S.L.M. and R.S.M. v. S.C.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 10/04/2013 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 SPECIAL TERM, 2013 2120004 S.L.M. and R.S.M. v. S.C. Appeal from Etowah J u v e n i l e Court (JU-11-120.02 and JU-11-487.02) On R e t u r n t o Remand DONALDSON, Judge. On A p r i l Juvenile 12, 2 0 1 3 , we remanded t h i s a c t i o n t o t h e E t o w a h Court ("the t r i a l court"). We were unable to 2120004 determine from the f i n a l for order o f the t r i a l court the basis i t s d e c i s i o n t o change t h e c u s t o d y o f S.D.A. a n d R.D.A. ("the c h i l d r e n " ) t o S.C. ("the m a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r " ) . on t h e argument of the children's custodians, Based S.L.M. a n d R.S.M., t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t h a d e r r e d i n f i n d i n g t h e c h i l d r e n to be dependant, we instructed that court, based on t h e e x i s t i n g r e c o r d , t o make t h e w r i t t e n f i n d i n g s r e q u i r e d b y R u l e 25(A), A l a . R. dependant J u v . P., as t o w h e t h e r the c h i l d r e n were as t o S.L.M. a n d R.S.M., a n d , i f s o , t o i d e n t i f y t h e grounds s u p p o r t i n g t h e f i n d i n g s o f dependency. S.L.M. v. S.C., [Ms. ( A l a . C i v . App. 2120004, A p r i l 12, 2 0 1 3 ] ___ So. 3d ___ 2013). A thorough statement of the f a c t s i s s e t out i n t h i s court's opinion Assuming that remanding the action the proceedings had to the t r i a l been court. conducted as a d e p e n d e n c y a c t i o n , we s t a t e d i n o u r p r i o r o p i n i o n t h a t , " [ i ] f t h e t r i a l c o u r t f i n d s t h a t [ e i t h e r ] c h i l d was n o t d e p e n d a n t as to her custodian dismissed or as t o t h a t custodians, child." the p e t i t i o n ___ So. 3d a t ___ . court, i n compliance w i t h our i n s t r u c t i o n s , f i l e d t o remand t o t h i s c o u r t ; on remand, t h e t r i a l 2 should The be trial i t s return court entered 2120004 two i d e n t i c a l o r d e r s , one r e l a t i n g t o R.D.A., w h i c h s t a t e s , "[T]he Maternal raise the issue a t t h e hands o f to w i t : [S.L.M. the minor c h i l d found. t o S.D.A. a n d one r e l a t i n g i n part: Grandmother o f t h e c h i l d [ ] d i d n o t t h a t t h e m i n o r c h i l d was d e p e n d e n t t h e Custodians o f t h e minor c h i l d , a n d S.R.M.], a n d no d e p e n d e n c y o f a t t h e hands o f t h e C u s t o d i a n s i s "2. The [ m a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r ] f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r c u s t o d y o f t h e m i n o r c h i l d . ... The [ m a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r ] was n o t aware o f t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e m i n o r c h i l d u n t i l a f t e r c u s t o d y was a w a r d e d t o a n o n - r e l a t i v e . When t h e [ m a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r ] f o u n d out a b o u t h e r g r a n d d a u g h t e r , she f i l e d t h e P e t i t i o n f o r C u s t o d y w h i c h t h i s C o u r t r u l e d on. "3. The C o u r t h e a r d e v i d e n c e a t [ a ] h e a r i n g addressing the Petition f o r custody. ... The [ m a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r ] p r o v i d e d t e s t i m o n y t h a t she i s a f i t a n d p r o p e r p e r s o n t o have t h e c a r e , c u s t o d y and c o n t r o l o f t h e g r a n d d a u g h t e r . She a l s o h a s custody o f t h e minor c h i l d ' s o l d e r h a l f s i b l i n g . "4. A t t h e h e a r i n g t h e m o t h e r o f t h e m i n o r c h i l d t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e