L.B. v. R.L.B.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 06/18/2010 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 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, 2009-2010 2090149 L.B. v. R.L.B. Appeal from Montgomery J u v e n i l e Court (JU-07-27.03) MOORE, J u d g e . L.B. Montgomery in ("the m o t h e r " ) appeals J u v e n i l e Court ("the j u v e n i l e c o u r t " ) contempt otherwise of previous from a judgment of the holding her orders o f t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t and enforcing i t sprevious j u d g m e n t , w h i c h made awards 2090149 of custody, visitation, and c h i l d support with regard B.A.B. ("the c h i l d " ) upon t h e f i l i n g o f a d e p e n d e n c y f i l e d b y R.L.B. ("the f a t h e r " ) . petition B e c a u s e we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e juvenile court lacked subject-matter the mother's to j u r i s d i c t i o n , we dismiss appeal. Facts and P r o c e d u r a l History On J a n u a r y 18, 2007, t h e f a t h e r , who l i v e d i n L o u i s i a n a , filed a petition i n the j u v e n i l e court seeking c h i l d ; the father's p e t i t i o n 27.01. The father b e c a u s e , he s a i d , alleged was d o c k e t e d as c a s e no. J U - 0 7 that "[c]ustody, n e e d t o be e s t a b l i s h e d " custody of the the c h i l d visitation, f o r the c h i l d . was dependent and c h i l d The f a t h e r support asserted t h a t a p a t e r n i t y case had been i n i t i a t e d i n L o u i s i a n a and t h a t a child-support Specifically, case had been initiated he s t a t e d t h a t he h a d s i g n e d in Alabama. an "Acknowledgment o f P a t e r n i t y " o f t h e c h i l d i n L o u i s i a n a i n M a r c h 2006, t h a t he had b e e n a l l o w e d v i s i t a t i o n w i t h t h e c h i l d w h i l e t h e c h i l d h a d been l i v i n g i n M o b i l e , Montgomery w i t h The father and t h a t t h e mother had r e l o c a t e d t o t h e c h i l d w i t h o u t n o t i f y i n g h i m o f t h e move. r e q u e s t e d t h a t he be a w a r d e d p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y o f 2 2090149 t h e c h i l d a n d c h i l d s u p p o r t a n d t h a t t h e c h i l d ' s l a s t name be changed t o t h e f a t h e r ' s l a s t On M a r c h 7, 2007, father's petition name. t h e mother and a c o u n t e r c l a i m p h y s i c a l custody of the c h i l d The mother 2005, alleged and t h a t married that other. an a n s w e r seeking sole was b o r n that support. on December 3 1 , and t h e f a t h e r She s t a t e d to the l e g a l and a n d an a w a r d o f c h i l d the c h i l d t h e mother t o each determination filed had never a petition o f t h e c h i l d ' s p a t e r n i t y and f o r c h i l d been for a support was p e n d i n g i n t h e Montgomery C i r c u i t C o u r t a n d r e q u e s t e d t h a t that case be consolidated with the father's action. The mother a s s e r t e d t h a t t h e f a t h e r had a d m i t t e d t o t h e p a t e r n i t y of the c h i l d Court i n t h e case pending and t h a t that court finding of paternity. provided care her had entered The m o t h e r f a t h e r had f a i l e d to v i s i t District Court v i s i t a t i o n with the c h i l d . a petition an order asserted that Circuit making She f u r t h e r a s s e r t e d the c h i l d allowing despite that the an o r d e r of a have On J u l y 13, 2007, t h e m o t h e r filed 3 father with to f o r custody of the c h i l d , the a she h a d f o r t h e c h i l d and t h a t t h e c h i l d had l i v e d s i n c e t h e c h i l d was b o r n . Louisiana i n t h e Montgomery a l l e g i n g that the c h i l d 2090149 was d e p e n d e n t b e c a u s e t h e c h i l d ' s c u s t o d y was t h e s u b j e c t o f c o n t r o v e r s y ; as e v i d e n c e o f t h e c h i l d ' s d e p e n d e n c y , h o w e v e r , t h e m o t h e r m e r e l y r e f e r r e d t o h e r p r e v i o u s l y f i l e d a n s w e r and counterclaim. as c a s e no. In issues, The m o t h e r ' s d e p e n d e n c y p e t i t i o n was docketed JU-07-27.02. May 2008, a f t e r r u l i n g on v i s i t a t i o n i s s u e s a n d o t h e r the j u v e n i l e c o u r t n o t e d on i t s case-action-summary s h e e t t h a t i t was " t a k [ i n g ] o r i g i n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r c u s t o d y determination. Order to follow." On July 17, 2008, the j u v e n i l e c o u r t e n t e r e d a p u r p o r t e d f i n a l judgment i n w h