Ex parte N. B. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS (In re: A. K. v. N. B.)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 06/30/2010 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 , 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 ( ( 3 3 4 ) 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 . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 1080440 Ex p a r t e N.B. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF C I V I L APPEALS (In r e : A.K. v. N.B.) (Houston J u v e n i l e C o u r t , JU-06-455; C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s , 2070086) MURDOCK, Justice. 1080440 This case mother"), the ("the involves biological child"), California, biological both and A.K., after instituted California, the child. instituted whom a her were in proceedings has of no I n t h e summer o f 2 0 0 5 , the moved t o A l a b a m a , Superior ("the C a l i f o r n i a proceedings A.R.B.-K. who were i n the Houston Court trial o f m a t e r n i t y and v i s i t a t i o n those ("the residents resident and t h e c h i l d proceedings N.B. daughter formerly to the c h i l d . County of S u t t e r While of California the mother seeking a declaration d i s p u t e between mother of relationship a few weeks A.K. a custody court"), rights pending, Juvenile of with the mother Court ("the j u v e n i l e c o u r t " ) s e e k i n g a d e c l a r a t i o n t h a t t h e m o t h e r was t h e sole parent visitation. of A.K. the child was and n o t named made a p a r t y t o t h e p r o c e e d i n g s In November 2006, that had no right a defendant as A.K. or otherwise i n the j u v e n i l e the j u v e n i l e court court. entered an order ("the N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 6 o r d e r " ) g r a n t i n g t h e m o t h e r t h e r e l i e f requested. T h e r e a f t e r , A.K. P., i n the j u v e n i l e motion filed court, seeking to set aside The j u v e n i l e c o u r t d e n i e d A . K . ' s A.K. to appealed the Court 2 she a R u l e 6 0 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . November 2006 o r d e r . then to of Civil Appeals, the motion. which 1080440 reversed the j u v e n i l e court's the P a r e n t a l Kidnapping § 1738A, required jurisdiction trial the j u v e n i l e court See 3d A.K. v . N.B., commenced d u r i n g another State exercising this We f o r a custody the pendency where such jurisdiction The was born born, was original child's conceived of and that A.K. California jurisdiction determination i n a court other State determination."). History 1999. 1 insemination When were together. and the c h i l d involved On the was in a child's t h e m o t h e r , N.B., i s d e s c r i b e d No name a p p e a r s o n t h e b i r t h According t o the mother, relationship to the c h i l d . 3 i s f o r a writ of c e r t i o r a r i . apparently 1 of the provisions of by a r t i f i c i a l in April certificate, mother. or v i s i t a t i o n or v i s i t a t i o n r e l a t i o n s h i p and r e s i d e d birth not exercise and P r o c e d u r a l t o t h e mother t h e mother lesbian the child to exercise s e e g e n e r a l l y 28 U.S.C. consistently with the mother's p e t i t i o n Facts to decline of a proceeding court s e c t i o n t o make a c u s t o d y granted that [Ms. 2 0 7 0 0 8 6 , May 2 3 , 2 0 0 8 ] ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008); any p r o c e e d i n g i n part, were p e n d i n g i n t h e § 1738A(g)("A court of a State s h a l l in holding, P r e v e n t i o n A c t ( " t h e P K P A " ) , 28 U.S.C. while proceedings court. So. order, A.K. has no as certificate biological 1080440 in the space provided does not appear however, appears hyphenated The 2004, mother and residence resided. We last the in on for the on birth the name o f and A.K.'s name last name, A.K.'s certificate as part of than relationship child the their moved the residence