p r e s e n t c u s t o d i a n s l e t h e r have o v e r n i g h t v i s i t s w i t h t h e minor c h i l d . The m o t h e r a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e was s t i l l u s i n g d r u g s a n d s t i l l h a d a p r o b l e m w i t h them. She a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e d i d n o t want [ t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r ] t o have c u s t o d y o f t h e m i n o r c h i l d b e c a u s e s h e w o u l d h o l d h e r a c c o u n t a b l e f o r u s i n g drugs and r e s t r i c t h e r v i s i t s w i t h t h e m i n o r c h i l d i f t h e m o t h e r was using drugs, but the present custodian understood h e r d r u g u s e e v e n t h o u g h i t w o u l d make h e r mad. The C o u r t was g r e a t l y d i s t u r b e d b y t h i s , a n d c o n c e r n e d t h a t t h e m i n o r c h i l d was b e i n g e x p o s e d t o t h e 3 2120004 s i t u a t i o n w h i c h removed h e r f r o m h e r n a t u r a l m o t h e r i n the f i r s t p l a c e . I t was c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g evidence from the t e s t i m o n y of a l l the p a r t i e s , t h a t the [maternal grandmother] limits the contact b e t w e e n t h e m o t h e r and t h e o l d e r h a l f - s i b l i n g b u t t h a t the p r e s e n t c u s t o d i a n s of the minor c h i l d [ d o ] not. " "5. A f t e r t h e h e a r i n g t h e t e s t i m o n y o f a l l t h e p a r t i e s , t h e C o u r t e n t e r e d an O r d e r g r a n t i n g c u s t o d y to the [ m a t e r n a l grandmother]. The c u s t o d y O r d e r was n o t b a s e d on t h e d e p e n d e n c y o f t h e m i n o r c h i l d , e v e n t h o u g h t h e c h i l d does n o t have a p a r e n t who i s w i l l i n g t o d i s c h a r g e h e r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s t o and f o r the c h i l d , w i t h t h e n a t u r a l mother o f t h e c h i l d b e i n g a d d i c t e d t o Drugs. " B a s e d on t h e e v i d e n c e , t h e C o u r t f i n d s t h a t t h e r e has been a m a t e r i a l change i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n t h i s c a s e and t h a t t h e p o s i t i v e good b r o u g h t a b o u t by t h e m o d i f i c a t i o n w o u l d more t h a n o f f s e t t h e i n h e r e n t l y d i s r u p t i v e e f f e c t c a u s e d by u p r o o t i n g t h e child. The c h i l d i s young and t h e c o u r t f i n d s t h a t t h e young c h i l d w i l l a d a p t t o t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s . She w o u l d be l i v i n g w i t h a l o v i n g g r a n d m o t h e r , w i t h her o t h e r s i b l i n g s . "The C o u r t f i n d s t h a t t h e p o s i t i v e good b r o u g h t a b o u t b y t h e change o f c u s t o d y w o u l d o f f s e t any disruption t h a t m i g h t be c a u s e d . By granting custody of the c h i l d to the p e t i t i o n e r / g r a n d m o t h e r , all o f t h e c h i l d r e n w o u l d be t o g e t h e r , and be p r o t e c t e d f r o m t h e i r m o t h e r who a d m i t t e d t o s t i l l using drugs. 4 2120004 " T h i s C o u r t f e e l s t h a t t h e [Ex p a r t e ] M c L e n d o n [ , 455 So. 2d 863 ( A l a . 1 9 8 4 ) , ] s t a n d a r d h a s been met and t h e c u s t o d y change i s c o r r e c t . " The t r i a l c o u r t h a s c l a r i f i e d t h a t t h e p r o c e e d i n g s on t h e maternal grandmother's petitions were not conducted as d e p e n d e n c y a c t i o n s . Thus, t h e f i r s t i s s u e r a i s e d b y S.L.M. a n d R.S.M. on a p p e a l , alleging dependent i s rendered error i n finding the children moot. The t r i a l c o u r t ' s o r d e r s on remand c l a r i f i e d t h a t c u s t o d y of the children was c h a n g e d from S.L.M. a n d R.S.M. t o t h e m a t e r n a l grandmother a f t e r a p p l y i n g t h e s t a n d a r d announced i n Ex p a r t e McLendon, c o u r t must a d d r e s s present 455 So. 2 d 863 ( A l a . 