D.K.M. v. R.M., Jr.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 9/17/2010 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 , 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 SPECIAL TERM, 2010 2090635 D.K.M. v. R.M., J r . Appeal from Madison J u v e n i l e Court (CS-09-43) PITTMAN, J u d g e . D.K.M. ("the m o t h e r " ) s e e k s a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w o f an o r d e r e n t e r e d b y t h e M a d i s o n J u v e n i l e C o u r t i n a p a t e r n i t y a c t i o n on M a r c h 23, 2 0 1 0 , 54 d a y s a f t e r t h e J a n u a r y 28, 2010, f i l i n g o f 2090635 a p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n by R.M., the J r . ("the father"). We dismiss appeal with i n s t r u c t i o n s . In June 2009, the mother j u v e n i l e c o u r t naming the determination filed c h i l d and an a w a r d o f c h i l d s u p p o r t . sought mother also dismissal claim for attorney in the seeking a f e e s and pending sought of the sole The custody of the f a t h e r answered action, and asserted the a expenses, a v e r r i n g t h a t a s i m i l a r court, after c o n f e r r i n g w i t h t h e p e r t i n e n t G e o r g i a c o u r t as p r o v i d e d for in Ala. was action o f p a t e r n i t y as t o a c h i l d b o r n t o t h e m o t h e r i n 2008; the action civil f a t h e r as a d e f e n d a n t and November complaint, a Code 1975, Family Support determined dismiss, reserved After finding i n Georgia. Act, that custody of juvenile § 30-3A-317, a p a r t o f t h e U n i f o r m I n t e r s t a t e Ala. i t had determined the that The and hearing, Code jurisdiction, § 30-3A-101 denied the f a t h e r ' s p a t e r n i t y of the support the issues father contempt a g a i n s t f a i l e d to a l l o w the 1975, the for filed 2 later motion seq., motion child, to and hearing. seeking a mother f o r a l l e g e d l y h a v i n g f a t h e r pendente l i t e child. a a et v i s i t a t i o n with the 2090635 On January 28, from counsel judgment entered a judgment father's paternity, child, 2010, after for the having mother, determining, retroactive rights, and visitation that the month and that, after t r a n s i t i o n p e r i o d of consecutive v i s i t s On entered, the 1 contained same day the in the apparently proposed of the child, the and court denied a l l initially to have in Huntsville" on a t h r e e - m o n t h minimum at that l o c a t i o n , he rights. t h a t the j u v e n i l e father, custody the That judgment p r o v i d e d , f a t h e r was would g a i n expanded v i s i t a t i o n court things, of the "at the Family S e r v i c e s Center Sundays per form the f a t h e r ' s p r o s p e c t i v e o t h e r c l a i m s a s s e r t e d by t h e p a r t i e s . two legal c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n s ; the pertinent part, a juvenile other the mother's s o l e p h y s i c a l custody father's v i s i t a t i o n in the among the p a r t i e s ' j o i n t solicited form c o u r t ' s judgment a c t i n g upon judgment, the filed was language a motion W h e t h e r t h e j u d g m e n t was e n t e r e d b e f o r e o r a f t e r t h e f a t h e r f i l e d h i s motion i s u n c l e a r from the e l e c t r o n i c c a s e a c t i o n - s u m m a r y s h e e t , w h i c h shows two p o t e n t i a l judgment " e n t r y " t i m e s on J a n u a r y 28, 2010, b u t t h e a c t u a l s e q u e n c e i s i m m a t e r i a l ; under Alabama law, a "postjudgment" motion s u b m i t t e d t o a c o u r t b e f o r e the e n t r y of a judgment i n a c i v i l a c t i o n w i l l be deemed f i l e d as o f t h e s u b s e q u e n t e n t r y o f t h a t judgment. See New A d d i t i o n C l u b , I n c . v. Vaughn, 903 So. 2d 68, 72 ( A l a . 2004) . 1 3 2090635 l a b e l e d " M o t i o n t o V a c a t e , A l t e r o r Amend O r d e r " i n w h i c h he requested (1) t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t s t a t e i n i t s judgment t h a t initial site other facility visitations than by t h e f a t h e r c o u l d take the Family Services Center n o t be a v a i l a b l e on a s c h e d u l e d place should visitation at a that day and (2) t h a t t h e f a t h e r ' s r i g h t s t o e x p a n d e d v i s i t a t i o n w o u l d n o t be a f f e c t e d b y a n y a c t s on t h e p a r t o f t h e m o t h e r t o i n t e r f e r e with h i s i n i t i a l Ala. visitation. That motion c i t e d Rule 59(e), R. C i v . P., w h