to a in in which A.K. 2 note that the mother asserts appeal 2005 amendment C a l i f o r n i a ' s domestic-partnership expressly authorizes domestic partners r e l a t i o n s h i p between the of the California that partners to under on were d o m e s t i c parents March different A.K. child the child. ended and father. certificate. the California child's birth A.K. mother the same g e n d e r . law. A to e s t a b l i s h a she January statute parent- c h i l d o f e i t h e r o f them and See Cal. Fam. C o d e §§ and 297(b) two and I n h e r a p p e l l a t e b r i e f , t h e m o t h e r a s s e r t s t h a t A.K. had no c o n t a c t w i t h t h e c h i l d a n d p a i d no s u p p o r t f o r t h e child a f t e r s h e a n d A.K. ended t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p . A.K. does not dispute that assertion. 2 A l s o , i t i s u n d i s p u t e d t h a t A.K. d i d not p u r p o r t to adopt t h e c h i l d a f t e r s h e was b o r n . We n o t e t h a t i n t h e m o t h e r ' s r e s p o n s e t o A.K.'s m o t i o n t o s e t a s i d e t h e November 2006 order, see d i s c u s s i o n i n f r a , she a l l e g e d t h a t d u r i n g their r e l a t i o n s h i p s h e h a d a s k e d A.K. to adopt the c h i l d along w i t h t h e m o t h e r ' s o t h e r d a u g h t e r ( t h e c h i l d ' s o l d e r s i s t e r ) when t h e m o t h e r was " f a c i n g t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f a t e r m i n a l i l l n e s s . " The m o t h e r a l l e g e d t h a t A.K. refused. 4 1080440 2 9 7 . 5 ( d ) ; E l i s a B. v . S u p e r i o r C o u r t , Cal. Rptr. became 3d 4 6 , 5 3 , 117 P . 3 d effective relationship, was an after however, attempt between A.K. to A t some p o i n t , July 2005, Alabama; the she after her According Alabama her i s no a A.K. The had pursuant to this amendment ended their that there contention parent-child 33 relationship statute. t h e m o t h e r ' s p a r e n t s moved t o A l a b a m a . decided child to move with to Alabama; the and the house, she returned to In child she to found I n A u g u s t 2005 she p u r c h a s e d t h e h o u s e , California a and and belongings. to the desires complaint, sometime after The m o t h e r to adopt the c h i l d moving alleges and t h e c h i l d ' s to that older 3 In August Elisa (2005). and i n 2005, t h e mother m a r r i e d . husband sister. establish brought the purchasing retrieved and t h e r e mother house i n Alabama. 6 6 0 , 666 the mother and t h e c h i l d 37 C a l . 4 t h 1 0 8 , 1 1 9 , B. application v. 2005, t h e Supreme Superior Court, of C a l i f o r n i a ' s Court supra, version of C a l i f o r n i a which decided concerned the of the Uniform Parentage I t i s not c l e a r from the r e c o r d whether the C a l i f o r n i a t r i a l c o u r t was a w a r e o f t h e m o t h e r ' s m a r i t a l s t a t u s o r o f h e r husband's d e s i r e to adopt the mother's c h i l d r e n . 3 5 1080440 Act, the C a l . Fam. C o d e § 7600 e t s e q . Elisa B. court considered whether former partner of the b i o l o g i c a l second of the child Cal. parent Fam. C o d e § 7 6 1 1 ( d ) : father of a child and openly holds out added.) language, the E l i s a to "perceive[d] at lesbian under the was a c o u l d be a the f o l l o w i n g language i n child B. c o u r t as above-emphasized that § 7611 c o u l d and i t stated both parents of a child The c o u r t child." the concluded maternity, i n t o h i s home h i s natural 4 t h a t 1 1 9 , 33 C a l . R p t r . added). who "A man i s p r e s u m e d t o b e t h e n a t u r a l no r e a s o n why 666 ( e m p h a s i s Specifically, mother o f a c h i l d Notwithstanding 4 determine women." 37 C a l . a i f ... [ h ] e r e c e i v e s t h e c h i l d (Emphasis applied ("the UPA"). that be i t c a n n o t be 3 d a t 5 3 , 117 P . 