1 9 8 4 ) . Thus, this t h e two r e m a i n i n g i s s u e s S.L.M. a n d R.S.M. on a p p e a l . S.L.M. a n d R.S.M. have argued that the maternal grandmother f a i l e d t o p r e s e n t s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o meet t h e McLendon without standard jurisdiction c h i l d r e n i n the custody and t h a t t o modify a change 2011 of custody. orders o f S.L.M. a n d R.S.M. R.S.M. a r g u e t h a t t h e m a t e r n a l s u f f i c i e n t evidence prior the t r i a l court was placing the S.L.M. and grandmother f a i l e d t o p r e s e n t t o meet t h e McLendon s t a n d a r d t o w a r r a n t S.L.M. a n d R.S.M. a r g u e t h a t t h e May o r d e r a n d t h e November 2011 o r d e r p e r t a i n i n g 5 t o S.D.A. 2120004 and R.D.A., r e s p e c t i v e l y , pendente lite orders, were and final therefore grandmother's p e t i t i o n s t o modify be subject t o t h e McLendon contention, P.A. 2011 orders interests" The S.L.M. a n d R.S.M. c i t e grandmother were argues pendente that lite the maternal In support this court's (Ala. Civ. that as opposed t o these custody orders standard. v . L . S . , 78 So. 3d 979 maternal orders, should of this holding i n App. 2011) . The t h e May 2011 a n d November orders and t h a t the "best standard should therefore apply t o her p e t i t i o n s . May 2011 o r d e r a s t o S.D.A. was e n t e r e d a s a " t e m p o r a r y " c u s t o d y o r d e r , a n d t h e November 2011 o r d e r a s t o R.D.A. s i m p l y awards whether custody t o S.L.M. a n d R.S.M., t h e award was a p e n d e n t e s e t t i n g any f u t u r e h e a r i n g s . considered "final" lite without award designating and On t h a t b a s i s , b o t h f o r purposes of determining without orders are the proper c u s t o d y - m o d i f i c a t i o n s t a n d a r d t o a p p l y . See P.A., 78 So. 2d a t 981 ("In a c a s e custody order, involving the m o d i f i c a t i o n of a temporary o u r supreme c o u r t has h e l d t h a t t h e p a r t i e s s e e k i n g t o m o d i f y t h a t o r d e r a r e r e q u i r e d t o meet t h e McLendon standard."). the proper T h i s c o u r t has r e c e n t l y r e v i s i t e d t h e i s s u e o f standard t o apply f o r m o d i f i c a t i o n o f custody 6 in a 2120004 case i n which the child has previously been found to be d e p e n d e n t and t h e m o d i f i c a t i o n i s s o u g h t by a n o n p a r e n t f a m i l y member. I n B.C. So. 3d ___ v. A.A., [Ms. 2111247, A u g u s t 2, 2013] ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 3 ) , t h i s court held: "The n o n c u s t o d i a l r e l a t i v e s a p p e a l t h e j u d g m e n t s i n s o f a r as t h e y denied their petitions seeking c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d r e n and t e r m i n a t e d t h e a w a r d o f s p e c i f i e d v i s i t a t i o n t o them. The noncustodial r e l a t i v e s f i l e d p e t i t i o n s seeking custody of the c h i l d r e n , i n which they a s s e r t e d t h a t the c h i l d r e n ' s b e s t i n t e r e s t s w o u l d be b e t t e r s e r v e d i f c u s t o d y were m o d i f i e d . Once a j u v e n i l e c o u r t has p l a c e d a dependent c h i l d i n t o the 'permanent' custody of a p r o p e r c a r e g i v e r , t h e d e p e n d e n c y o f t h e c h i l d ends and any f u r t h e r change o f c u s t o d y i s g o v e r n e d by t h e s t a n d a r d s s e t f o r t h i n Ex p a r t e McLendon, 455 So. 2d 863 ( A l a . 