i c h i t , among o t h e r t h i n g s , a w a r d e d t h e p a r t i e s j o i n t l e g a l c u s t o d y o f the child The juvenile agreed and a w a r d e d t h e m o t h e r p r i m a r y p h y s i c a l court further ordered upon b y t h e p a r t i e s visitation visitation or i n accordance s c h e d u l e , awarded c h i l d the c h i l d ' s mutually w i t h a minimum s u p p o r t t o t h e mother of $ 1 6 3 p e r month, and o r d e r e d t h a t a new issued f o r the c h i l d l i s t i n g as custody. birth certificate t h e f a t h e r t h e r e o n and surname t o t h e f a t h e r ' s l a s t name. be changing On J u l y 22, 2008, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t e n t e r e d a p u r p o r t e d amended j u d g m e n t , which merely changed the date p a y m e n t s were t o b e g i n . 4 the father's child-support 2090149 On trial, J u l y 28, 2008, a s s e r t i n g a number juvenile deny t h e mother court's judgment. filed a motion f o r a of arguments w i t h The regard to the j u v e n i l e court purported t h a t m o t i o n on A u g u s t 12, 2 0 0 8 ; h o w e v e r , new to the mother's m o t i o n h a d been d e n i e d b y o p e r a t i o n o f l a w on A u g u s t 11, 2008. See R u l e 1 ( B ) , A l a . R. J u v . P. N e i t h e r p a r t y appealed from t h a t judgment. On July 14, 2009, the mother filed a petition i n the j u v e n i l e c o u r t a l l e g i n g t h a t t h e c h i l d was d e p e n d e n t b e c a u s e he had assigned been abandoned by the c a s e no. J U - 0 7 - 2 7 . 0 3 . father. That petition In that p e t i t i o n , was the mother a l l e g e d t h a t t h e f a t h e r d i d n o t see t h e c h i l d w h i l e t h e c h i l d was i n L o u i s i a n a and t h a t o n l y t h e p a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r h a d e x e r c i s e d v i s i t a t i o n with the c h i l d . juvenile court evaluate court the v i s i t a t i o n address the health-insurance father f i l e d schedule that the and t h a t t h e needs o f t h e c h i l d . an a n s w e r t o t h e m o t h e r ' s p e t i t i o n , allegations therein. The denying the He a l s o f i l e d a c o u n t e r c l a i m i n w h i c h he requested primary p h y s i c a l custody father f i l e d She r e q u e s t e d a petition of the c h i l d . f o r an o r d e r 5 F i n a l l y , the o f c o n t e m p t i n w h i c h he 2090149 asserted, among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h a t t h e m o t h e r was r e f u s i n g t o permit the f a t h e r t o v i s i t The j u v e n i l e c o u r t no. JU-07-27.03 willful the the c h i l d . entered on O c t o b e r a purported 21, 2009, contempt of the p r i o r father visitation with orders the c h i l d judgment i n case f i n d i n g t h e mother i n of the court, awarding from October 6, 2009, u n t i l O c t o b e r 30, 2009, and r e q u i r i n g t h e p a r t i e s , f o l l o w i n g t h a t v i s i t a t i o n p e r i o d , t o resume a b i d i n g b y t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f the prior visitation appeal to t h i s court order. The m o t h e r f i l e d her n o t i c e of on November 4, 2009. Discussion "Although jurisdiction, importance neither party '[m]atters that a N e l s o n v. N e l s o n , court has of may raised jurisdiction consider 10 So. 3d 603, 605 them the are 2005)). father We asserted note first that the that e s t a b l i s h e d , e i t h e r by a L o u i s i a n a Circuit Circuit such 2008) (Ala. Civ. the mother paternity of motu.'" ( A l a . C i v . App. both child's of e x mero ( q u o t i n g T r o u s d a l e v. Tubbs, 929 So. 2d 1020, 1022 App. issue and had the been c o u r t o r b y t h e Montgomery C o u r t , and t h a t a c a s e was p e n d i n g i n t h e Montgomery Court for child support. 6 The record is devoid, 2090149 however, other of than case w i t h Circuit court any other the the mother's case Court. d i d not reference to request either to consolidate a l l e g e d l y pending A l t h o u g h we are of before those the present the concerned that have j u r i s d i c t i o n cases, Montgomery the juvenile because e i t h e r the Louisiana c o u r t o r t h e Montgomery C i r c u i t C o u r t r e t a i n e d j u r i s d i c t i o n custody matters i n t h i s t h a t c o n c e r n b e c a u s e we the j u v e n i l e court c a s e , we dismiss lacked decline this on J u v e n i l e c o u r t s are p u r e l y c r e a t u r e s 2d 454 petition 30(a), (Ala. Civ. was filed, Ala. Code App. the 1975, See 2003). provided other