3 d opined " t h a t a woman who a g r e e d t o r a i s e c h i l d r e n w i t h h e r lesbian partner, supported her partner's artificial i n s e m i n a t i o n u s i n g an anonymous d o n o r , a n d r e c e i v e d t h e r e s u l t i n g t w i n c h i l d r e n i n t o h e r home a n d h e l d t h e m o u t a s h e r own, i s t h e c h i l d r e n ' s p a r e n t u n d e r t h e U n i f o r m P a r e n t a g e A c t a n d h a s an o b l i g a t i o n t o s u p p o r t them." S e e g e n e r a l l y C a l . Fam. C o d e § 7 65 0 ( a ) ( p r o v i d i n g f o r a n a c t i o n t o e s t a b l i s h t h e "mother and c h i l d r e l a t i o n s h i p " and s t a t i n g t h a t , " [ i ] n s o f a r as p r a c t i c a b l e , t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h i s p a r t a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e f a t h e r and c h i l d r e l a t i o n s h i p apply"). 4 6 1080440 37 Cal. In Parental a 4th at 113, September 33 2005, Relationship" declaration that Cal. Rptr. A.K. she was a "de filed at a 48, 117 P.3d "Petition to at 662. 5 Establish California trial a presumed mother of the UPA or, i n the a l t e r n a t i v e , facto" parent of the child. she i n the was under C a l i f o r n i a ' s v e r s i o n that 3d court of 6 seeking the The child mother I n E l i s a B., t h e E l D o r a d o C o u n t y d i s t r i c t a t t o r n e y f i l e d a p e t i t i o n to e s t a b l i s h the former partner's s t a t u s as a p a r e n t f o r purposes of o b t a i n i n g c h i l d s u p p o r t . Unlike the present c a s e , t h e b i o l o g i c a l m o t h e r i n E l i s a B., who was r e c e i v i n g f i n a n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e from the county, d i d not oppose the p e t i t i o n . The E l i s a B. c o u r t s t a t e d : 5 " [ T ] h i s i s n o t an a p p r o p r i a t e a c t i o n i n which to rebut the presumption that Elisa i s the twins' parent with proof t h a t she i s not the children's b i o l o g i c a l m o t h e r b e c a u s e she a c t i v e l y p a r t i c i p a t e d in causing t h e c h i l d r e n t o be c o n c e i v e d with the understanding t h a t s h e w o u l d r a i s e t h e c h i l d r e n as her own together with the birth mother, she v o l u n t a r i l y a c c e p t e d t h e r i g h t s and o b l i g a t i o n s o f p a r e n t h o o d a f t e r t h e c h i l d r e n were b o r n , and there a r e no c o m p e t i n g c l a i m s t o h e r b e i n g t h e c h i l d r e n ' s second parent." 37 Cal. 4th at 125, 33 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 58, 117 P.3d at 670. U n d e r C a l i f o r n i a l a w , t h e "de f a c t o p a r e n t h o o d d o c t r i n e " m e r e l y r e c o g n i z e s t h a t " p e r s o n s who h a v e p r o v i d e d a c h i l d w i t h d a i l y p a r e n t a l c o n c e r n , a f f e c t i o n , and c a r e o v e r s u b s t a n t i a l t i m e may d e v e l o p l e g i t i m a t e i n t e r e s t s and p e r s p e c t i v e s , and may a l s o p r e s e n t a c u s t o d i a l a l t e r n a t i v e , w h i c h s h o u l d n o t be ignored i n a j u v e n i l e dependency proceeding." In re K i e s h i a E., 6 C a l . 4 t h 68 , 77 , 23 C a l . R p t r . 2d 7 7 5 , 781, 859 P.2d 1290, 1296 (1993) ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . N o t h i n g i n the record b e f o r e us i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e p r o c e e d i n g s i n t h e California 6 7 1080440 was served she w i t h A.K.'s p e t i t i o n retained counsel and against A.K.'s August 2006, initially defended Thereafter, on the merits petition. In i n November 2005. attended were a hearing ordered whether to mediation. September 8, Temporary Custody" that s h e was with her [A.K.], a and trial California court. 