1984) . See Ex p a r t e J . P . , 641 So. 2d 276, 278 ( A l a . 1994) ( a p p l y i n g t h e McLendon s t a n d a r d i n a c u s t o d y d i s p u t e b e t w e e n two s e t s o f r e l a t i v e s when one s e t o f r e l a t i v e s h a d been a w a r d e d c u s t o d y u n d e r a prior j u d i c i a l order). Thus, t h e n o n c u s t o d i a l relatives were required t o meet the McLendon s t a n d a r d i n o r d e r t o be e n t i t l e d t o a m o d i f i c a t i o n of the custody of the c h i l d r e n . As o u r supreme c o u r t r e a f f i r m e d i n Ex p a r t e C l e g h o r n , 993 So. 2d 462, 466-67 ( A l a . 2 0 0 8 ) : " ' I n Ex p a r t e McLendon, we h e l d t h a t t h e trial court cannot order a change o f custody "'unless [the p a r t y s e e k i n g the change o f c u s t o d y ] c a n show t h a t a change of the custody w i l l m a t e r i a l l y promote [ t h e ] c h i l d ' s w e l f a r e . ' " 455 So. 2d a t 865 ( q u o t i n g G r e e n e v. G r e e n e , 249 A l a . 155, 157, 30 So. 2d 444, 445 ( 1 9 4 7 ) ) . We n o t e d in Ex parte McLendon that " [ i ] t is important that [the p a r t y seeking the 7 2120004 change i n c u s t o d y ] show t h a t t h e c h i l d ' s i n t e r e s t s a r e p r o m o t e d b y t h e change, i . e . , that [ t h e p a r t y s e e k i n g t h e change i n c u s t o d y ] p r o d u c e e v i d e n c e t o overcome t h e ' i n h e r e n t l y d i s r u p t i v e e f f e c t caused by u p r o o t i n g t h e c h i l d . ' " 455 So. 2d a t 866.' "Our supreme c o u r t h a s a l s o s t r e s s e d t h a t ' [ t ] h e McLendon s t a n d a r d i s a " r u l e o f r e p o s e , " meant t o m i n i m i z e d i s r u p t i v e changes o f c u s t o d y because t h i s C o u r t p r e s u m e s t h a t s t a b i l i t y i s i n h e r e n t l y more b e n e f i c i a l t o a c h i l d than d i s r u p t i o n . ' Ex p a r t e C l e g h o r n , 993 So. 2d a t 468. As n o t e d a b o v e , t h e record contains evidence indicating that the c h i l d r e n make good g r a d e s a n d a r e d o i n g w e l l i n t h e custody of the custodians. Nothing i n the record would support t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n ' s b e s t i n t e r e s t w o u l d be s e r v e d b y m o d i f y i n g c u s t o d y and r e m o v i n g t h e c h i l d r e n f r o m t h e home o f t h e custodians. A c c o r d i n g l y , we a f f i r m t h e j u v e n i l e court's judgments insofar as t h e y denied the noncustodial r e l a t i v e s ' custody p e t i t i o n s . " So. 3d a t a situation petitions asserted . As i n B.C., t h e m a t t e r b e f o r e us p r e s e n t s i n which seeking a custody "noncustodial relative[] of the children, that the children's best interests filed i n w h i c h [she] would be b e t t e r s e r v e d i f c u s t o d y were m o d i f i e d . " ___ So. 3d a t ___ . Again, as i n B.C., t h e " j u v e n i l e c o u r t h a [ d ] p l a c e d a d e p e n d e n t c h i l d i n t o t h e 'permanent' c u s t o d y o f a p r o p e r c a r e g i v e r , " a n d t h e r e being no new f i n d i n g custody i s governed o f dependency, by t h e s t a n d a r d s 8 "any f u r t h e r set forth change o f i n Ex p a r t e 2120004 McLendon." So. 3d a t whether maternal the . grandmother, n o n c u s t o d i a l r e l a t i v e , met court s p e c i f i c a l l y The q u e s t i o n t h e n b e f o r e us i s as the petitioning t h e McLendon s t a n d a r d . The trial found: " B a s e d on t h e e v i d e n c e , t h e C o u r t f i n d s t h a t t h e r e has b e e n a m a t e r i a l change i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n