Preview:

REL: 03/01/2013

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
OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013

APPEALS

2110832

V.L. v. T.T.L. Appeal from Lawrence C i r c u i t (DR-11-213) MOORE, J u d g e . V.L. Lawrence modify ("the m o t h e r " ) Circuit Court appeals from a judgment of the Court

("the c i r c u i t

court")

declining to

custody

of her c h i l d r e n ,

L.M.L.

a n d M.L.L. ("the

children").

2110832 Procedural On October 23, in 2009, the History the children's Court former ("the

T.T.L., Lawrence

stepfather,

filed

Juvenile

j u v e n i l e c o u r t " ) s e p a r a t e p e t i t i o n s a l l e g i n g t h a t L.M.L. ( c a s e no. JU-09-152.01) and he and M.L.L. (case of no. the the JU-09-153.01) children. following In facts were both in

dependent petitions,

requesting

custody

specifically

alleged that the

s u p p o r t of h i s a l l e g a t i o n s

children

were d e p e n d e n t :

"The c h i l d ' s m o t h e r has a h i s t o r y o f a l c o h o l and d r u g a b u s e . The c h i l d ' s m o t h e r has m a i n t a i n e d no s t e a d y employment. The c h i l d has r e s i d e d i n numerous l o c a t i o n s w h i l e i n t h e c u s t o d y o f h e r m o t h e r . The child's mother has had numerous arrests and convictions. The c h i l d ' s mother withdrew herself f r o m a r e h a b [ i l i t a t i o n ] c e n t e r i n mid-May, 2009, a f t e r two (2) months o f t r e a t m e n t , i n a p r o g r a m w h i c h was d e s i g n e d t o l a s t f o r a p e r i o d o f e i g h t (8) months. The L a w r e n c e C o u n t y DHR [ D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s ] has i n v e s t i g a t e d t h e home o f t h e c h i l d ' s m o t h e r , and she gave DHR l e g a l permission to take c u s t o d y o f t h e s a i d c h i l d , i f t h e y e l e c t e d t o do so. The c h i l d ' s m o t h e r l i v e s w i t h a man t o whom she i s n o t m a r r i e d . The c h i l d ' s m o t h e r has no driver's license. The child's m o t h e r has a history of d o m e s t i c v i o l e n c e . The c h i l d ' s mother m a i n t a i n s a l i f e s t y l e which i s d e t r i m e n t a l to the w e l f a r e of the s a i d minor c h i l d . " T h a t same day, the juvenile c o u r t e n t e r e d s e p a r a t e ex c u s t o d y of the juvenile court parte

o r d e r s a w a r d i n g T.T.L. p e n d e n t e l i t e After a pendente lite hearing, the

children. entered

2

2110832 separate orders on November 12, 2009, by agreement of the After

p a r t i e s , c o n t i n u i n g c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d r e n w i t h T.T.L.

a f i n a l h e a r i n g , t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t e n t e r e d j u d g m e n t s on May 27, 2010, a w a r d i n g custody of the children
1

t o T.T.L. a n d judgments, part:

awarding t h e mother s t a n d a r d v i s i t a t i o n . the j u v e n i l e c o u r t s p e c i f i c a l l y " I t i s hereby follows: stated,

I n those

i n pertinent

ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED as

"The p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y o f t h e m i n o r c h i l d s h a l l r e m a i n w i t h [ T . T . L . ] . The C o u r t r e a l i z e s t h e g r e a t s t r i d e s t h e [ m o t h e r ] h a s made i n r e c e n t months i n g a i n i n g h e r i n d e p e n d e n c e b y g e t t i n g h e r own home, car, d r i v e r ' s l i c e n s e , a n d two j o b s . The C o u r t commends t h e [ m o t h e r ] on t h i s and r e a l i z e s t h e amount o f w o r k a n d c o u r a g e i t h a s t a k e n f o r h e r . However, t h e [ m o t h e r ' s ] h i s t o r y w i t h a l c o h o l i s m i s s u c h t h a t t h e s h o r t p e r i o d o f t i m e w h e r e i n she h a s done t h e s e a c c o m p l i s h m e n t s i s n o t s u f f i c i e n t f o r h e r to r e c e i v e the p h y s i c a l custody of the c h i l d r e n . "The [mother] has t w i c e l e f t a treatment f a c i l i t y w i t h o u t f i n i s h i n g t r e a t m e n t . A l t h o u g h she t e s t i f i e d she d i d c o m p l e t e t h e [ i n t e n s i v e o u t p a t i e n t program], she h a s b y h e r own t e s t i m o n y r e l a p s e d three times since then. " D u r i n g t h e c h i l d r e n ' s s h o r t l i v e s t h e y have lived with [relatives o f t h e mother's former b o y f r i e n d ] f o r a l m o s t two y e a r s a n d have l i v e d w i t h [ T . T . L . ] f o r o v e r a y e a r . The [ m o t h e r ] h a s h a d h e r