2006, the mother child's in [ l ] e s b i a n who court The p a r t i e s from filed i n the j u v e n i l e court. the counsel the record occurred. proceeding seeking her I t i s unclear the c h i l d ' s mother, since non-parent mother i n the C a l i f o r n i a the mediation On child, the that birth, the ordered no "Petition The m o t h e r the c h i l d and blood visitation had "[t]hat [California bears a alleged resided there trial for is a court] by r e l a t i o n s h i p to the of the c h i l d . " The m o t h e r a l l e g e d t h a t A.K. had v e r b a l l y a b u s e d t h e c h i l d and had caused emotional her threatened A.K. in was an with trial to to take going exhibit the c h i l d court suffer the c h i l d , to kidnap scarring, and t h a t the c h i l d . to the p e t i t i o n that A.K. were dependency had and t h a t proceedings. 8 mother A.K. had feared the mother The f o r an e x t e n d e d p e r i o d that that also had no alleged contact the c h i l d had 1080440 little memory o f A.K. court "provide further orders [mother] as from Attached temporary of t h i s the "[r]estraining child a The m o t h e r r e q u e s t e d Honorable sole [A.K.] order[,] of exhibits care the forms had artificial-insemination A.K.'s September juvenile not court served juvenile On court custody with court 2005 does petition petition. n o t name A.K. were, certificate, i n connection and a copy The p e t i t i o n d i d not a copy with her of portions of filed as a d e f e n d a n t . a n d A.K. among i n the A.K. appear was i n the proceeding. an ex of the c h i l d restraining and of Alabama." procedure, process, child" i n the [S]tate completed t h e day t h e mother entered minor removing the to the mother's the mother until from o t h e r t h i n g s , a copy o f t h e c h i l d ' s b i r t h of effective "[r]ecognizing the o r any o f h e r agents t h e [mother's] as t o be Court," parent that the juvenile A.K., removing the c h i l d parte pending her filed order her p e t i t i o n , awarding further agents, orders and from Alabama pending court. 9 law the juvenile the mother sole o f t h e c o u r t and enforcement further orders from of the 1080440 In October 2006, the California trial court entered an order p u r p o r t i n g to f i n d t h a t , i n a d d i t i o n to the mother, A.K. was also did not a w a r d A.K. In the child's visitation November tenus proceeding on appeal hearing 2006 the h e a r i n g . no the concerning contains and mother; no the rights California at juvenile transcript days l a t e r , November 2006 o r d e r , which court of what court time. conducted the mother's p e t i t i o n . summary o f t h e e v i d e n c e A few that trial The an record t r a n s p i r e d at the mother p r e s e n t e d the j u v e n i l e c o u r t entered states: "The [ m o t h e r ] made known t h a t [A.K.], a 'de facto parent,' had initiated a proceeding in C a l i f o r n i a i n order to obtain v i s i t a t i o n with the minor c h i l d . The Court finds that a 'de facto p a r e n t ' i s not a s t a t u s or s t a n d i n g r e c o g n i z e d i n Alabama law and any proceeding b a s e d upon this C a l i f o r n i a s t a n d i n g d o e s n o t o u s t A l a b a m a on the i s s u e of j u r i s d i c t i o n . ... [ I ] t i s concluded that the California court has no subject matter j u r i s d i c t i o n i n t h i s m a t t e r ab i n i t i o , a n d p e r s o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e m i n o r c h i l d , who resided in A l a b a m a a t t h e t i m e t h e p e t i t i o n o f t h e 'de f a c t o p a r e n t ' was f i l e d i n C a l i f o r n i a , l i e s e x c l u s i v e l y i n t h i s forum. "From t e s t i m o n y t a k e n and e v i d e n c e presented, the Court f i n d s the [mother] i s the s o l e p a r e n t of the s a i d minor c h i l d and as s u c h has the sole l i b e r t y i n t e r e s t i n making d e c i s i o n s about the care, c u s t o d y , and c o n t r o l o f s a i d m i n o r c h i l d . " 10 ore the at the 1080440 The November visitation