J.S.M. v. Cleburne County Department of Human Resources

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 08/16/2013 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 2120258 J.S.M. v. Cleburne County Department o f Human Resources Appeal from Cleburne J u v e n i l e Court (JU-12-09.02) DONALDSON, Judge. J.S.M. Establish appeals from the denial P a t e r n i t y " and t h i s alleged biological "Motion o f h i s "Motion t o Intervene" father i n theunderlying p a r e n t a l - r i g h t s case. as to the termination-of- B e c a u s e we h o l d t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t 2120258 erred i n failing to hold a hearing on J.S.M.'s m o t i o n t o i n t e r v e n e , we r e v e r s e t h e u n d e r l y i n g j u d g m e n t a n d remand t h e matter for a hearing. F a c t s and P r o c e d u r a l H i s t o r y L.E. K.E. ("the c h i l d " ) ( " t h e m o t h e r " ) was m a r r i e d Department custody DHR was b o r n on J a n u a r y o f Human t o J.O. Resources o f t h e c h i l d on J a n u a r y ("DHR") 16, 2012, w h i l e The C l e b u r n e obtained County temporary 18, 2012. On June 2 1 , p e t i t i o n e d the j u v e n i l e court ("the t r i a l 2012, court") to t e r m i n a t e t h e p a r e n t a l r i g h t s o f t h e m o t h e r a n d J.O. a s t o t h e child "due t o t h e p a r e n t s ' f a i l u r e care f o r the c h i l d . " to and i n a b i l i t y to properly J.O. was s e r v e d b y p u b l i c a t i o n d i r e c t e d " [ J . O . ] a n d any unknown f a t h e r s , " a f t e r w h i c h he f i l e d an affidavit of s u b s t a n t i a l hardship On O c t o b e r 1, 2012, J.O. f i l e d denying the allegations. a n d was a p p o i n t e d counsel. an a n s w e r t o DHR's p e t i t i o n , The t r i a l court s e t the matter f o r a h e a r i n g on O c t o b e r 22, 2012, a n d i t r e s e t t h a t h e a r i n g f o r November 16, 2012. On O c t o b e r 24, 2012, J.O. f i l e d a for I m m e d i a t e DNA T e s t i n g . " a "Motion "Motion On November 1, 2012, J.O. f i l e d t o Repudiate P a t e r n i t y . " 2 2120258 On November 8, father of the c h i l d , presumably 2012, J.S.M., f i l e d a "Motion i n response motion "Motion t o continue on DHR's p e t i t i o n , On November 15, 2012, t h e t r i a l d e n i e d J.O.'s " M o t i o n t o R e p u d i a t e for Paternity," On an answer t o DHR's p e t i t i o n , the hearing to Intervene." to Establish biological t o t h e n o t i c e by p u b l i c a t i o n . November 15, 2012, J.S.M. f i l e d a the alleged P a t e r n i t y " and h i s and a court "Motion I m m e d i a t e DNA T e s t i n g " a n d a l s o d e n i e d J.S.M.'s " M o t i o n t o E s t a b l i s h P a t e r n i t y , " h i s motion t o i n t e r v e n e , and h i s motion to continue. The t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t h o l d a h e a r i n g on a n y o f the motions i t denied. On November 16, 2012, J.O. f i l e d to an "Answer a n d C o n s e n t P e t i t i o n f o r Permanent C u s t o d y a n d T e r m i n a t i o n of Parental Rights." On November 16, 2012, t h e t r i a l c o u r t t e r m i n a t e d t h e mother's a n d J.O.'s appeal. J.S.M. addressing "Motion was filed parental rights, a motion and n e i t h e r to alter, the d e n i a l of h i s motion amend, filed an or vacate, to intervene and h i s t o E s t a b l i s h P a t e r n i t y , " on November 29, 2012, w h i c h denied by o p e r a t i o n o f l a w . J.S.M. appeal. 3 filed this timely 2120258 J.S.M. court raises erred whether the in two issues denying trial court on appeal: J.S.M.'s erred motion in Establish Paternity" without holding DHR agrees w i t h to denying the trial intervene his and "Motion an e v i d e n t i a r y J.S.M.'s a l l e g a t i o n s o f Standard of whether to hearing. error. Review "Alabama law does i n d e e d a f f o r d a p a r t y whose m o t i o n t o i n t e r v e n e has b e e n d e n i e d a r i g h t t o a p p e a l f r o m t h a t d e c i s i o n ; i n T h r a s h e r v. B a r t l e t t , 424 So. 2d 607 ( A l a . 