I n a S e p t e m b e r 24, 2010, o r d e r a s s e s s i n g g u a r d i a n a d l i t e m fees, the j u v e n i l e court s p e c i f i c a l l y stated that the
1

3

2110832 own home f o r two m o n t h s . The DHR [ D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s ] r e c o r d s r e v e a l t h a t s h e h a s l i v e d with at least two boyfriends and one male acquaintance s i n c e t h e c h i l d r e n were b o r n . Ms. Arthur[, a f r i e n d of the mother's,] t e s t i f i e d that she l i v e d w i t h h e r f o r a p e r i o d o f t i m e . She now w o r k s two j o b s t o s a v e money, b u t t h i s was a f t e r y e a r s o f no employment a n d no s t a b l e l i f e s t y l e . "The C o u r t i s aware t h a t f o r t h e p a s t month t h e [ m o t h e r ' s ] S u n d a y v i s i t s have b e e n u n s u p e r v i s e d a n d w i t h o u t i n c i d e n t . She r e q u e s t e d t h a t i f she i s n o t allowed custody of her c h i l d r e n that her v i s i t a t i o n be e x p a n d e d . [ T . T . L . ] s t a t e d t h a t he w o u l d p r e f e r more t i m e w i t h t h e v i s i t a t i o n as i s a n d t h e n g r a d u a t e i n t o more. A p p r o x i m a t e l y two (2) months have p a s s e d s i n c e t h e h e a r i n g . T h e s e months have been w i t h o u t i n c i d e n t . T h e r e f o r e , t h e [ m o t h e r ] s h a l l begin r e g u l a r v i s i t a t i o n pursuant t o the Court's S t a n d a r d V i s i t a t i o n S c h e d u l e . The C o u r t a d m o n i s h e s t h e p a r t i e s t o be f l e x i b l e w i t h t h i s s c h e d u l e t o insure that the [ c h i l d r e n ] are able to attend a l l a c t i v i t i e s , p a r t i e s , e t c . ... As no r e q u e s t f o r c h i l d s u p p o r t h a s b e e n made, no O r d e r c o n c e r n i n g same will be entered; however, the [mother] t e s t i f i e d o f h e r c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o t h e [ c h i l d r e n ] and the Court i n t e n d s f o r her t o p r o v i d e clothing, s c h o o l s u p p l i e s and o t h e r t h i n g s t h e [ c h i l d r e n ] might need t o a s s i s t [ T . T . L . ] and h i s w i f e . " On A u g u s t 12, 2 0 1 1 , t h e m o t h e r f i l e d requesting that the j u v e n i l e court vacate separate petitions entered

i t s orders

i n c a s e no. JU-09-152.01 a n d c a s e no. JU-09-153.01 due t o l a c k o f s u b j e c t - m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n ; t h o s e p e t i t i o n s were a s s i g n e d c a s e no. JU-09-152.03 a n d c a s e no. J U - 0 9 - 1 5 3 . 0 3 , r e s p e c t i v e l y . She also requested a m o d i f i c a t i o n of the previous custody

4

2110832 judgments o r a v a c a t i o n o f those judgments and t h a t T.T.L. n o t be a l l o w e d t o r e l o c a t e w i t h t h e c h i l d r e n . T . T . L . r e s p o n d e d t o t h e m o t h e r ' s p e t i t i o n s on S e p t e m b e r 6, 2 0 1 1 . On September 23, 2 0 1 1 , t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t entered an

o r d e r , r e f e r e n c i n g b o t h c a s e no. JU-09-152.03 a n d c a s e no. J U 09-153.03, i n w h i c h i t s t a t e d : " P u r s u a n t t o [Ex p a r t e T.C., 63 So. 3d 627] ( A l a . C i v . App. [ 2 0 1 0 ] ) , t h i s C o u r t l a c k s s u b j e c t matter j u r i s d i c t i o n t o hear t h i s cause. I t i s t h e r e f o r e ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED as f o l l o w s : "These m a t t e r s a r e t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h e C i r c u i t C o u r t o f L a w r e n c e C o u n t y , A l a b a m a where t h e y a r e t o be g i v e n a DR d e s i g n a t i o n w i t h a f i l i n g f e e f o r an o r i g i n a l DR, n o t a DR m o d i f i c a t i o n . The C l e r k i s ORDERED t o a d j u s t t h e f i l i n g f e e . " The t r a n s f e r r e d a c t i o n s were a s s i g n e d c a s e no. DR-11-213 court

in the c i r c u i t court. entered a judgment denying the that

On J a n u a r y 12, 2012, t h e c i r c u i t T.T.L.

permitting

to relocate with the f o r custody, The circuit and court

children, modifying specified standard

t h e mother's

request

mother's i t had

visitation. applied the

custody-modification

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), i n making i t s d e t e r m i n a t i o n . On January 27, 2012, t h e m o t h e r filed a postjudgment

m o t i o n ; t h a t m o t i o n was d e n i e d
5

by o p e r a t i o n

o f l a w on A p r i l

2110832 26, 2012. See R u l e 5 9 . 1 , A l a . R. C i v . P. On May 30, 2012,

the mother f i l e d h e r n o t i c e

of appeal.

