Preview:

REL:

10/26/12

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 Reporter o f Decisions, 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
OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013

2110795

D.M.T.J.W.D. v. Lee County Department o f Human Resources Appeal from Lee J u v e n i l e Court (JU-08-96.03 and JU-09-174.02) BRYAN, J u d g e . D.M.T.J.W.D. ("the m o t h e r " ) appeals from a judgment o f that terminated

the Lee J u v e n i l e Court her parental

("the j u v e n i l e c o u r t " )

r i g h t s t o two o f h e r c h i l d r e n . that t h e judgment terminating

On a p p e a l , t h e her parental

mother

argues

2110795 rights i s void because the j u v e n i l e court lacked personal

jurisdiction

over her.

She a l s o a r g u e s t h a t t h e j u d g m e n t i s hearsay. pertinent

e r r o n e o u s b e c a u s e i t i s b a s e d on i n a d m i s s i b l e The facts record on a p p e a l reveals

the f o l l o w i n g

and p r o c e d u r a l

history.

On O c t o b e r 25, 2010, t h e L e e ("DHR") f i l e d a p e t i t i o n
1

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 to terminate

t h e mother's p a r e n t a l r i g h t s t o t h r e e c h i l d r e n :

G.B.D.J. ("G.J."), b o r n i n M a r c h 1 9 9 7 ; K.M.K.J. in February
2

("K.J."), born i n December

1998; a n d M.P.R.J.

("M.J."),

born

2000. being

I n the p e t i t i o n , i n Phenix C i t y ,

t h e m o t h e r ' s a d d r e s s was l i s t e d as that t h e m o t h e r be

a n d DHR r e q u e s t e d

s e r v e d by p e r s o n a l P. On November appointed

s e r v i c e p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 4.1, A l a . R. C i v .

10, 2010, t h e m o t h e r ,

through

an

attorney

on h e r b e h a l f ,

f i l e d an a n s w e r t o DHR's p e t i t i o n t o

The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e mother had 5 c h i l d r e n b u t t h a t DHR d i d n o t s e e k t o t e r m i n a t e t h e m o t h e r ' s p a r e n t a l r i g h t s t o 2 o f h e r 5 c h i l d r e n b e c a u s e 1 c h i l d was 18 y e a r s o l d and a r e l a t i v e r e s o u r c e h a d b e e n p r o v i d e d f o r a n o t h e r c h i l d .
1

DHR's p e t i t i o n a l s o s o u g h t t o 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 n a t u r a l f a t h e r o f G.J. and K . J . and t h e a l l e g e d n a t u r a l f a t h e r o f M.J. N e i t h e r man p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h e t e r m i n a t i o n p r o c e e d i n g s , a n d n e i t h e r man h a s a p p e a l e d a n y p a r t of t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s judgment.
2

2

2110795 terminate discovery her parental f r o m DHR. filed an amended p e t i t i o n t o I n t h e amended parental rights to rights and h e r f i r s t request for

On J a n u a r y 18, 2 0 1 1 , DHR terminate petition, G.J. t h e mother's

parental

rights.

DHR a l l e g e d t h a t needed

t h e mother's

no l o n g e r

t o be t e r m i n a t e d

b e c a u s e he h a d been

p l a c e d i n a home w i t h a r e l a t i v e . the October 2010 petition was

Thus, t h e o n l y amendment t o to request a judgment

t e r m i n a t i n g t h e m o t h e r ' s p a r e n t a l r i g h t s t o o n l y K . J . a n d M.J. On A p r i l 19, 2 0 1 1 , DHR f i l e d a s e c o n d amended p e t i t i o n t o terminate second parental t h e mother's p a r e n t a l petition, DHR rights. requested I n t h e A p r i l 2011 that t h e mother's

amended rights

t o o n l y M.J. be t e r m i n a t e d

because K . J . had

been p l a c e d

i n a home w i t h a r e l a t i v e . filed a motion requesting

On A p r i l 20, 2 0 1 1 , t h e m o t h e r leave to f i l e

an amended answer t o DHR's amended p e t i t i o n t o rights. I n t h e motion, t h e mother's w i t h t h e mother t h e mother's

terminate attorney

her parental

a l l e g e d t h a t he h a d n o t h a d c o n t a c t DHR f i l e d a petition

since before

t o terminate

p a r e n t a l r i g h t s , t h a t t h e m o t h e r ' s w h e r e a b o u t s were unknown t o h i m , a n d t h a t he h a d become aware o f c e r t a i n d e f e n s e s t h a t t h e

