporary emergency j u r i s d i c t i o n i f t h e c h i l d i s p r e s e n t i n t h i s s t a t e and t h e c h i l d has been abandoned o r i t i s necessary i n an e m e r g e n c y t o p r o t e c t t h e c h i l d because the c h i l d , o r a s i b l i n g or parent o f the child, i s subjected to or threatened with mistreatment o r abuse. II "(c) I f there i s a p r e v i o u s child custody d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t i s e n t i t l e d t o be e n f o r c e d u n d e r t h i s c h a p t e r , o r a c h i l d custody p r o c e e d i n g has been commenced i n a c o u r t o f a s t a t e h a v i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r S e c t i o n s 30-3B-201 t h r o u g h 30-3B-203, [ A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , ] a n y o r d e r i s s u e d b y a c o u r t o f t h i s s t a t e u n d e r t h i s s e c t i o n must s p e c i f y i n t h e o r d e r a p e r i o d t h a t t h e court c o n s i d e r s adequate t o a l l o w t h e p e r s o n s e e k i n g an o r d e r t o o b t a i n an o r d e r f r o m the state having jurisdiction under Sections 30-3B-201 t h r o u g h 30-3B-203. The o r d e r i s s u e d i n t h i s s t a t e r e m a i n s i n e f f e c t u n t i l an o r d e r i s o b t a i n e d from t h e other s t a t e w i t h i n t h e p e r i o d s p e c i f i e d or the period expires. "(d) A c o u r t o f t h i s s t a t e w h i c h h a s b e e n a s k e d t o make 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 u n d e r t h i s s e c t i o n , upon b e i n g i n f o r m e d t h a t a c h i l d custody p r o c e e d i n g h a s b e e n commenced i n , o r 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 h a s b e e n made b y , a c o u r t o f a s t a t e h a v i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r S e c t i o n s 30-3B-201 t h r o u g h 30-3B-203, s h a l l i m m e d i a t e l y c o m m u n i c a t e w i t h t h e other court. A court of this s t a t e which i s exercising jurisdiction pursuant to Sections 30-3B-201 t h r o u g h 30-3B-203, upon b e i n g informed t h a t a c h i l d c u s t o d y p r o c e e d i n g h a s b e e n commenced i n , o r 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 h a s b e e n made by, a c o u r t o f a n o t h e r s t a t e u n d e r a s t a t u t e s i m i l a r 5 2111221 t o t h i s s e c t i o n s h a l l i m m e d i a t e l y communicate w i t h the c o u r t of t h a t s t a t e to r e s o l v e the emergency, p r o t e c t t h e s a f e t y o f t h e p a r t i e s and t h e c h i l d , and determine a p e r i o d f o r the d u r a t i o n of the temporary order." At the scheduled hearing appeared through counsel, who on June 19, 2012, the father argued t h a t the j u v e n i l e l a c k e d j u r i s d i c t i o n t o a d j u d i c a t e the dependency of the The court continued the adjudicatory hearing and the stating July t h a t DHR 2012 hearing The j u v e n i l e court was order the On July 16, amended i t s s h e l t e r - c a r e order by awarded further set on A u g u s t 17, 17, 2012, the child A u g u s t 20, custody the matter 2012, be 2012. A f t e r an dependent 2 f o r an lite." The adjudicatory moved t o v a c a t e t h e amended adjudicatory hearing the j u v e n i l e c o u r t e n t e r e d to "pendente 2012. f a t h e r , on J u l y 25, shelter-care order. child. took f a t h e r ' s argument u n d e r a d v i s e m e n t a t t h a t t i m e . 2012, court and on August a judgment a d j u d i c a t i n g awarding custody The j u v e n i l e c o u r t e n t e r e d to a separate DHR on order On J u l y 23, 2012, t h e m o t h e r f i l e d what she e n t i t l e d a " P e t i t i o n f o r Custody." However, t h e m o t h e r d i d n o t pay a s e p a r a t e f i l i n g f e e , see F a r m e r v. F a r m e r , 842 So. 2d 679, 681 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2002) ( h o l d i n g t h a t t h e payment o f a f i l i n g f e e i s a j u r i s d i c t i o n a l p r e r e q u i s i t e t o t h e commencement o f an a c t i o n ) , and t h e m o t h e r d i d n o t p r o p e r l y s e r v e t h e p e t i t i o n on any p a r t y u n d e r R u l e 4, A l a . R. C i v . P. See M.M. v. B.L., 926 2 6 2111221 on t h e same d a t e d e n y i n g t h e f a t h e r ' s p e n d i n g m o t i o n s . father timely appealed t o t h i s On lacked appeal, jurisdiction judgment. of the