1 9 8 2 ) , and U n i v e r s a l Underwriters 605, rsal I n s u r a n c e Co. v. A n g l e n , 630 So. 2d 441, 442 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) , t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t , c i t i n g f e d e r a l a u t h o r i t i e s i n s u p p o r t , c o n c l u d e d t h a t an order d e n y i n g i n t e r v e n t i o n as o f r i g h t and an order d e n y i n g p e r m i s s i v e i n t e r v e n t i o n , r e s p e c t i v e l y , were each a p p e a l a b l e f i n a l judgments." Shaw v. C i v . App. State ex r e l . H a y e s , 953 So. 2d 1247, Ala. R. 1251-52 2006). "[W]e note that Rule 24(a), provides, i n pertinent p a r t : Civ. "'Upon t i m e l y a p p l i c a t i o n , anyone s h a l l be p e r m i t t e d t o i n t e r v e n e i n an a c t i o n : (1) when a s t a t u t e c o n f e r s an unconditional right to intervene; or (2) when the a p p l i c a n t c l a i m s an i n t e r e s t r e l a t i n g t o the p r o p e r t y or t r a n s a c t i o n which i s the s u b j e c t o f t h e a c t i o n and t h e a p p l i c a n t i s so s i t u a t e d t h a t t h e d i s p o s i t i o n o f t h e a c t i o n may as a p r a c t i c a l m a t t e r i m p a i r o r impede t h e a p p l i c a n t ' s a b i l i t y t o p r o t e c t that i n t e r e s t , unless the applicant's 4 P., (Ala. 2120258 interest is adequately existing parties.' "Our supreme c o u r t has represented by stated: "'The d e c i s i o n t o g r a n t o r t o deny a m o t i o n t o i n t e r v e n e i s w i t h i n the 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 i s C o u r t w i l l n o t d i s t u r b t h a t r u l i n g a b s e n t an abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n . In i t s e x e r c i s e of d i s c r e t i o n , t h e t r i a l c o u r t must d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e p o t e n t i a l i n t e r v e n o r has d e m o n s t r a t e d : (1) t h a t i t s m o t i o n i s t i m e l y ; (2) t h a t i t has a sufficient interest relating to the property or transaction; (3) that i t s a b i l i t y t o p r o t e c t i t s i n t e r e s t may, as a p r a c t i c a l m a t t e r , be i m p a i r e d o r impeded; and (4) t h a t i t s i n t e r e s t i s n o t a d e q u a t e l y represented.' "'City o f Dora v. B e a v e r s , 692 1997) (citations omitted)." D.S. v. Cullman Cnty. 1286 ( A l a . C i v . App. Dep't o f So. 2d 808, Human Res., 810 42 (Ala. So. 3d 1284, 2010). Analysis P u r s u a n t t o the Alabama U n i f o r m P a r e n t a g e A c t , 101 et seq., terminated, chapter Code 1975, "[u]nless parental 26-17¬ rights are a p a r e n t - c h i l d r e l a t i o n s h i p e s t a b l i s h e d under t h i s applies specifically 203, Ala. § for provided A l a . Code 1975. a c h i l d i f ... he and all by purposes, other "A man law of except this 5 otherwise state." § i s p r e s u m e d t o be the mother of the as the 26-17¬ father of c h i l d are m a r r i e d to 2120258 each o t h e r and t h e c h i l d 17-204(a)(1). this section i s born d u r i n g t h e m a r r i a g e . " § 26- "A p r e s u m p t i o n o f p a t e r n i t y e s t a b l i s h e d under may be r e b u t t e d o n l y b y an a d j u d i c a t i o n under A r t i c l e 6 [ , i . e . , § 26-17-601 t h r o u g h § 2 6 - 1 7 - 6 3 8 ] . " § 26-17- 204(b). "We have h e l d t h a t a man i n t h e b i o l o g i c a l f a t h e r ' s p o s i t i o n does have a r i g h t t o i n t e r v e n e i n a c u s t o d y c a s e c o n c e r n i n g a c h i l d he c l a i m s t o have f a t h e r e d because '"the m a t t e r o f c u s t o d y o f a c h i l d t o which one s e e k s t o e s t a b l i s h p a t e r n i t y i s a m a t t e r o f s u c h i n t e r e s t as t o p r o v i d e i n t e r v e n t i o n o f r i g h t , " ' W.D.R.