151 So. 3d 1115
Ala. Civ. App.2014Background
- B.N. (the father) appeals a Madison County Juvenile Court judgment concerning custody of his child after a Mississippi divorce awarding the mother sole physical custody and leaving visitation to the paternal grandparents until the father’s release.
- The mother moved with the child to Alabama in April 2012 and later married J.D.; the paternal grandparents claim they were unaware of the child’s location until hospitalization in Huntsville, Alabama, and allege J.D. abused the child.
- DHR placed the child with the mother’s brother A.G. and his wife E.G. under a safety plan after hospital release, and the custodians remained the child’s guardians in Madison County.
- On September 24, 2012, the paternal grandparents filed a petition for temporary custody in Alabama (case JU-12-860.01) under the UCCJEA; custodians intervened and alleged dependency in their own petition.
- The juvenile court rendered multiple orders through 2013, ultimately determining dependency, awarding DHR legal custody temporarily, then giving legal custody to the custodians, while granting supervised visitation to the father and paternal grandparents and suspending the mother’s visitation.
- In July 2013 the juvenile court reaffirmed jurisdiction with statements of communications with Mississippi, while the Mississippi court had not clearly relinquished jurisdiction; the record shows no transcript from the initial referee's hearing and no sworn testimony at hearings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court had proper jurisdiction. | Father (and grandparents) contend lack of clear jurisdiction; Mississippi proceedings ongoing and no recorded communications per § 30-3B-110. | Court relied on communications with Mississippi and asserted jurisdiction. | Jurisdiction not properly shown; reversed and remanded for compliance with § 30-3B-110. |
| Whether the child was properly found dependent. | Dependency finding erroneous due to jurisdiction issues and lack of evidentiary record. | Evidence supported dependency under DHR action and shelter-care findings. | Proceedings remanded; focus on jurisdictionful determination; dependency reconsidered on remand. |
| Whether due process was denied by lack of evidentiary hearing and sworn testimony. | Hearing relied on unsworn statements and counsel arguments, not sworn testimony. | Record adequate for judicial consideration under statutory framework. | Noted; unsworn statements insufficient; remand for proper evidentiary proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- S.B.U. v. D.G.B., 913 So.2d 452 (Ala.Civ.App.2005) (subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived; de novo review)
- C.J.L. v. M.W.B., 868 So.2d 453 (Ala.Civ.App.2003) (jurisdictional review under UCCJEA)
- M.J.P. v. K.H., 923 So.2d 1114 (Ala.Civ.App.2005) (definition of child-custody determination and home state)
- R.W.f v. G.W., 2 So.3d 869 (Ala.Civ.App.2008) (UCCJEA jurisdiction framework)
- J.D. v. Lauderdale Cnty. Dep't of Human Res., 121 So.3d 381 (Ala.Civ.App.2013) (UCCJEA, dependency proceedings and jurisdiction)
- Ex parte Russell, 911 So.2d 719 (Ala.Civ.App.2005) (unsworn statements are not evidence)
- Y.N. v. Jefferson Cnty. Dep't of Human Res., 37 So.3d 836 (Ala.Civ.App.2009) (dispositional hearings require evidence-based findings)