father to enter court's juvenile court court court. argues that the j u v e n i l e court i t s A u g u s t 20, 2012, d e p e n d e n c y DHR, w h i l e n o t f o r m a l l y c o n c e d i n g e r r o r on t h e p a r t the j u v e n i l e court, juvenile The does i n d i c a t e i n i t s b r i e f judgment i s "seemingly f a i l e d t o communicate w i t h void" because the t h e Texas as r e q u i r e d b y § 30-3B-204(d) a n d f a i l e d that the district to place any l i m i t a t i o n s on i t s t e m p o r a r y - c u s t o d y o r d e r s as c o n t e m p l a t e d b y So. 2d 1038, 1041-42 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2005) ( f i n d i n g a j u d g m e n t t e r m i n a t i n g the p a r e n t a l r i g h t s of a f a t h e r v o i d because the p e t i t i o n e r h a d n o t p r o p e r l y s e r v e d t h e p e t i t i o n on t h e f a t h e r u n d e r R u l e 4 b u t i n s t e a d h a d m e r e l y s e r v e d t h e p e t i t i o n on h i s a t t o r n e y u n d e r R u l e 5, A l a . R. C i v . P., p r o v i d i n g f o r t h e service of pleadings f i l e d s u b s e q u e n t t o t h e f i l i n g o f an o r i g i n a l complaint). Because i t appears t h a t t h e mother never answered t h e dependency p e t i t i o n , because t h e mother's " p e t i t i o n " s e e k s a r e t u r n o f c u s t o d y b a s e d on a l l e g a t i o n s t h a t the child i s n o t d e p e n d e n t b a s e d upon h e r c o n d u c t o r c o n d i t i o n , a n d b e c a u s e t h e " p e t i t i o n " r e q u e s t s t h a t DHR be r e l i e v e d o f i t s o b l i g a t i o n s t o t h e c h i l d , we c o n s i d e r t h e " p e t i t i o n " t o be an answer a n d a r e q u e s t f o r r e t u r n o f c u s t o d y upon t h e d e n i a l o f DHR's d e p e n d e n c y p e t i t i o n as o p p o s e d t o a separate custody p e t i t i o n . T h e r e f o r e , we deem t h e m o t h e r ' s r e q u e s t f o r r e t u r n o f c u s t o d y t o have b e e n i m p l i c i t l y d e n i e d when t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t e n t e r e d i t s A u g u s t 20, 2012, j u d g m e n t d e c l a r i n g t h e c h i l d dependent and awarding c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d t o DHR. Thus, no i s s u e s r e m a i n p e n d i n g b e f o r e t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t , a n d i t s A u g u s t 20, 2012, j u d g m e n t i s f i n a l . 7 2111221 § 30-3B-204(c). We a p p r e c i a t e t h e c a n d o r o f DHR i n a d m i t t i n g the p r o b a b l e e r r o r committed by t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t . This before. c o u r t has c o n s i d e r e d similar See, g e n e r a l l y , v . C.W., M.W. jurisdictional issues 60 So. 3d 3 0 1 , 305 (Ala. C i v . App. 2 0 1 0 ) ; S.C. v . J.T.C., 47 So. 3d 1253, 1257 (Ala. C i v . App. 2 0 1 0 ) ; R.W. Civ. App. 2 0 0 8 ) ; (Ala. v. G.W., 2 So. 3d 869, 871 ( A l a . a n d M.B.L. v. G.G.L., 1 So. 3d 1048, 1051 C i v . App. 2 0 0 8 ) . "[T]he Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and E n f o r c e m e n t A c t ('the U C C J E A ' ) , c o d i f i e d a t A l a . Code 1975, § 30-3B-101 e t s e q . , c o n t r o l s d e c i s i o n s regarding whether a court of 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 a c h i l d - c u s t o d y determination or to modify another state's child-custody determination. M.J.P. v. K.H., 923 So. 2d 1114, 1116-17 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2005) . A 'child-custody d e t e r m i n a t i o n , ' as d e f i n e d i n t h e UCCJEA, i n c l u d e s any j u d g m e n t p r o v i d i n g f o r t h e l e g a l o r p h y s i c a l custody of a c h i l d or p r o v i d i n g v i s i t a t i o n with a c h i l d . § 30-3B-102(3). A ' c h i l d - c u s t o d y proceeding' i s d e f i n e d i n t h e UCCJEA t o i n c l u d e n o t o n l y d i v o r c e actions i n v o l v i n g the custody of a c h i l d , but also ' n e g l e c t , ... d e p e n d e n c y , ... [and] t e r m i n a t i o n o f p a r e n t a l r i g h t s ' a c t i o n s i n which the issue of c h i l d custody i s addressed. § 30-3B-102(4)." R.W., 2 So. 3d a t 871. An A l a b a m a c i r c u i t o r j u v e n i l e may n o t make a n y c u s t o d y d e t e r m i n a t i o n custody determination of custody -- -- n e i t h e r an i n i t i a l nor a determination regarding a child 8 court unless as t o m o d i f i c a t i o n that court has 2111221 jurisdiction t o make an i n i t i a l custody the which typically UCCJEA, jurisdiction A l a b a m a i s t h e home s t a t e o f t h e c h i l d . 