[ v . H.M.], 897 So. 2 d [327,] 330 [ ( A l a . C i v . App. 2004)] ( q u o t i n g F i n k e n b i n d e r v . B u r t o n , 452 So. 2d 880, 883 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 1 9 8 4 ) , s u p e r s e d e d b y s t a t u t e a s n o t e d i n F o s t e r v . W h i t l e y , 564 So. 2 d 990, 991 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 0 ) ) . However, a l t h o u g h s u c h a man h a s a r i g h t t o i n t e r v e n e , a s n o t e d above, the pivotal issue of the biological father's standing t o a c t u a l l y prove h i s p a t e r n i t y o f [the c h i l d ] t u r n s on w h e t h e r t h e l e g a l f a t h e r p e r s i s t s i n h i s p r e s u m p t i o n o f p a t e r n i t y . W.D.R., 897 So. 2 d a t 331. I n W.D.R., we were p r e s e n t e d w i t h t h e q u e s t i o n o f what h a p p e n s a f t e r a man i n t h e same p o s i t i o n a s the b i o l o g i c a l father i n t h e p r e s e n t case i s p e r m i t t e d t o i n t e r v e n e . I d . a t 330-31. We h e l d , b a s e d on a s i m i l a r h o l d i n g i n J . O . J . v . R.R., 895 So. 2 d 336, 340 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 4 ) , t h a t 'a man seeking t o e s t a b l i s h paternity of a c h i l d born d u r i n g t h e m o t h e r ' s m a r r i a g e t o a n o t h e r man must be g i v e n t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o e s t a b l i s h s t a n d i n g i n an e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g where he a n d o t h e r s may p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e b e a r i n g on w h e t h e r t h e p r e s u m e d f a t h e r ... p e r s i s t e d i n h i s p r e s u m p t i o n o f p a t e r n i t y . ' W.D.R., 897 So. 2 d a t 3 3 1 . " 6 2120258 R.D.B. v. A.C., 27 So. 3d 1283, 1287 The record matter, i s clear J.S.M. biological his of the c h i l d . of presumed paternity." 2004). J.S.M., should to e s t a b l i s h standing where he a n d o t h e r s App. that Although paternity, father of the c h i l d , opportunity the asserted relevant to was he this the the consent to f i l e d b y J.O. s u g g e s t s t h a t he was p e r s i s t i n g i n presumption biological at a l l times consistently father termination that, ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009) . may p r e s e n t father ... Whether the have b e e n " g i v e n t h e evidence bearing hearing on w h e t h e r i n h i s presumption 897 So. 2d 327, 331 J.S.M. alleged i n an e v i d e n t i a r y persisted W.D.R. v. H.M., as i s ultimately of (Ala. C i v . successful in m e e t i n g h i s b u r d e n o f d e m o n s t r a t i n g t h a t J.O. d i d n o t p e r s i s t in h i s presumption of p a t e r n i t y i s not properly before this court. Therefore, we p r e t e r m i t t h e q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r t h e t r i a l court erred denying in J.S.M.'s "Motion to Establish Paternity." B a s e d on J.S.M.'s r i g h t as an a l l e g e d b i o l o g i c a l father to a hearing on h i s m o t i o n t o i n t e r v e n e , we r e v e r s e the order of t h e t r i a l court denying the motion t o intervene and remand 7 2120258 t h i s m a t t e r w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n s t o c o n d u c t a h e a r i n g on J.S.M.'s motion to intervene. REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, P . J . , a n d P i t t m a n a n d Moore, J J . , c o n c u r . Thomas, J . , c o n c u r s i n t h e r e s u l t , w i t h o u t 8 writing.

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.