i c h p e r t a i n s t o m o t i o n s t o a l t e r , amend, o r vacate a j u d g m e n t , as a u t h o r i t y f o r i t s f i l i n g . father's 60(b), motion A l a . R. judgment also cited C i v . P., based, subsections which respectively, (3) a n d pertain upon Although the to (6) o f R u l e relief grounds of from a fraud, m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , o r o t h e r m i s c o n d u c t o f an a d v e r s e p a r t y o r , a l t e r n a t i v e l y , f o r "any other reason" than those other subsections of Rule 60(b), the time l i m i t a t i o n f o r f i l i n g amend, o r v a c a t e specified i n t h e m o t i o n was f i l e d w i t h i n a postjudgment motion t o a l t e r , a j u d g m e n t u n d e r R u l e 5 9 ( e ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., as a p p l i c a b l e i n j u v e n i l e c o u r t ( i . e . , 14 d a y s , s e e R u l e 1 ( B ) , Ala. R. J u v . P.) a n d e x p r e s s l y " m o v e [ d ] " t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t "to vacate, alter or amend" 4 the judgment in a manner 2090635 consistent with Rule 59(e) . deemed one u n d e r R u l e 5 9 ( e ) . Thus, the motion See, e . g . , Ex p a r t e J o h n s o n , 715 So. 2d 783 ( A l a . 1 9 9 8 ) ; L.M. v. S h e l b y C o u n t y Res., 999 So. 2d 505, 506 i s properly Dep't o f Human ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 8 ) ; Dubose v . Dubose, 964 So. 2d 42, 45 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 7 ) ; a n d Simmons v. Simmons, 390 So. 2d 622, 623-24 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 0 ) . On J a n u a r y 29, 2010, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t s e t t h e f a t h e r ' s " M o t i o n t o V a c a t e , A l t e r o r Amend O r d e r " f o r a h e a r i n g t o be held on M a r c h 16, 2010. Juv. P., p o s t j u d g m e n t However, u n d e r motions Rule i n juvenile 1 ( B ) , A l a . R. cases " s h a l l not r e m a i n p e n d i n g f o r more t h a n 14 d a y s " ; t h u s , " [ a ] p o s t j u d g m e n t motion i s deemed d e n i e d i f n o t r u l e d filing." on w i t h i n See a l s o L.M., 999 So. 2d a t 506. 14 d a y s of Pursuant t o Rule 1 ( B ) , t h e f a t h e r ' s p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n was d e n i e d on F e b r u a r y 11, 2010. A l t h o u g h t h e f a t h e r a t t e m p t e d t o amend h i s m o t i o n on F e b r u a r y 22, 2010, t h a t p u r p o r t e d amendment, h a v i n g b e e n f i l e d a f t e r t h e m o t i o n i t s o u g h t t o amend h a d b e e n d e n i e d , was o f no e f f e c t . Boswell, 430 See A l a b a m a Farm B u r e a u Mut. C a s . I n s . Co. v . So. 2d 426, 428 ( A l a . 1983). Despite the o p e r a t i o n o f R u l e 1 ( B ) , h o w e v e r , t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t e n t e r e d an order on M a r c h 23, 2010, p u r p o r t i n g 5 t o amend i t s previous 2090635 j u d g m e n t so as t o a l l o w t h e f a t h e r "make-up" v i s i t a t i o n s h o u l d the Family Services Center be u n a v a i l a b l e f o r a scheduled visitation. The mother timely appealed from M a r c h 23, 2010, o r d e r . See R u l e 4 ( a ) , A l a . R. App. P., a n d R u l e 2 8 ( C ) , A l a . R. J u v . P. the juvenile The m o t h e r c o n t e n d s , i n h e r b r i e f on a p p e a l , t h a t t h e M a r c h 23, 2010, o r d e r was v o i d . of court's In l i g h t R u l e 1 ( B ) , A l a . R. J u v . P., we a g r e e w i t h t h e m o t h e r that the j u v e n i l e c o u r t l o s t any j u r i s d i c t i o n i t m i g h t have h a d t o alter, i n response amend, or vacate f a t h e r ' s postjudgment i t s judgment motion to the on F e b r u a r y 1 1 , 2010, r e n d e r i n g i t s M a r c h 23, 2010, o r d e r v o i d . See C o l b u r n v. C o l b u r n , 510 So. 2d 266, 267 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 7 ) ; S.D.C. v . N.L., 864 So. 2d 1089, 1090-91 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 2 ) . On t h e a u t h o r i t y o f C o l b u r n a n d S.D.C., we d i s m i s s t h e m o t h e r ' s a p p e a l as h a v i n g b e e n t a k e n f r o m a v o i d o r d e r , a n d we d i r e c t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t t o v a c a t e i t s o r d e r o f M a r c h 23, 2010. APPEAL DISMISSED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, P . J . , and Bryan, concur. 6 Thomas, a n d Moore, 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.