3 determination turns under on w h e t h e r See A l a . Code 1975, § 30-3B-201 a n d -203 ( p r o v i d i n g when a c o u r t o f t h i s s t a t e may make an i n i t i a l determination custody determination of a court state). However, i n s i t u a t i o n s i n which a c h i l d - c u s t o d y proceeding i s pending i n another state determination exists, an A l a b a m a or a of another or modify the custody previous court child-custody may exercise temporary emergency j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r § 30-3B-204 when a c h i l d i s p r e s e n t i n t h i s state and " i t i s n e c e s s a r y c h i l d because t h e c h i l d mistreatment emergency pursuant So. manner section. that § 30-3B-204(a). an A l a b a m a t o § 30-3B-204 i s " e x t r e m e l y 3d a t 1 0 5 1 , a n d an A l a b a m a of e x e r c i s i n g to protect the ... i s s u b j e c t e d t o o r t h r e a t e n e d o r abuse." jurisdiction i n an e m e r g e n c y that The court may with temporary exercise l i m i t e d , " s e e M.B.L., 1 c o u r t must c o m p l y w i t h t h e jurisdiction s e t out i n that L a R o s e v. L a R o s e , 71 So. 3d 651, 657 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2011). DHR does n o t d i s p u t e t h a t A l a b a m a i s n o t t h e c h i l d ' s home state. 3 9 2111221 Section 30-3B-204, as q u o t e d a b o v e , r e q u i r e s an c o u r t e x e r c i s i n g t e m p o r a r y emergency j u r i s d i c t i o n a temporary order that is limited i n t i m e and Alabama (1) t o e n t e r that requires the person seeking a custody d e t e r m i n a t i o n to obtain a custody order the from the jurisdiction applicable within that court time court orders 204, case d i d n e i t h e r . t h a t d i d not the juvenile dependency of the subject the 4 child i n the (2) to other state to went despite of a custody proceeding temporary r e q u i r e m e n t s o f § 30-3B- further the duration j u v e n i l e c o u r t i n the In a d d i t i o n to e n t e r i n g comply w i t h the court The having and to determine the e f f e c t i v e o f t h e t e m p o r a r y emergency o r d e r . present state limitation i m m e d i a t e l y communicate w i t h the r e s o l v e t h e e m e r g e n c y and in and fact adjudicated t h a t the i n , and the the child subject was of a We have f u r t h e r n o t e d t h a t an o r d e r e n t e r e d u n d e r a juvenile court's temporary emergency jurisdiction must " s p e c i f [ y ] a d e f i n i t e p e r i o d f o r the [party seeking the custody order] to o b t a i n a custody order from the a p p l i c a b l e [ c o u r t i n t h e o t h e r s t a t e ] ... o r t o o b t a i n an o r d e r f r o m [ t h e c o u r t i n the other s t a t e ] d e c l i n i n g to e x e r c i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n b e c a u s e t h e A l a b a m a j u v e n i l e c o u r t was a more a p p r o p r i a t e forum." S.C., 47 So. 3d a t 1257. However, we n o t e t h a t t h e r e c o r d c o n t a i n s a T e x a s d i s t r i c t c o u r t o r d e r on t h e m o t h e r ' s jurisdictional challenge i n which that court denied the m o t h e r ' s r e q u e s t t h a t i t d e c l i n e j u r i s d i c t i o n on t h e a s s e r t e d g r o u n d o f f o r u m non c o n v e n i e n s and i n w h i c h i t f u r t h e r s t a t e d t h a t i t had c o n t i n u i n g , e x c l u s i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e c h i l d . 4 10 2111221 custody judgment o f , t h e Texas j u v e n i l e c o u r t c o u l d n o t do. district M.W., court. This 60 So. 3d a t 305; S.C., the 47 So. 3d a t 1257. As we explained t e m p o r a r y emergency have j u r i s d i c t i o n i n M.W., a jurisdiction j u v e n i l e court u n d e r § 30-3B-204 does n o t t o a d j u d i c a t e dependency and award by v i r t u e o f t h e l i m i t e d j u r i s d i c t i o n 60 So. 3d a t 301. I n M.W., have h e r g r a n d c h i l d r e n custody exercising of those provided a maternal declared to i t . d e p e n d e n t and t o be grandmother had p r e v i o u s l y sought of the c h i l d r e n i n a Georgia Georgia still Id. custody custody denied judgment, because t h e c h i l d r e n ' s mother that the Georgia continuing, c o u r t , b u t t h a t c o u r t had Id. at B e c a u s e t h e c h i l d r e n were t h e s u b j e c t o f a a r e s i d e n t of Georgia, reflect awarded c h i l d r e n ; the c h i l d r e n r e s i d e d with her i n The m a t e r n a l her request. M.W., grandmother sought t o A l a b a m a a t t h e t i m e she f i l e d h e r d e p e n d e n c y p e t i t i o n . 