t h i s c a s e and t h a t t h e p o s i t i v e good b r o u g h t a b o u t by t h e m o d i f i c a t i o n w o u l d more t h a n o f f s e t the i n h e r e n t l y d i s r u p t i v e e f f e c t c a u s e d by u p r o o t i n g t h e child. The c h i l d i s young and t h e c o u r t f i n d s t h a t t h e young c h i l d w i l l a d a p t t o t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s . She w o u l d be l i v i n g w i t h a l o v i n g g r a n d m o t h e r , w i t h her other s i b l i n g s . "The C o u r t f i n d s t h a t t h e p o s i t i v e good b r o u g h t a b o u t by t h e change o f c u s t o d y w o u l d o f f s e t any disruption t h a t might be caused. By g r a n t i n g custody of the c h i l d t o the p e t i t i o n e r / g r a n d m o t h e r , all o f t h e c h i l d r e n w o u l d be t o g e t h e r , and be p r o t e c t e d f r o m t h e i r m o t h e r who a d m i t t e d t o s t i l l using drugs. " T h i s C o u r t f e e l s t h a t t h e McLendon s t a n d a r d has b e e n met and t h e c u s t o d y change i s c o r r e c t . " E v i d e n c e was p r e s e n t e d t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t o r e t e n u s . The court personally position to credibility. observed observe the their parties demeanor and was i n the and to judge The r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f m a k i n g d i f f i c u l t trial best their decisions r e g a r d i n g c h i l d c u s t o d y r e s t s s q u a r e l y on t h e s h o u l d e r s o f t h e 9 2120004 trial the judge, "who h a s a c t u a l l y s e e n a n d h e a r d t h e p a r t i e s a n d witnesses [ a n d ] i s i n f i n i t e l y more q u a l i f i e d t o make a d e c i s i o n t h a n an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t . " Ex p a r t e D W W , 717 So. 2d . . . 793, 796-97 ( A l a . 1 9 9 8 ) . Applying court's t h e ore tenus decision to standard modify of review, custody d i d not the trial amount to r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r . See Ex p a r t e Fann, 810 So. 2d 621, 633 ( A l a . 2001)("'"'A custody determination of the t r i a l upon o r a l t e s t i m o n y i s accorded on appeal, fails a n d we w i l l t o support 47 not reverse the determination p a l p a b l y wrong....'"'" 46, a presumption ( A l a . 1994), unless that court entered of correctness the evidence i t i s plainly so and ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e P e r k i n s , 646 So. 2d quoting o r d e r on remand, t h e t r i a l i n turn other cases)). I n i t s court a r t i c u l a t e d the reasons f o r t h e d i f f i c u l t d e c i s i o n i t made: "At t h e h e a r i n g t h e m o t h e r o f t h e m i n o r c h i l d t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e p r e s e n t c u s t o d i a n s l e t h e r have o v e r n i g h t v i s i t s w i t h the minor c h i l d . The m o t h e r a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t she was s t i l l u s i n g d r u g s a n d s t i l l h a d a p r o b l e m w i t h them. She a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t she d i d n o t want [ t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r ] t o have c u s t o d y o f t h e m i n o r c h i l d b e c a u s e she w o u l d h o l d h e r a c c o u n t a b l e f o r u s i n g drugs and r e s t r i c t h e r v i s i t s w i t h t h e m i n o r c h i l d i f t h e m o t h e r was u s i n g drugs, but the present c u s t o d i a n understood h e r d r u g u s e e v e n t h o u g h i t w o u l d make h e r mad. The 10 2120004 C o u r t was g r e a t l y d i s t u r b e d b y t h i s , a n d c o n c e r n e d t h a t t h e minor c h i l d was b e i n g e x p