o f s t a t u t e t h a t have the time statute, that the former § "[t]he ... § 1 2 - 1 5 - 5 2 ( c ) ( 1 ) , A l a . Code 1975, required a petition dependency specificity with c o n s t i t u t i n g t h e d e p e n d e n c y ... of supervision, treatment, p r o t e c t i o n of the s t a t e " and court of p r o c e e d i n g s dependent " ... Former alleging the facts t h a t the c h i l d i s i n need rehabilitation, care I n the p r e s e n t case, the 7 12-15- juvenile i n w h i c h a c h i l d i s a l l e g e d t o be forth So. father's jurisdiction "set that grounds. shall exercise exclusive original to address Ex p a r t e K.L.P., 868 At operative further a p p e a l on t h e b a s i s jurisdiction extremely l i m i t e d j u r i s d i c t i o n . to of or the father 2090149 filed a petition alleging that the c h i l d was dependent; h o w e v e r , t h e o n l y a s s e r t i o n s made b y t h e f a t h e r p u r p o r t i n g t o evidence the visitation, the minor child's and c h i l d child." dependency were that "[c]ustody, s u p p o r t n e e d [ e d ] t o be e s t a b l i s h e d f o r The to father petition tending show according to the d e f i n i t i o n made that no the assertions child was in his dependent o f a "dependent c h i l d " found i n f o r m e r § 1 2 - 1 5 - 1 ( 1 0 ) , A l a . Code 1975. By f a i l i n g t o a l l e g e w i t h s p e c i f i c i t y t h a t t h e c h i l d was i n need o f s u p e r v i s i o n or t o otherwise allege facts that, i f p r o v e n , would e s t a b l i s h t h e c h i l d ' s dependency, t h e f a t h e r , i n turn, failed juvenile to properly court. invoke the j u r i s d i c t i o n The j u v e n i l e c o u r t proceeded, of the however, t o h o l d s t a t u s c o n f e r e n c e s on t h e m o t i o n s made b y t h e m o t h e r a n d the father between and t o e n t e r the c h i l d determination summary sheet jurisdiction that various orders and t h e f a t h e r regarding visitation a n d t o u l t i m a t e l y make a o f c u s t o d y , e v e n a s s e r t i n g on t h e c a s e - a c t i o n a t one p o i n t over the juvenile that the custody court the court "takes determination." d i d n o t have t h e power j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e c a s e o r t o make a c u s t o d y 8 We original conclude t o assume determination. 2090149 Even a s s u m i n g sufficient t h a t t h e f a t h e r ' s dependency p e t i t i o n was t o i n v o k e t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n , a n d we m a i n t a i n t h a t i t was n o t , t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t f a i l e d t o a d d r e s s the allegation judgments. court's juvenile of in any of i t s orders or T h e r e i s no m e n t i o n o f d e p e n d e n c y i n t h e j u v e n i l e final judgment court entered proceeded c h i l d ' s custody. 2010] dependency So. 3d on J u l y t o make an 17, 2008, yet the adjudication of the I n K.C.G. v. S.J.R., [Ms. 2080973, M a r c h 26, , ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 0 ) , this stated: "Once t h e d e p e n d e n c y j u r i s d i c t i o n o f a j u v e n i l e c o u r t has been p r o p e r l y i n v o k e d , t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t has an i m p e r a t i v e s t a t u t o r y d u t y t o c o n d u c t an e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g t o determine t h e dependency o f t h e c h i l d . Ex p a r t e L i n n e l l , 484 So. 2d 455, 457 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1986) ( ' [ P ] u r s u a n t t o § 12-15-65, [ A l a . Code 1975, ] a h e a r i n g on t h e m e r i t s o f t h e petition i t s e l f i s r e q u i r e d t o determine i f the c h i l d r e n a r e , i n f a c t , d e p e n d e n t . . . . ' ) ; s e e a l s o Ex p a r t e W.H., 941 So. 2d 290, 299 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2006). I f a j u v e n i l e c o u r t determines t h a t t h e c h i l d is n o t dependent, the court must d i s m i s s t h e dependency p e t i t i o n . A l a . Code 1975, f o r m e r § 1 2 - 1 5 - 6 5 ( d ) . On t h e o t h e r h a n d , i f , a n d o n l y i f , a 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 c h i l d i s dependent, t h e c o u r t may t h e n c o n d u c t p r o c e e d i n g s t o d e t e r m i n e t h e c u s t o d i a l d i s p o s i t i o n o f t h e c h i l d . A l a . Code 1975, f o r m e r § 12-15-65. Ex p a r t e K.S.G., 645 So. 2d 297 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1992) ( h o l d i n g t h a t j u v