In 2006 rights which attended. on to C a l i f o r n i a ' s i t s October on t h e c h i l d ' s Also, birth After the neither awarding trial trial A.K. order, for review after A.K. certificate. trial a hearing on the 2007 been held that to record exercise order i n the on or what California appeal her the 11 added C a l . Fam. issue child of as a Code visitation, counsel for a few 2007 days in set the matter but b e f o r e the March not reflect rights proceedings court attended, i n February I t also does further order. requiring rights. visitation trial counsel court set the matter f o r c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r with be See the February v i s i t a t i o n , The attempted February A.K. a court entered v e r s i o n o f t h e UPA F e b r u a r y and a few days i n M a r c h 2007. visitation. trial A.K.'s v i s i t a t i o n visitation no court conducted the mother nor her C a l i f o r n i a California had nor her C a l i f o r n i a 2006 the C a l i f o r n i a conducting A.K. child. the mother a hearing to determine which that In J a n u a r y 2007, t h e C a l i f o r n i a based § 7639. declares the C a l i f o r n i a neither an o r d e r p u r s u a n t mother also as t o t h e December 2006, hearing, that, order after whether under might the the have entry of 1080440 In A p r i l 2 0 0 7 , A.K. f i l e d requesting, i n effect, order based on a l a c k Court of C i v i l entitled n.2. and Ala. Code After The Child trial Custody the motion, seeking S e e A.K., that Jurisdiction conducting entered October The relief So. 3d a t under t h e PKPA Enforcement A c t , only the court could properly exercise j u r i s d i c t i o n A.K.'s v i s i t a t i o n court as a m o t i o n A.K. c o n t e n d e d 2006 jurisdiction. characterized A l a . R. A p p . P. court i t s November 1975, § 30-3B-101 e t s e q . ("the UCCJEA"), California to properly In her motion, the Uniform i t set aside to Dismiss," 60(b)(4), i n the juvenile of subject-matter Appeals a "Motion under Rule that a motion an o r d e r 2007 o r d e r rights. as 7 an o r e t e n u s proceeding, the juvenile i n O c t o b e r 2007 d e n y i n g A.K.'s motion. states: "2. F u l l f a i t h and c r e d i t o f any order of the [California t r i a l court] regarding the v i s i t a t i o n , custody or c h i l d support of the minor c h i l d i snot A l s o , i n a d d i t i o n t o h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n a l a r g u m e n t , A.K. argued t h a t t h e mother's f a i l u r e t o comply w i t h t h e p l e a d i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s o f t h e UCCJEA, w h i c h a r e s e t f o r t h i n A l a . Code 1975, § 30-3B-209, r e q u i r e d t h a t t h e m o t h e r ' s S e p t e m b e r 2006 petition be d i s m i s s e d . We n o t e t h a t t h e U C C J E A p l e a d i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s a r e n o t j u r i s d i c t i o n a l , s e e O f f i c i a l Comment t o § 3 0 - 3 B - 2 0 9 ; we n e e d n o t r e a c h t h e i s s u e w h e t h e r A.K. made a n argument c o n c e r n i n g t h e mother's f a i l u r e t o comply w i t h t h e p l e a d i n g requirements that would s a t i s f y h e r burden of showing t h a t s h e was e n t i t l e d t o r e l i e f p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 6 0 ( b ) . 