o s e d to the s i t u a t i o n w h i c h removed h e r f r o m h e r n a t u r a l m o t h e r in the f i r s t place. I t was c l e a r a n d c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e from t h e t e s t i m o n y o f a l l t h e p a r t i e s , t h a t the [maternal grandmother] l i m i t s the contact between t h e mother and t h e o l d e r h a l f - s i b l i n g b u t t h a t t h e p r e s e n t c u s t o d i a n s o f t h e minor c h i l d [ d o ] not." The trial c o u r t m o d i f i e d custody, removing the children t h e c u s t o d y o f two p e o p l e who have no b l o o d r e l a t i o n from to the c h i l d r e n a n d w i t h whom t h e y h a d b e e n l i v i n g f o r l e s s t h a n two years, and p l a c i n g grandmother, biological who half them i n the custody already sister has custody as a r e s u l t of t h e i r of the of a prior maternal children's dependency a c t i o n . A l t h o u g h a d i f f e r e n t d e c i s i o n c o u l d have b e e n r e a c h e d under these f a c t s , t h e d e c i s i o n i s s u p p o r t e d by t h e r e c o r d and c a n n o t be d i s t u r b e d on a p p e a l . S.L.M. a n d R.S.M. a r g u e t h a t t h e s u f f i c i e n c y o f t h e p r i o r custody that, modify o r d e r s was n o t p r o p e r l y b e f o r e t h e t r i a l therefore, the p r i o r the t r i a l orders. c o u r t was w i t h o u t Specifically, c o u r t and authority to S.L.M. a n d R.S.M. argue t h a t t h e m a t e r n a l grandmother c o u l d p r o p e r l y a t t a c k t h e prior motion custody orders under Rule of the t r i a l court o n l y by f i l i n g 6 0 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., a n d t h a t , 11 a because 2120004 the maternal time the standing g r a n d m o t h e r was initial custody not a p a r t y to the a c t i o n s a t orders were t o b r i n g such a motion. misplaced. entered, However, t h i s U n l i k e an o r d i n a r y c i v i l m a t t e r , 15-117(c), jurisdiction Ala. Code 1975, a she lacked argument i s pursuant to § juvenile court of a dependency case beyond a f i n a l the 12- retains judgment: " I n any c a s e o v e r w h i c h t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t has jurisdiction, the j u v e n i l e court shall retain jurisdiction o v e r an individual o f any age to e n f o r c e o r m o d i f y any p r i o r o r d e r s o f t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t u n l e s s o t h e r w i s e p r o v i d e d by l a w and also s h a l l r e t a i n j u r i s d i c t i o n f o r the enforcement or m o d i f i c a t i o n o f any p r i o r o r d e r s o f t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t r e q u i r i n g t h e payment o f f i n e s , c o u r t c o s t s , r e s t i t u t i o n , o r o t h e r money o r d e r e d by t h e j u v e n i l e court u n t i l paid i n f u l l . " In similar postdisposition circumstances, motions m o t i o n s f o r a change o f from this court nonparental has viewed f a m i l y members custody: "The n o n c u s t o d i a l r e l a t i v e s f i l e d p e t i t i o n s s e e k i n g custody of the c h i l d r e n , i n which they a s s e r t e d t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n ' s b e s t i n t e r e s t s w o u l d be b e t t e r s e r v e d i f c u s t o d y were m o d i f i e d . Once a j u v e n i l e c o u r t has placed a dependent c h i l d into the 'permanent' custody of a p r o p e r c a r e g i v e r , the dependency of the c h i l d ends and any f u r t h e r change o f c u s t o d y i s g o v e r n e d by t h e s t a n d a r d s s e t f o r t h i n Ex p a r t e McLendon, 455 So. 2d 863 ( A l a . 