C.C. v. B.L.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 09/13/2013 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 SPECIAL TERM, 2013 2120308 C.C. v. B.L. Appeal from T a l l a d e g a J u v e n i l e Court (JU-02-100038.04) MOORE, J u d g e . C.C., appeals the paternal grandfather f r o m a j u d g m e n t o f t h e T a l l a d e g a J u v e n i l e C o u r t ("the j u v e n i l e court") denying the o f L . L . ("the c h i l d " ) , juvenile court's h i s dependency p e t i t i o n . determination that We a f f i r m the child i s not 2120308 dependent and remand the cause f o r the dismiss the p a t e r n a l grandfather's juvenile court to petition. Background S.L., 2000 or although t h e m o t h e r , gave b i r t h i n June T.C., previously 2001. The 1 the c h i l d ' s sought custody i n v o l v e d w i t h the c h i l d . court awarded maternal On custody t o t h e c h i l d e i t h e r i n June mother i s incarcerated, a l l e g e d o r presumed of the child, he and f a t h e r , has i s no longer On S e p t e m b e r 11, 2003, t h e j u v e n i l e of the child to B.L., the child's grandmother. J a n u a r y 7, 2011, the p a t e r n a l t h a t the c h i l d was grandfather filed dependent because a petition alleging the maternal grandmother had n e g l e c t e d him, had f a i l e d t o p r o v i d e t h e c h i l d w i t h a s t a b l e home, h a d a l l o w e d o r c a u s e d t h e c h i l d t o m i s s e x c e s s i v e d a y s o f s c h o o l , and h a d , a t t i m e s , the child to with third grandfather sought custody of the On 26, December live 2012, parties. The allowed paternal child. the j u v e n i l e court c o n d u c t e d an e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g on t h e p a t e r n a l g r a n d f a t h e r ' s dependency T h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e c h i l d was b o r n i n June 2000, b u t t h e p a t e r n a l g r a n d f a t h e r ' s b r i e f t o t h i s court i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e c h i l d was b o r n i n June 2001. 1 2 2120308 petition. At that hearing, evidence that had been previous pendente lite c a l l e d no w i t n e s s e s , his case. thepaternal grandfather presented hearings. r e l i e d on to the juvenile The p a t e r n a l 2 court grandfather a n d he o f f e r e d no e v i d e n c e b e f o r e The p a t e r n a l grandfather's at resting lawyer argued that the paternal grandfather's home was more a p p r o p r i a t e and t h a t t h e p a t e r n a l grandfather f o rthe c h i l d was more f i n a n c i a l l y sound than the maternal grandmother; t h a t the maternal grandmother's home was u n s t a b l e a n d t h a t s h e h a d moved f r e q u e n t l y i n r e c e n t y e a r s ; t h a t t h e c h i l d had been e x c e s s i v e l y a b s e n t from while i n t h e maternal grandmother's care; that school the maternal g r a n d m o t h e r h a d r a i s e d t h e c h i l d ' s m o t h e r , who h a d e n d e d up i n p r i s o n ; that the paternal Department has grandmother had a h i s t o r y w i t h t h e o f Human R e s o u r c e s ; a n d t h a t , asthma, cigarette butts had been although the c h i l d found outside the m a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r ' s home. The paternal maternal grandmother's grandfather had f a i l e d lawyer responded to establish that that the the c h i l d was d e p e n d e n t a n d t h a t w h e t h e r he was a b e t t e r p r o v i d e r or a That evidence i s not contained court. this 2 3 i n the record before 2120308 better custodian than the maternal r e l e v a n t t o t h e i s s u e o f dependency. grandmother was not The c h i l d ' s g u a r d i a n a d l i t e m recommended t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t deny t h e d e p e n d e n c y p e t i t i o n b a s e d on t h e l a c k o f e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d as w e l l as her own i n v e s t i g a t i o n . The j u v e n i l e c o u r t n o t e d t h a t a l l p r e v i o u s in orders entered t h e a c t i o n h a d b e e n b a s e d on t h e a g r e e m e n t o f t h e p a r t i e s and t h a t t h e c h i l d the filing petition. bench, of h a d n o t b e e n f o u n d t o be d e p e n d e n t the grandfather's The j u v e n i l e c o u r t stating that dependency and t h a t , rule paternal on the custody paternal not as a r e s u l t , grandfather. January making i t lacked visitation issues The j u v e n i l e c o u r t a finding grandfather timely f i l e d of j u r i s d i c t i o n to raised entered by the a judgment on t h a t same d a t e d e n y i n g t h e p a t e r n a l g r a n d f a t h e r ' s The p a t e r n a l 2011 rendered i t s d e c i s i o n from the i t could and since petition. h i s notice of appeal. 3 Analysis The p a t e r n a l g r a n d f a t h e r challenges the j u v e n i l e court's d e n i a l o f h i s dependency p e t i t i o n . He a r g u e s t h a t t h e c h i l d The brief. not f i l e d 3 maternal grandmother 4 has an appellee's 2120308 was d e p e n d e n t and, a w a r d e d t o him. The therefore, that We custody should have b e e n disagree. o n l y e v i d e n c e i n the r e c o r d even r e m o t e l y relevant to the i s s u e of the c h i l d ' s dependency i s a c o u r t r e p o r t prepared i n 2002 o r 2003 by t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s and an p a r t e o r d e r e n t e r e d by t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t i n J a n u a r y 2011 ex that noted the c h i l d ' s p u r p o r t e d l y e x c e s s i v e absences from s c h o o l . A f t e r s e r v i c e of process on t h e m a t e r n a l t h a t ex p a r t e vacated. The the o r d e r was b u r d e n o f e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e c h i l d ' s d e p e n d e n c y was petitioner, i . e . , the C.E.W. v. P.J.G., 14 So. that, grandmother, however, paternal grandfather. 