7 12 1080440 honored because those proceedings did not meet p r o v i s i o n s of the P a r e n t a l K i d n a p p i n g P r e v e n t i o n Act [28 U.S.C. § 1 7 3 8 A ] a n d t h e r e f o r e , t h e U n i f o r m C h i l d Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act [Ala. Code 1975, § 30-3B-101 e t seq.] does not a t t a c h . "3. U n d e r A l a b a m a l a w o r f e d e r a l l a w , t h e r e i s no c o d i f i e d p r o v i s i o n t h a t gives to a nonparent i n a same-sex r e l a t i o n s h i p the r e q u i s i t e standing to o b t a i n c u s t o d y or v i s i t a t i o n ( i . e . , p a r e n t a l r i g h t s ) of the c h i l d of a former p a r t n e r . "4. The E l e v e n t h C i r c u i t C o u r t o f A p p e a l s m a n d a t e d t h a t ' [ i ] f the L e g i s l a t u r e does not p r o v i d e a p e r s o n w i t h s t a n d i n g to o b t a i n p a r e n t a l r i g h t s , the courts must presume the L e g i s l a t u r e i s a c t i n g , or r e f u s i n g t o a c t , b y v i r t u e o f i t s p o s i t i o n as representatives of the w i l l of the p e o p l e . ' L o f t o n v. S e c r e t a r y of D e p ' t o f C h i l d r e n a n d F a m i l y S e r v i c e s , 358 F . 3 d 804 ( 1 1 t h C i r . [ 2 0 0 4 ] ) .... Therefore, a Court cannot presume to substitute its will for that of Legislatures representing the w i l l of the people, and [A.K.] l a c k s s t a n d i n g on w h i c h r e l i e f may be granted. "5. Issues r e g a r d i n g the w e l f a r e of the minor c h i l d remain e x c l u s i v e l y w i t h i n the j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h i s Court, including the establishing of paternity p u r s u a n t t o t h e U n i f o r m P a r e n t a g e A c t as p r e s e n t e d i n A l a . Code § 2 6 - 1 7 - 1 0 ( f ) . "6. The b e s t i n t e r e s t o f t h e m i n o r c h i l d was not met when t h e m i n o r c h i l d was not p r e s e n t i n the s t a t e o f C a l i f o r n i a , was n o t made a p a r t y t o t h a t p r o c e e d i n g a n d was n o t r e p r e s e n t e d b y a g u a r d i a n a d litem." We juvenile also note court California that stated trial at that court, but the hearing i t had there 13 on discussed i s no A.K.'s the record motion the case w i t h the concerning the 1080440 substance 110 of that (discussing conversation. See A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , § 30-3B- communication between courts of different s t a t e s u n d e r t h e U C C J E A a n d r e q u i r i n g t h a t a r e c o r d b e made o f some t y p e s it of communications). d i d not r e c a l l issue of A.K. there The j u v e n i l e c o u r t being any d i s c u s s i o n appealed. The C o u r t in the Court effect, from court concerning the of C i v i l Appeals reversed the On p e t i t i o n b y t h e m o t h e r , we the w r i t of c e r t i o r a r i . Standard As that jurisdiction. decision of the juvenile court. granted stated of C i v i l of Review Appeals noted, A.K.'s m o t i o n was, a R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 4 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., m o t i o n f o r r e l i e f t h e November 2006 o r d e r lacked subject-matter on t h e g r o u n d that the juvenile jurisdiction. "'"The s t a n d a r d of review on a p p e a l from the denial of r e l i e f under Rule 60(b)(4) i s n o t w h e t h e r t h e r e h a s b e e n an abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n . When t h e g r a n t o r d e n i a l o f r e l i e f t u r n s on t h e v a l i d i t y o f the judgment, as under Rule 60(b)(4), d i s c r e t i o n h a s no p l a c e . I f t h e judgment i s v a l i d , i t must s t a n d ; i f i t i s v o i d , i t must be s e t a s i d e . A judgment i s v o i d o n l y if the court rendering i t lacked j u r i s d i c t i o n of the subject matter or of the p a r t i e s , o r i f i t a c t e d i n a manner i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h due p r o c e s s . " ' " 14 1080440 Bank of America 2003) (quoting 823 Corp. v. Edwards, Image A u t o , S o . 2 d 6 5 5 , 657 8 8 1 S o . 