1 9 8 4 ) . ... Thus, t h e n o n c u s t o d i a l r e l a t i v e s were r e q u i r e d t o meet t h e McLendon s t a n d a r d i n o r d e r t o be e n t i t l e d t o a m o d i f i c a t i o n of the custody of the c h i l d r e n . " 12 as 2120004 B.C., (Ala. for So. 3d a t ; Ex p a r t e 1994)("Therefore, custody filed modification J . P . , 641 So. 2d 276, 279 the maternal aunt and u n c l e ' s a l m o s t two y e a r s of custody; i t was petition l a t e r was a p e t i t i o n f o r governed by t h e McLendon rule."). B a s e d on t h e t r i a l these matters, court's the maternal continuing j u r i s d i c t i o n g r a n d m o t h e r moved t o i n t e r v e n e p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 2 4 ( a ) ( 2 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., a n d t h e r e indication B.C., t h e m a t e r n a l Further, as was t h e s i t u a t i o n i n g r a n d m o t h e r , as a " n o n c u s t o d i a l f i l e d a p e t i t i o n t o i n t e r v e n e and a c o m p l a i n t each juvenile action, seeking custody court permitted relative[,] i nintervention of the c h i l d r e n the noncustodial The relative[] intervene; i t also consolidated the actions f o r t r i a l . " So. 3d a t Because trial the court maternal McLendon i s no i n t h e r e c o r d t h a t S.L.M. a n d R.S.M. o b j e c t e d t o that motion t o i n t e r v e n e . in over to B.C., . S.L.M. a n d R.S.M. f a i l lacked jurisdiction grandmother standard and over the p e t i t i o n s or that awarding t o demonstrate that the i t erred custody by i n applying the to the g r a n d m o t h e r , we a f f i r m t h e j u d g m e n t s o f t h e t r i a l 13 filed maternal court. 2120004 AFFIRMED. Thompson, P . J . , a n d P i t t m a n , J . , c o n c u r . Thomas, J . , d i s s e n t s , w i t h writing. Moore, J . , d i s s e n t s , w i t h o u t 14 writing. 2120004 THOMAS, J u d g e , d i s s e n t i n g . I must r e s p e c t f u l l y d i s s e n t from t h e d e c i s i o n t o a f f i r m t h e c u s t o d y a w a r d t o S.C. ("the m a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r " ) . As I s t a t e d i n my o r i g i n a l dissent to the opinion c a u s e , s e e S.L.M. v. S.C., [Ms. 2120004, A p r i l So. 3d (footnote , remanding this 12, 2013] ( A l a . C i v . App. 2012) (Thomas, J . , d i s s e n t i n g ) omitted): "[The m a t e r n a l grandmother] f i l e d dependency p e t i t i o n s regarding the c h i l d r e n . In her p e t i t i o n s , she a l l e g e d t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n were d e p e n d e n t due t o t h e c o n d u c t o f t h e i r m o t h e r , C.G. However, t h e c h i l d r e n ' s dependency r e s u l t i n g from t h e a c t i o n s o f t h e i r m o t h e r h a d been r e s o l v e d b y p l a c i n g them i n the custody of [S.L.M. and R.S.M. ('the custodians')]. See S.P. v. E.T., 957 So. 2 d 1127, 1131 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2005) ( i n d i c a t i n g t h a t ' f i n a l d i s p o s i t i o n a l orders c o i n c i d e w i t h t h e end o f the c h i l d ' s dependency, i . e . , t h e c h i l d has a p r o p e r c u s t o d i a n " a n d " i s no l o n g e r " i n n e e d o f c a r e o r s u p e r v i s i o n " by persons o t h e r than t h e c u s t o d i a n . See A l a . Code 1975, [ f o r m e r ] § 12-15-1(10 ) n . I n o t h e r words, under i d e a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s , the f i n a l dispositional order r e s u l t s i n a custody award w h e r e i n t h e p a r e n t o r c u s t o d i a n i s a b l e and w i l l i n g t o have t h e c a r e , c u s t o d y , a n d c o n t r o l o f t h e c h i l d , f r e e from any i n t e r v e n t i o n o r s u p e r v i s i o n by t h e s t a t