3d 166 ( A l a . C i v . App. See, 2009) (noting t h e c u s t o d i a n , as p a r t y f i l i n g the p e t i t i o n , bore the burden of p r o o f c h i l d ' s d e p e n d e n c y and as t o t h e as t o 306, 104 So. 764, 764-65 (1925) ("It s h o u l d i m p o s e d upon him 5 the the by law and 213 A l a . further o b s e r v e d t h a t a p a r t y as p e t i t i o n e r i n [ a ] s u i t must the burden of proof a l a c k of v i a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s t o t e r m i n a t i o n ) ; and Ex p a r t e B i g F o u r C o a l M i n . Co., 305, e.g., i n a 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 c a s e b r o u g h t by t h i r d - p a r t y custodian against a parent, on be discharge material to 2120308 the issue being tried. ... burden of proof ... , no recovery A d d i t i o n a l l y , although pointed been the Failing to and c o u l d be discharge to evidence considered of may that had the by the had."). the p a t e r n a l g r a n d f a t h e r j u v e n i l e court submitted i n the have previously juvenile court r e g a r d i n g t h e i s s u e o f d e p e n d e n c y , i . e . , home e v a l u a t i o n s testimony presented at pendente l i t e hearings, i s n o t c o n t a i n e d i n t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l . that an appellant containing court." (Ala. sufficient to which ensure i t can that 881 So. contains 2d appellate record, 377 993, nothing 1009 f i n d the child by So. " ' i t i s the court has Further, a i n the not a record the trial 2d 243, 246 appellant's record from absence of assume e r r o r on D u n l a p v. R e g i o n s F i n . C o r p . , ( A l a . 2007) (Ala. ( q u o t i n g Zaden v. 2003)). establish cannot conclude t h a t the presenting show e r r o r Court w i l l court.'" n.3 to this evidence "It is well settled Homes, I n c . , 789 conduct a review. 2d 374, to of Additionally, the the p a r t of the t r i a l So. burden evidence 2000). evidence i n the 983 the L e e t h v. J i m W a l t e r C i v . App. duty has that and the Because child's j u v e n i l e court dependent. 6 the Elkus, record dependency, we erred i n f a i l i n g to 2120308 The paternal grandfather next a s s e r t s t h a t the j u v e n i l e court e r r e d by f a i l i n g t o grant him v i s i t a t i o n w i t h the c h i l d . In l i g h t of the j u v e n i l e court's finding t h a t t h e c h i l d was not dependent, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t l a c k e d j u r i s d i c t i o n t o e n t e r a judgment visitation. 953 affecting As t h i s the custody of the c h i l d , including c o u r t s t a t e d i n J.A. v. C.M., 93 So. 3d ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 2 ) : "'Juvenile courts arepurely creatures of s t a t u t e a n d have e x t r e m e l y limited j u r i s d i c t i o n . See Ex p a r t e K.L.P., 868 So. 2d 454, 456 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 3 ) . That limited jurisdiction allows a juvenile c o u r t 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 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 . 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 o u n t y Dep't o f Human Res., 897 So. 2d 379, 389 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2004) (Murdock, J . , c o n c u r r i n g i n the result)) ("'[I]n order to make a d i s p o s i t i o n of a c h i l d i n the context of 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.'").' "T.B. v . T.H., 30 So. 3d 429, 431 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009) ( f i r s t e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . Furthermore, t h i s c o u r t has h e l d t h a t , i n a dependency a c t i o n , ' [ i ] f a j u v e n i l e court determines that the c h i l d i s not d e p e n d e n t , t h e c o u r t must d i s m i s s t h e d e p e n d e n c y p e t i t i o n . ' K.C.G. v. S.J.R., 46 So. 3d 499, 501-02 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 0 ) . See a l s o § 1 2 - 1 5 - 3 1 0 ( b ) , A l a . Code 1975 ( ' I f t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t f i n d s t h a t t h e a l l e g a t i o n s i n t h e [dependency] p e t i t i o n have 7 2120308 not the been p r o v e n by c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g evidence, juvenile court s h a l l dismiss thep e t i t i o n . ' ) . " 93 So. 3d a t 954-55. B e c a u s e t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e c h i l d was not dependent, jurisdiction to i t correctly enter a judgment v i s i t a t i o n matters regarding however, erred by determined affecting the c h i l d . denying the that i t custody The j u v e n i l e paternal lacked and court, grandfather's d e p e n d e n c y p e t i t i o n r a t h e r t h a n d i s m i s s i n g i t , as r e q u i r e d b y § 1 2 - 1 5 - 3 1 0 ( b ) , A l a . Code 1975. juvenile court's We, therefore, a f f i r m the j u d g m e n t as t o t h e i s s u e o f d e p e n d e n c y , b u t i n s t r u c t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t t o e n t e r a judgment d i s m i s s i n g t h e paternal grandfather's petition. AFFIRMED I N PART AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, P . J . , a n d P i t t m a n , concur. 8 Thomas, a n d D o n a l d s o n , J J . ,

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.