3

2110795 mother c o u l d r a i s e . motion The j u v e n i l e c o u r t g r a n t e d t h e m o t h e r ' s an amended a n s w e r . I n h e r amended

f o r leave to f i l e

answer, t h e mother r a i s e d , f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e , t h e defenses o f lack of personal j u r i s d i c t i o n , of p r o c e s s , insufficiency improper venue, insufficiency failure to

of service

of process,

s t a t e a c l a i m upon w h i c h r e l i e f c a n be g r a n t e d , a n d / o r f a i l u r e t o j o i n a n e c e s s a r y p a r t y . See R u l e On A p r i l termination 22, 2 0 1 1 , DHR hearing that filed 1 2 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. a motion scheduled to continue the for April 26,

had been

2011, b e c a u s e t h e m o t h e r h a d n o t b e e n s e r v e d w i t h t h e p e t i t i o n to terminate her p a r e n t a l r i g h t s . DHR's m o t i o n 2011. On A p r i l 28, 2 0 1 1 , DHR filed a motion f o r service of The j u v e n i l e c o u r t g r a n t e d h e a r i n g f o r J u l y 21,

and r e s c h e d u l e d t h e f i n a l

p r o c e s s b y p u b l i c a t i o n on t h e m o t h e r a n d t h e a l l e g e d f a t h e r o f M.J. A t t a c h e d t o DHR's m o t i o n was an a f f i d a v i t a l l e g i n g t h a t was i n P h e n i x C i t y , that the server service

t h e m o t h e r ' s l a s t known a d d r e s s

m o t h e r ' s p r e s e n t l o c a t i o n was unknown, t h a t a p r o c e s s had b e e n u n a b l e t o p e r s o n a l l y serve t h e mother, t h a t

o f p r o c e s s h a d n o t b e e n c o m p l e t e d w i t h i n 90 d a y s o f t h e f i l i n g of the p e t i t i o n to terminate the mother's p a r e n t a l rights,

4

2110795 that the c h i l d subject to the proceeding Alabama, and t h a t t h e mother's h a d been abandoned i n could n o t be

whereabouts

a s c e r t a i n e d b y due d i l i g e n c e . court granted

On May 3, 2 0 1 1 , t h e j u v e n i l e

DHR's m o t i o n t o s e r v e t h e m o t h e r b y p u b l i c a t i o n

i n t h e A u b u r n V i l l a g e r a n d i n t h e C i t i z e n o f E a s t A l a b a m a , two l o c a l newspapers i n Auburn and P h e n i x C i t y , r e s p e c t i v e l y . On answer July 12, 2 0 1 1 , t h e m o t h e r to DHR's filed a second amended to

i n response

second

amended

petition

terminate same R u l e

t h e mother's p a r e n t a l r i g h t s 12(b) d e f e n s e s t h a t had been

t o M.J., r a i s i n g t h e raised i n her f i r s t

amended a n s w e r . On J u l y 2 1 , 2 0 1 1 , t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t c o n d u c t e d a h e a r i n g on DHR's p e t i t i o n t o t e r m i n a t e t h e m o t h e r ' s p a r e n t a l r i g h t s t o M.J., and t h e mother and h e r a t t o r n e y At the hearing, the attorney were p r e s e n t at that

hearing.

f o r DHR s t a t e d on t h e

r e c o r d t h a t t h e mother had been s e r v e d by p u b l i c a t i o n and t h a t she had been p e r s o n a l l y s e r v e d with process by a sheriff's attorney

deputy

on t h e d a y o f t h e h e a r i n g .

The m o t h e r ' s

s t a t e d t h a t t h e m o t h e r was n o t w a i v i n g h e r s e r v i c e - o f - p r o c e s s a r g u m e n t s b y h e r p r e s e n c e a t t h e h e a r i n g b e c a u s e , he a l l e g e d , she h a d b e e n i n v o l u n t a r i l y b r o u g h t t o t h e h e a r i n g f r o m t h e L e e

5

2110795 County J a i l . of
3

The m o t h e r ' s a t t o r n e y

a l s o argued that

service

p r o c e s s b y p u b l i c a t i o n was i m p r o p e r b e c a u s e DHR h a d n o t "the diligence the state d i d i n order to serve by

shown

publication." dismissed, personally

The m o t h e r ' s a t t o r n e y

a s k e d t h a t t h e a c t i o n be

b u t , i n l i g h t o f t h e f a c t t h a t t h e mother had been served on t h e m o r n i n g of the hearing, The m o t h e r ' s he also

requested a continuance of the hearing.

attorney weeks

a l l e g e d t h a t t h e m o t h e r h a d b e e n a r r e s t e d two o r t h r e e

e a r l i e r on a f a i l u r e - t o - p a y - c h i l d - s u p p o r t c h a r g e , t h a t he h a d made c o n t a c t with her at the j a i l two weeks e a r l i e r , and t h a t

t h e m o t h e r h a d n o t b e e n aware o f t h e t e r m i n a t i o n that time. DHR a n d M.J.'s g u a r d i a n a d l i t e m o b j e c t e d motion t o continue.

petition at

t o t h e mother's from

The j u v e n i l e c o u r t h e a r d a r g u m e n t s

M.J.'s g u a r d i a n a d l i t e m a n d t e s t i m o n y f r o m B e t h S m i t h , a c a s e worker i n the f o s t e r - c a r e u n i t w i t h DHR, a b o u t t h e m o t h e r ' s