e n i l e c o u r t n e v e r assumed j u r i s d i c t i o n t o d e t e r m i n e i s s u e o f c u s t o d y o f c h i l d when e v i d e n c e r e v e a l e d t h a t t h e r e was no e m e r g e n c y s i t u a t i o n r e n d e r i n g t h e c h i l d 3 9 court 2090149 d e p e n d e n t as a l l e g e d i n m o t h e r ' s p e t i t i o n ) ; Ex p a r t e J.R.W., 630 So. 2d 447 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1992) (holding t h a t j u v e n i l e court t h a t had never d e c l a r e d c h i l d d e p e n d e n t h a d no j u r i s d i c t i o n t o e n t e r o r d e r a f f e c t i n g v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s o f f a t h e r ) ; J.W. v . W.D.J., 743 So. 2d 467, 469 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 1999) ( h o l d i n g t h a t once j u v e n i l e c o u r t f o u n d c h i l d r e n dependent, i t had exclusive jurisdiction to determine t h e i r custody); Ex p a r t e W.H., supra (holding that j u v e n i l e court erred i n t r a n s f e r r i n g custody o f a l l e g e d l y dependent c h i l d w i t h o u t h o l d i n g evidentiary hearing t o a s c e r t a i n dependency o f c h i l d ) ; C.D.S. v. K.S.S., [963 So. 2d 125 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2007)] (holding that j u v e n i l e court that determined child was not dependent had no jurisdiction t o t h e r e a f t e r determine custody of c h i l d ) ; a n d E.H. v . N.L., 992 So. 2d 740 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008) ( h o l d i n g t h a t , when e v i d e n c e d i d n o t p r o v e d e p e n d e n c y o f c h i l d as a l l e g e d i n c o m p l a i n t , but r e v e a l e d pure custody d i s p u t e , j u v e n i l e court was w i t h o u t j u r i s d i c t i o n t o d e t e r m i n e c u s t o d y o f c h i l d ) . As t h i s c o u r t r e c e n t l y s t a t e d : ' " [ I ] n o r d e r 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 t h e c o n t e x t o f a d e p e n d e n c y 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 d i s p o s i t i o n . " ' 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 t h e r e s u l t ) ) . " E f f e c t i v e J a n u a r y 1, 2009, A l a . Code 1975, § 12-15-65, was amended a n d r e n u m b e r e d as A l a . Code 1975, § 12-15-129. See A c t No. 2008-277, § 7, A l a . A c t s 2008." 3 I n K.C.G., t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t h a d a n n o u n c e d t h a t i t d i d not it i n t e n d t o t r e a t t h e c a s e as a d e p e n d e n c y a c t i o n b u t t h a t intended t o determine only the custody of the c h i l d ; the 10 2090149 juvenile court then e n t e r e d a judgment i n w h i c h i t d i d not d e c l a r e the c h i l d dependent, but m e r e l y awarded c u s t o d y of the child to the child's paternal mother's u n f i t n e s s . grandmother So. 3d a t . based on the This court determined t h a t "once t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t r e c o g n i z e d t h a t t h e c a s e d i d n o t involve the a q u e s t i o n of dependency, i t l o s t remaining subject matter, i . e . , the jurisdiction dispute over over the c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d , " and we d i s m i s s e d t h e a p p e a l b e c a u s e i t was t a k e n from a v o i d judgment. So. 3d a t . In the p r e s e n t case, the j u v e n i l e c o u r t l i k e w i s e a s s e r t e d its jurisdiction over the child's custody. The record i s d e v o i d o f any e v i d e n c e t e n d i n g t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t t h e c h i l d d e p e n d e n t , and t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t f a i l e d t o make any regarding the c h i l d ' s Moreover, as dependency throughout d i s c u s s e d above, we conclude the t h e m o t h e r and t h e f a t h e r c o n c e d e d of the child had been decided, findings litigation. that i n i t i a l l y f a i l e d t o p r o p e r l y a l l e g e dependency. was the father Because b o t h t h a t the f a t h e r ' s p a t e r n i t y whether by the court in L o u i s i a n a o r by t h e Montgomery C i r c u i t C o u r t , t h e i s s u e o f t h e c h i l d ' s c u s t o d y was to not "otherwise b e f o r e the c o u r t " f o r m e r § 1 2 - 1 5 - 3 0 ( b ) ( 1 ) , A l a . Code 1975. 