e u n d e r t h e d e p e n d e n c y s t a t u t e s . ' ) . Thus, i t was i n c u m b e n t on t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r t o p r o v e a t t r i a l t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n were p r e s e n t l y d e p e n d e n t i n order t o receive custody of the c h i l d r e n ; that i s , t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r was r e q u i r e d t o p r o v e t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n were d e p e n d e n t i n t h e c u s t o d y o f t h e c u s t o d i a n s b e f o r e t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t c o u l d award h e r c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d r e n . See T.B. v. T.H., 30 So. 3d 15 2120004 429, 431 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009) ( s t a t i n g t h a t a j u v e n i l e c o u r t may make a d i s p o s i t i o n o f a c h i l d i n a dependency p r o c e e d i n g o n l y a f t e r f i n d i n g t h e c h i l d d e p e n d e n t ) ; s e e a l s o V.W. v. G.W., 990 So. 2d 414, 417 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008) ( q u o t i n g K.B. v . C l e b u r n e C n t y . Dep't o f Human Res., 897 So. 2d 379, 389 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2004) (Murdock, J . , concurring i n the r e s u l t ) ) ( ' " [ I ] n o r d e r t o make a d i s p o s i t i o n o f a c h i l d i n t h e c o n t e x t o f a dependency p r o c e e d i n g , t h e c h i l d must i n f a c t be d e p e n d e n t a t t h e t i m e o f t h a t disposition."'). Furthermore, a c h i l d c a n n o t be d e p e n d e n t i f he o r she h a s a f i t a n d w i l l i n g p a r e n t or a f i t and w i l l i n g legal c u s t o d i a n (or c u s t o d i a n s ) ; i n such a s i t u a t i o n , t h e c h i l d i s not dependent and c u s t o d y remains w i t h t h e p a r e n t o r t h e l e g a l c u s t o d i a n . J.W. v. T.D., 58 So. 3d 782, 792 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 0 ) . " B o t h Ex p a r t e J . P . , B.C. (Ala. v . A.A., 641 So. 2d 276, 278 ( A l a . 1 9 9 4 ) , a n d [Ms. 2111247, A u g u s t C i v . App 2 0 1 3 ) , involved 2, 2013] So. 3d the modification of custody o r d e r s i n r e s o l v e d d e p e n d e n c y a c t i o n s b y p a r t i e s who h a d b e e n i n v o l v e d i n t h e o r i g i n a l dependency and c u s t o d y d i s p u t e . That i s , n e i t h e r Ex p a r t e J . P . n o r B.C., i n v o l v e d a s t r a n g e r t o t h e proceeding seeking custody f o rthe f i r s t time. Although the j u v e n i l e c o u r t r e t a i n s j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r a c h i l d who h a s b e e n t h e s u b j e c t o f a d e p e n d e n c y p r o c e e d i n g p u r s u a n t t o A l a . Code 1975, § 12-15-117(c), t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t cannot a c t w i t h o u t a p r o p e r p e t i t i o n , be i t a d e p e n d e n c y p e t i t i o n o r a m o d i f i c a t i o n p e t i t i o n , before i t . I f a p e r s o n who h a s n o t b e e n a p a r t y t o 16 2120004 the proceeding final wishes to a l t e r dependency action; judgment, as I e x p l a i n e d submission, proceeding the may institute expressly dependent i n the a is a d i s s e n t from t h e main stranger to dependency on the in a a new original dependency action. Thus, t h e judgment o f t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t , determined care must i n s t i t u t e dissenting opinion action because I would reverse which that party i n my only a c u s t o d y award e n t e r e d of that the opinion. 17 the children custodians, I were not respectfully

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.