302. custody exclusive was and b e c a u s e t h e r e c o r d d i d n o t c o u r t had d e c l i n e d t o e x e r c i s e i t s jurisdiction over the c h i l d r e n , the A l a b a m a j u v e n i l e c o u r t c o u l d e x e r c i s e o n l y t e m p o r a r y emergency jurisdiction this court over the c h i l d r e n . concluded that the 11 I d . a t 303. juvenile court's Accordingly, dependency 2111221 j u d g m e n t s had been e n t e r e d and support would not t h e a p p e a l , b u t we dependency an without appeal. and to c o m p l y w i t h § 30-3B-204. allegations seeking that who we juvenile court definite to to § of seeking Virginia, exercise that "did [a] 3d at exercise of authorize subsequent by which the § 30-3B-204 maternal dependency juvenile court's 12 specify grandmother d e c l i n i n g to exercise j u r i s d i c t i o n . the from a V i r g i n i a to Virginia that the explained, order concluded the emergency So. seek a custody court of I n s t e a d of s e t t i n g the matter f o r required period during 47 the not petition permitted S.C., i n i t s t e m p o r a r y o r d e r s , we was the custody temporary 30-3B-204. conduct I d . a t 1257. court to that determined d e p e n d e n t and jurisdiction to orders grandmother's further explained emergency a dependency t r i a l court resident court temporary juvenile a pursuant proceeding." dismissed i t s temporary i n a maternal was However, amend this a child juvenile jurisdiction We Id. S.C., to declare Alabama 1256. in contained child, I d . a t 305. were v o i d , i n s t r u c t e d the j u v e n i l e c o u r t to vacate i t s judgments Similarly, jurisdiction, c o u r t o r an o r d e r judgment the a could from a Id. We declaring the 2111221 c h i l d d e p e n d e n t and a w a r d i n g t h e m a t e r n a l of the c h i l d h a d been e n t e r e d without grandmother jurisdiction custody and was t h e r e f o r e v o i d ; we d i s m i s s e d t h e a p p e a l w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n s t h a t the j u v e n i l e court its temporary-custody order at district father. t o c o m p l y w i t h § 30-3B-204. i n the present court Id. order case i s t h e s u b j e c t o f a Texas awarding custody of the c h i l d to the The Texas d i s t r i c t c o u r t has n o t d e c l i n e d t o e x e r c i s e jurisdiction permitted § i t s d e p e n d e n c y j u d g m e n t and amend 1257-58. The c h i l d its vacate over the child. The j u v e n i l e court t o e x e r c i s e t e m p o r a r y emergency j u r i s d i c t i o n 30-3B-204. However, despite l i m i t a t i o n s of i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n , being apprised was under of the the j u v e n i l e court not only f a i l e d t o c o m p l y w i t h § 30-3B-204 i n i t s t e m p o r a r y o r d e r s b u t went f u r t h e r and a d j u d i c a t e d v i o l a t i o n o f t h e UCCJEA. So. 3d a t 1257. t h e dependency of the c h i l d i n See M.W., Thus, as i n M.W. 60 So. 3d 3 0 1 . ; S.C., and S.C., t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t i s v o i d , and t h i s instructions that appeal the j u v e n i l e court 47 t h e judgment o f i s dismissed vacate with i t s A u g u s t 20, 2012, j u d g m e n t , t h a t i t c o m p l y w i t h t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f § 303B-204 b y amending the orders 13 entered under i t s emergency 2111221 temporary j u r i s d i c t i o n on those district orders, court and to include the appropriate that i t communicate with limitations the Texas " t o r e s o l v e t h e emergency, p r o t e c t t h e s a f e t y o f t h e p a r t i e s and t h e c h i l d , and d e t e r m i n e a p e r i o d f o r t h e d u r a t i o n of the temporary order." APPEAL DISMISSED WITH § 30-3B-204(d). INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, P . J . , a n d P i t t m a n , concur. 14 Moore, a n d D o n a l d s o n , JJ.,

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.