11 pursuant As a r e s u l t , the 2090149 jurisdiction no. o f t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t was n e v e r i n v o k e d JU-07-27.01, adjudicate visitation. the 1 and t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t l a c k e d t h e power issues See M.S. of custody, entered child support, v. D.A.P., 1 So. 3d 73, 74 App. 2008) ( B r y a n , J . , d i s s e n t i n g ) . and o r d e r s i n case Therefore, to and (Ala. Civ. a l l judgments b y t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t i n c a s e no. JU-07- 27.01 a r e v o i d . B e c a u s e t h e j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d i n JU-07-27.01 juvenile court lacked j u r i s d i c t i o n to modify or enforce judgment. C f . M c C a r t h y v. M c C a r t h y , 785 Civ. 2000) App. (holding that i s v o i d , the circuit So. court that 2d 1138 ( A l a . that had no j u r i s d i c t i o n t o modify Georgia custody determination could not enter valid contempt void modification judgment a g a i n s t husband judgment). In for violating i t s October judgment, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t p u r p o r t e d to find 21, 2009, t h e mother i n c o n t e m p t o f c e r t a i n p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e J u l y 2008 j u d g m e n t , t o t e m p o r a r i l y a l t e r t h e v i s i t a t i o n p r o v i s i o n s o f t h a t judgment, A l t h o u g h t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s f i n a l j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d on J u l y 17, 2008, d i d n o t r e f e r t o c a s e no. JU-07-27.02, we n o t e t h a t the mother's a l l e g e d dependency p e t i t i o n i n t h a t case l i k e w i s e d i d n o t i n v o k e t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n and t h a t e a c h o f t h e j u d g m e n t s and o r d e r s e n t e r e d u n d e r t h a t c a s e number were a l s o e n t e r e d b y t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t without subject-matter j u r i s d i c t i o n . 1 12 2090149 and to order the p a r t i e s provisions findings contained i n that to follow judgment. an a p p e a l . f o r l a c k of Accordingly, the j u v e n i l e and establishing subject- As s u c h , t h e j u d g m e n t w i l l n o t s u p p o r t J.D.R. v. M.M.E., 898 So. 2d 783, 786 App. 2 0 0 4 ) . judgment, 2 the v i s i t a t i o n However, a l l o f t h o s e and o r d e r s a r e t h e m s e l v e s v o i d matter j u r i s d i c t i o n . direct thereafter (Ala. Civ. we d i s m i s s t h e m o t h e r ' s a p p e a l and court i t s amended to set aside judgment custody, v i s i t a t i o n , i t s July dated and c h i l d July 17, 2008, 22, 2008, s u p p o r t , as w e l l We note that the mother invoked the dependency j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t when she f i l e d h e r 2009 petition, w h i c h was a s s i g n e d c a s e no. J U - 0 7 - 2 7 . 0 3 . That p e t i t i o n a l l e g e d t h a t t h e c h i l d h a d become d e p e n d e n t due t o t h e abandonment o f t h e c h i l d b y t h e f a t h e r . However, t h e juvenile court impliedly found that the father had not abandoned t h e c h i l d , t h e r e b y d e n y i n g t h e dependency p e t i t i o n . A t t h a t p o i n t , t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t was w i t h o u t j u r i s d i c t i o n t o p e r f o r m any j u d i c i a l a c t o t h e r t h a n d i s m i s s i n g t h e p e t i t i o n . See § 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 p e t i t i o n have n o t b e e n p r o v e n b y c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e , t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t s h a l l dismiss the p e t i t i o n . " ) . However, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t p u r p o r t e d t o t r e a t t h e m o t h e r ' s p e t i t i o n as a p e t i t i o n f o r m o d i f i c a t i o n o f t h e J u l y 2008 j u d g m e n t , w h i c h i t c o u l d n o t do. 2 13 2090149 as i t s October contempt. 21, 2009, order finding t h e mother in 3 APPEAL DISMISSED WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JUVENILE COURT. Thompson, P . J . , a n d P i t t m a n a n d B r y a n , Thomas, J . , concurs i n the r e s u l t , J J . , concur. without writing. B e c a u s e we have d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t l a c k e d jurisdiction i n t h i s case, t h e mother's argument, c i t i n g T.L.H. v. R.A.R., 977 So. 2 d 482 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 7 ) , t h a t 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 o r d e r a change o f t h e c h i l d ' s l a s t name t o t h a t o f t h e f a t h e r i s moot. 3 14

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.