Discussion On May appeal, the mother argues that the j u v e n i l e court's

27, 2010,

j u d g m e n t s were and were,

entered without void,

subject-matter thus, she

jurisdiction asserts,

therefore, improperly to

and,

the c i r c u i t

court

applied

the to

McLendon modify

custody-modification custody. The mother

standard

her

petitions

specifically

argues t h a t ,

because the

j u v e n i l e c o u r t d i d not e x p l i c i t l y f i n d the c h i l d r e n dependent in 2010, i t lacked jurisdiction to make any custodial

d i s p o s i t i o n of the c h i l d r e n . T.T.L.'s p e t i t i o n s a l l e g e d s u p p o r t a f i n d i n g o f dependency. 603, 607 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2012) facts that, i f proven, would 100 So. 3d

M.W.H. v. R.W.,

(holding that the a l l e g a t i o n s were s u f f i c i e n t juvenile court to invoke because

i n the i n i t i a l the dependency

dependency p e t i t i o n jurisdiction of

the

"[t]he

... d e p e n d e n c y p e t i t i o n

specifically

a l l e g e d that the facts that, child was

c h i l d was d e p e n d e n t , and i t a l s o a l l e g e d s p e c i f i c if proven to be true, could show that the

dependent").

Further,

the s p e c i f i c

f i n d i n g s i n the j u v e n i l e

6

2110832 court's May 27, 2010, j u d g m e n t s indicate that the j u v e n i l e

c o u r t made an i m p l i c i t f i n d i n g o f d e p e n d e n c y as t o e a c h c h i l d . See M.W.H., 100 So. 3 d a t 607 ( " ' [ T ] h i s when t h e evidence i n the record court c o u r t has h e l d a that

supports

finding of

dependency

a n d when t h e t r i a l a finding this

h a s made a d i s p o s i t i o n i n the i n t e r e s t of that a finding of judgment.'"

consistent with judicial

o f dependency, may h o l d

economy

court

dependency (quoting 2008))); App.

i s implicit

i n the t r i a l

court's

J . P . v . S.S., 989 So. 2 d 5 9 1 , 598 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . a n d L.L.M. v . S.F., 919 So. 2 d 307, 311 ( A l a . C i v . ("Given t h e f a c t u a l we conclude that findings contained a finding i n t h e ...

2005)

judgment,

o f d e p e n d e n c y was

i m p l i c i t i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t . " ) . The m o t h e r h a s n o t challenged the s u f f i c i e n c y of the evidence supporting implied

f i n d i n g s o f d e p e n d e n c y , a n d , e v e n i f she d i d , s u c h a c h a l l e n g e w o u l d n o t be t i m e l y . See M.W.H., 100 So. 3 d a t 608 ("To t h e challenges the finding of

e x t e n t t h a t t h e m o t h e r , i n h e r b r i e f on a p p e a l , s u f f i c i e n c y of the evidence t o support dependency i n t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s consider argument that argument

an i m p l i c i t

... j u d g m e n t , we w i l l n o t f o r making s u c h an we

because the time Based

has long

passed.").

on t h e f o r e g o i n g ,

7

2110832 conclude t h a t the j u v e n i l e court i m p l i c i t l y found the c h i l d r e n dependent and t h a t i t , t h e r e f o r e , had j u r i s d i c t i o n i t s May 27, 2010, j u d g m e n t s . The mother makes no a d d i t i o n a l arguments on appeal; t o enter

h o w e v e r , " [ a ] s we a r e p e r m i t t e d t o do, ... we have n o t i c e d , e x mero motu, a j u r i s d i c t i o n a l d e f e c t t h a t r e q u i r e s us t o d i s m i s s this appeal." P.D.S. v . M a r s h a l l C n t y . Dep't o f Human R e s . , I n J.W. v. C.B.,

32 So. 3d 1288, 1290 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 9 ) .

68 So. 3d 878, 880 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 1 ) , t h i s c o u r t r e a s o n e d : "Because t h e c h i l d i n t h e p r e s e n t case had been p r e v i o u s l y a d j u d i c a t e d dependent by t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t i n J u l y 2008,

Download 2110832.pdf

Alabama Law