B.E.H. v. L.N.K.
2010 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 364
| Ala. Civ. App. | 2010Background
- In 2003, Jefferson Family Court judgment established father custody and required child-support, implicitly granting mother custody.
- In 2010, father sought legal and physical custody and termination of child-support in circuit court; mother moved to dismiss or transfer to Jefferson Family Court, arguing Jefferson retained jurisdiction.
- Mother filed a Jefferson contempt petition for unpaid support, and later moved in circuit court to dismiss the father's petition; circuit court denied the motion to dismiss.
- Mother sought a writ of mandamus in this court claiming lack of subject-matter jurisdiction in the circuit court over the father’s petition.
- The issue is whether the Jefferson juvenile-court-based custody/joint issues preclude circuit-court jurisdiction after statutory changes and case law on juvenile jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does circuit court have subject-matter jurisdiction over the father's petition? | Mother asserts Jefferson retains exclusive jurisdiction since 2003 custody was decided there. | Father argues circuit court retains jurisdiction; Jefferson no continuing exclusive jurisdiction post-2008 AJJA. | Circuit court has jurisdiction; denial of motion to dismiss affirmed. |
| Did the Jefferson Family Court retain continuing exclusive jurisdiction over custody and child-support? | Jurisdiction remains in Jefferson after prior paternity/rulings. | AJJA replaced former rules; juvenile court jurisdiction not automatically continuing. | Jefferson does not retain continuing exclusive jurisdiction; circuit court may hear the petition. |
| Should Ex parte McLendon custody-modification standard apply? | McLendon standard governs custody-modification. | Circuit court has not adopted a custody-modification standard for this case. | Not applied; mandamus denied on this ground. |
| Is mandamus an appropriate remedy for challenging circuit court subject-matter jurisdiction here? | Mandamus is appropriate to compel dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. | No clear legal right or imperative duty shown; jurisdiction exists. | Mandamus denied on both jurisdictional and standard-ground considerations. |
| Do changes in juvenile jurisdiction statutes affect the outcome here? | AJJA §12-15-117 preserves juvenile jurisdiction; circuit court barred. | Statutory change does not give Jefferson continuing exclusive jurisdiction; circuit court may proceed. | AJJA changes do not bar circuit court from exercising jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Punturo, 928 So.2d 1030 (Ala. 2002) (jurisdiction review via mandamus)
- Ex parte Flint Constr. Co., 775 So.2d 805 (Ala. 2000) (mandamus standard elements)
- Ex parte Bruner, 749 So.2d 437 (Ala. 1999) (quoting Ex parte McNaughton)
- Ex parte McNaughton, 728 So.2d 592 (Ala. 1998) (mandamus standard framework)
- Ex parte K.L.P., 868 So.2d 454 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003) (mandamus relief requires clear legal right and duty)
- Ex parte T.C., 63 So.3d 627 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010) (juvenile court retains jurisdiction only under specific adjudications)
- Ex parte Calhoun, 688 So.2d 259 (Ala. 1997) (juvenile court as proper forum in paternity context)
- T.B. v. T.H., 30 So.3d 429 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009) (juvenile courts have limited jurisdiction)
- M.R.J. v. D.R.B., 17 So.3d 683 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009) (custody impliedly granted to mother from 2003 judgment)
- T.B. v. C.D.L., 910 So.2d 794 (Ala. Civ. App. 2005) (paternity/custody under juvenile jurisdiction)
- W.B.G.M. v. P.S.T., 999 So.2d 971 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008) (continuing jurisdiction principles)