S e e R u l e 1 3 ( A ) ( 4 ) , A l a . R. J u v . P. ("An a d u l t who i s a p a r t y may w a i v e s e r v i c e o f t h e summons ... b y v o l u n t a r y a p p e a r a n c e a t t h e h e a r i n g . " ) . However, w h e t h e r t h e m o t h e r was brought i n v o l u n t a r i l y t o t h e h e a r i n g i s n o t c l e a r from t h e r e c o r d . The j u v e n i l e - c o u r t j u d g e s t a t e d on t h e r e c o r d t h a t he had n o t e n t e r e d a t r a n s p o r t o r d e r r e q u i r i n g t h e s h e r i f f t o b r i n g t h e m o t h e r f r o m t h e j a i l t o t h e h e a r i n g , a n d t h e r e i s no i n d i c a t i o n i n t h e r e c o r d t h a t DHR h a d s u b p o e n a e d t h e m o t h e r t o appear a t t h e h e a r i n g .
3

6

2110795 f a i l u r e t o m a i n t a i n c o n t a c t w i t h DHR and S m i t h ' s i n a b i l i t y t o

l o c a t e t h e m o t h e r u s i n g t h e l a s t known a d d r e s s and t e l e p h o n e numbers that the mother had given DHR. Based on that

e v i d e n c e , the j u v e n i l e c o u r t d e n i e d the mother's a continuance.

request f o r

A f t e r the j u v e n i l e c o u r t denied the motion to u n d e r o a t h , s t a t e d t h a t she w a i v e d h e r of the proceedings

c o n t i n u e , the mother, right

t o be p r e s e n t d u r i n g t h e r e m a i n d e r

and t h a t she u n d e r s t o o d t h a t she w o u l d n o t a b l e t o a s s i s t h e r a t t o r n e y i n her defense. DHR began p r e s e n t i n g i t s case through the t e s t i m o n y of case i n October or

S m i t h , who

had been a s s i g n e d t h e mother's S m i t h t e s t i f i e d t h a t M.J. The m o t h e r ' s

November 2010.

had been p l a c e d i n attorney objected

f o s t e r c a r e on A p r i l 7, 2009. to

S m i t h ' s t e s t i f y i n g r e g a r d i n g any e v e n t t h a t o c c u r r e d b e f o r e a s s i g n e d the case because knowledge. she c o u l d n o t t e s t i f y litem from to

she was personal

M.J.'s g u a r d i a n ad 600-page c a s e f i l e t h e DHR case

attempted

s u b m i t DHR's a l l e g e d l y business record

i n t o e v i d e n c e as a who had been worked case

because

workers no

a s s i g n e d t h e c a s e i n 2009 and most o f 2010 for DHR. The juvenile court d i d not to f i l e admit

longer

the e n t i r e

file,

but i t asked the p a r t i e s

briefs

regarding i t s

7

2110795 a d m i s s i b i l i t y and c o n t i n u e d t h e h e a r i n g t o a l a t e r On S e p t e m b e r 2, 2 0 1 1 , t h e m o t h e r f i l e d scheduled later in her c o u r t date date.

an o b j e c t i o n t o a a

o f S e p t e m b e r 22, 2011, a n d r e q u e s t e d

c o u r t d a t e b e c a u s e she was, a t t h a t t i m e , i n c a r c e r a t e d

t h e Lee County J a i l and wanted a d d i t i o n a l time t o improve circumstances. The c o u r t a p p a r e n t l y g r a n t e d t h a t motion.

On S e p t e m b e r 9, 2 0 1 1 , DHR f i l e d to a

a t h i r d amended p e t i t i o n DHR a l l e g e d t h a t available, that

t e r m i n a t e the mother's p a r e n t a l r i g h t s . relative resource f o r K . J . was no l o n g e r

K . J . was i n f o s t e r c a r e , a n d t h a t t h e m o t h e r ' s p a r e n t a l r i g h t s to K . J . s h o u l d be On December terminated. 9, 2 0 1 1 , DHR filed an amended motion f o r

s e r v i c e o f p r o c e s s b y p u b l i c a t i o n a n d an a f f i d a v i t i n s u p p o r t of i t s motion that s t a t e d i n i t s e n t i r e t y : "1. That t h e T h i r d Amended Complaint f o r 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 was f i l e d i n t h i s c a s e on S e p t e m b e r 9, 2 0 1 1 , a n d s e r v i c e o f p r o c e s s was n o t c o m p l e t e d w i t h i n 90 d a y s o f s a i d f i l i n g ; "2. T h a t t h e c h i l d r e n i n t h e above named c a s e s [ , M.J. a n d K . J . , ] have h a d no c o n t a c t w i t h t h e p a r e n t s , o r a l l e g e d p a r e n t s , named h e r e i n f o r a t l e a s t one y e a r , a n d t h a t t h e a f o r e m e n t i o n e d c h i l d r e n have b e e n a b a n d o n e d p u r s u a n t t o Code o f A l a b a m a

Download 2110795.pdf

Alabama Law