2 d 4 0 3 , 405 (Ala. I n c . v. Mike K e l l e y E n t e r s . , I n c . , (Ala. 2001), quoting other cases). Analysis The Court required Civil the juvenile particularly The of PKPA Appeals court concluded that the PKPA not to exercise i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n , on t h e i s s u e w h e t h e r A.K. h a d v i s i t a t i o n rights. states: "A c o u r t o f a S t a t e s h a l l n o t e x e r c i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n in any p r o c e e d i n g f o r a custody or visitation determination commenced d u r i n g t h e p e n d e n c y o f a proceeding i n a c o u r t o f a n o t h e r S t a t e where such court of that other State i s e x e r c i s i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n consistently with the provisions of this section to make a c u s t o d y o r v i s i t a t i o n determination." 28 U.S.C. § 1 7 3 8 A ( g ) In this judgment based case, holding upon (emphasis the that added). California trial A.K. was a s e c o n d the holding in Elisa B. court mother that entered a of the c h i l d C a l . Fam. Code § 7 6 1 1 ( d ) c o u l d be a p p l i c a b l e t o a f e m a l e a n d t h e s t a t e m e n t i n that case that the court of a child substantial court cannot issues "exercis[ed] be exist "perceived women." no r e a s o n why b o t h The as t o w h e t h e r jurisdiction 15 mother parents argues the California consistently with that trial the 1080440 provisions of implicate § the PKPA." the federal Issues Defense also are of Marriage raised A c t , 28 also provides, replicating the State considered force Code note that i n part, relationship Art. I, § that between i s inherently a n d a woman" o r i n any other and t r e a t e d 1975, a l s o A l a . Const. 1901, and t h a t questions seeks state " to protect presented nature by t h i s Nonetheless, presented State of Alabama as h a v i n g Section marriage none may e x e r c i s e interests, no public legal 30-1-19, A l a . as " i n h e r e n t l y may e x i s t a Accordingly, i n light policy be on court of the the issue case. of these in a justiciable juvenile shall t h e judgment of t h e C a l i f o r n i a t r i a l i t s e n f o r c e a b i l i t y i n Alabama unequivocal unique "[a] union jurisdiction i n a l l respects i n this regarding a o f o r b e t w e e n p e r s o n s o f t h e same s e x i n o f Alabama or e f f e c t "[m]arriage a man marriage 36.03, u n i q u e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n a man a n d a woman." the U.S.C. 1738C. We and that court, questions have been case over which the courts jurisdiction. t h e mother As n o t e d , attempted i n this i n the action i n to litigate b u t d i d n o t name A.K. a s a d e f e n d a n t . 16 properly A.K.'s In e f f e c t , 1080440 therefore, t h e mother sought to validate r e l a t i o n t o an a d v e r s e p a r t y w i t h o u t involving that party. elemental "[T]he Charles rule A. Procedure Wright that entity that Beach Hotel decision whom an that litigation 935 Richardson, are relied there actually R. Miller, Gulf Beach be ... (1 9 7 5 ) . upon t o The m o s t parties." Federal case, Hotel, 935 S o . 2 d 1 1 7 7 ( A l a . this such actual 4 2 6 , 434 13 Practice & (2008). sought Declaratory 4 2 1 U.S. i s a case o r f o r sound a d j u d i c a t i o n . a declaratory was n o t a p a r t y under there of the adversaries the present complaint Dyson, & Arthur r e l . Whetstone, the v. i s that § 3530 Like ex Ellis the foundation fundamental proceeding As t h e Supreme C o u r t h a s s t a t e d , " i t i s self-interest provide an a d v e r s a r i a l t h a t t h e r e must be p a r t i e s b e f o r e controversy." her position i n Court judgment noting exists that or a t o an i n Gulf to render a a purpose of parties those State involved We h e l d enable v. adverse i s n o t empowered A c t i s "'to controversy 2006), to the action. circumstances, Judgment Inc. between between whom i s i n e v i t a b l e t o have t h e i s s u e s p e e d i l y d e t e r m i n e d So. 2d a t 1183 ( q u o t i n g Inc., 873 S o . 