169 So. 3d 1059
Ala. Civ. App.2015Background
- B.C. and T.C. sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Cullman Juvenile Court to rescind its October 27, 2014 order.
- The October 27 order enjoined all parties from filing adoption/custody pleadings in any court or jurisdiction other than the juvenile court.
- DHR defended the order as in the child’s best interests and claimed the parties had an opportunity to be heard.
- B.C. and T.C. contended the juvenile court lacked authority to restrain legitimate judicial access and violated First Amendment rights; they also argued lack of notice/hearing.
- The supreme court previously held that probate courts, not juvenile courts, handle adoption, and that a probate court may stay but is not required to stay adoption proceedings; the present court concluded the juvenile court had no authority to enjoin probate court proceedings and reversed.
- The result was a reversal and remand with instructions to vacate the juvenile court’s order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the juvenile court have authority to enjoin adoption proceedings in probate court? | B.C./T.C. argue lack of authority. | DHR contends order was in child’s best interests and permissible. | No; juvenile court lacked authority to enjoin probate adoption proceedings. |
| Does the order implicate First Amendment access to courts? | Order improperly restricted court access. | Not central to the court’s rationale; focus was on jurisdiction and best interests. | Not dispositive; court proceeded on lack of authority. |
| Was there proper notice and opportunity to be heard before the order was entered? | B.C./T.C. contend they lacked notice/hearing. | DHR argues party had opportunity to be heard. | Remanded for vacatur; issue resolved by lack of authority rather than process. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte B2K Sys., LLC, 162 So.3d 896 (Ala.2014) (direct appeal method for injunction challenges; mandamus treated as appeal)
- Ex parte Hollis & Wright, P.C., 987 So.2d 530 (Ala.2007) (approach to mandamus vs. appeal in injunction context)
- Ex parte A.M.P., 997 So.2d 1008 (Ala.2008) (probate adoption proceedings outside juvenile court jurisdiction; stay/transfer context)
- D.B. v. J.E.H., 984 So.2d 459 (Ala.Civ.App.2007) (juvenile and probate court judgments distinguished; different jurisdictional issues)
- In re T.N.W. (No. 89815), (Ohio Ct.App.2008) (unpublished) (Ohio 2008) (continuing juvenile jurisdiction does not bar probate adoption proceedings)