2 d 2 2 0 , 17 Harper v. Brown, 224 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) Stagner, (emphasis i n 1080440 Gulf Beach Hotel, that case would have been Beach H o t e l , Gulf and we not interests 507 F. the ground In Baptist Although adverse B e a c h H o t e l was therefore concluded "allege point, Inc.)). any 63, of a plaintiffs the controversy 66-67 lack A s s ' n v. an entity a party between Ala. adversaries although Entrekin, the [Ms. to t h a t in Gulf action, i n that case Rock Tours, 1981) sought known as parties legal L t d . v. Does, because, in this complaint "[a]t Court"). filed 1080168, March did whose (declining relief justiciability h a v e no same way, not Id. Cf. (N.D. of to judgment t h a t the complaint [were] a d v e r s e . " Supp. the 15, in on this 8 Etowah 2010] " N o r c a n an a c t i o n be m a i n t a i n e d to procure a judgment which w i l l a f f e c t or s e t t l e the r i g h t s or l i a b i l i t i e s of t h i r d p e r s o n s who a r e n o t p a r t i e s t o t h e a c t i o n . " 1A C . J . S . A c t i o n s § 71 (2 0 0 5 ) ; s e e , e . g . , M e e k e r v . S t r a a t , 38 Mo. A p p . 2 3 9 , 243 ( 1 8 8 9 ) ("When a s u i t i s b r o u g h t w i t h a v i e w o f a f f e c t i n g t h e r i g h t s o f t h i r d p a r t i e s , and i t i s a p p a r e n t t h a t t h a t i s i t s s o l e o b j e c t , t h e s u i t c e a s e s t o be adversary and becomes collusive. No c o u r t s h o u l d l e n d i t s a i d t o s u c h a p r o c e e d i n g , l e a s t of a l l a c o u r t of e q u i t y . " ( c i t e d w i t h a p p r o v a l i n S t a t e v. S c o v i l l e , 197 A l a . 2 2 3 , 227, 72 So. 5 4 6 , 548 (1 91 6 ) ) ) ; B r e w i n g t o n v . L o w e , 1 I n d . 2 1 , 2 3 - 2 4 ( 1 8 4 8 ) ("The impropriety of [ u n d e r t a k i n g to s e t t l e a b s t r a c t q u e s t i o n s of law] i n the present case i s manifest from the f a c t s , t h a t the question p r o f e s s e d t o be l i t i g a t e d , c o n s i d e r e d w i t h r e f e r e n c e e i t h e r t o t h e p o i n t o f l a w a t t e m p t e d t o be r a i s e d , o r t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f t h e i n t e r e s t s i n v o l v e d , i s one o f v e r y g r a v e c h a r a c t e r , and t h e p a r t i e s who w o u l d be c h i e f l y a f f e c t e d b y i t s d e c i s i o n a r e not before the Court, and h a v e no opportunity of being heard."). 8 18 1080440 So. 3d ( A l a .2010), adverse to the interest that association Gulf Beach action and o f t h e Etowah court's appeal. and reason, c o u r t and t h e Court o f C i v i l to writ of c e r t i o r a r i be q u a s h e d . vacate the we case. that on the controversy We v a c a t e d t h e the case and t h e the judgments of the j u v e n i l e Appeals previously The C o u r t Relying concluded dismissed judgment Association, " p r e s e n t e d no j u s t i c i a b l e judgment F o r t h e same in a Baptist to that Inc., therefore, there resulted s h o u l d h a v e b e e n d i s m i s s e d on t h a t b a s i s . " circuit the have was n o t a p a r t y Hotel, at issue could a r e due t o be v a c a t e d a n d issued of C i v i l i n this Appeals case i s due i s instructed to i t s judgment and t o d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l and t o i n s t r u c t trial court to vacate i t s judgment. WRIT QUASHED WITH I N S T R U C T I O N S . Stuart, Smith, Bolin, Cobb, C . J . , and L y o n s , the and P a r k e r , J J . , concur. Woodall, result. 19 a n d Shaw, J J . , c o n c u r i n 1080440 LYONS, J u s t i c e (concurring I agree w i t h that failure proceeding court to the main o p i n i o n join A.K. i n Alabama proceeding for I express main the no issue of opinion as a requires want f u r t h e r agree that t h i s consider i n the of any conflict on the other 20 extent to the that i t holds juvenile d i s m i s s a l of justiciable circumstance opinion. to the party the a result). the court juvenile controversy. renders i t unnecessary with 28 matters U.S.C. § I to 1738A(g). addressed in 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.