187 So. 3d 1161
Ala. Civ. App.2015Background
- Child K.J.B. born Aug. 1, 2007 to unmarried parents Kyle Joseph Brock (father) and Kelly Nicole Herd (mother).
- Grandparents Nell and Roger Herd filed in juvenile court (Dec. 2009) to establish paternity and obtain custody; parents signed waivers admitting petition allegations.
- Juvenile court transferred the matter to the Talladega Circuit Court (Feb. 16, 2010); circuit court adjudicated paternity, awarded custody to the grandparents, set visitation for the father, and ordered child support (Feb. 25, 2010).
- In Jan. 2015 the father filed a Rule 60(b)(4) motion asserting the circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate paternity and to determine dependency; the circuit court denied relief (Feb. 11, 2015).
- Father appealed; this opinion affirms the denial of Rule 60(b)(4) relief, concluding the circuit court had jurisdiction to decide paternity and the case was a custody action (not a dependency action).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Brock) | Defendant's Argument (Grandparents/Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether circuit court had jurisdiction to adjudicate paternity | Juvenile court has exclusive original jurisdiction to adjudicate paternity under § 12-15-115/earlier statute | AJJA § 12-15-115 does not grant exclusive jurisdiction; § 26-17-104 expressly gives circuit or district courts original jurisdiction to adjudicate parentage | Circuit court had jurisdiction to adjudicate paternity; judgment not void |
| Whether circuit court lacked jurisdiction because matter was a dependency action | The grandparents’ petition was really a dependency action in disguise, so juvenile court (exclusive) should have handled it | Petition sought paternity and custody by consent and contained no dependency allegations; transfer to circuit court was proper; no dependency finding was made | The action was a custody/paternity case, not dependency; circuit court jurisdiction proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Burgett v. Porter, 180 So.3d 20 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015) (Rule 60(b)(4) review is de novo because it attacks a judgment as void)
- Northbrook Indem. Co. v. Westgate, Ltd., 769 So.2d 890 (Ala. 2000) (procedural standard on Rule 60 review cited)
- General Motors Corp. v. Plantation Pontiac-Cadillac, Buick, GMC Truck, Inc., 762 So.2d 859 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999) (Rule 60 precedent)
- Ex parte Full Circle Distrib., L.L.C., 883 So.2d 638 (Ala. 2003) (Rule 60(b)(4) motions against void judgments are not time-barred)
- City of Bessemer v. McClain, 957 So.2d 1061 (Ala. 2006) (statutory interpretation principles)
- Ex parte Christopher, 145 So.3d 60 (Ala. 2013) (courts may not supply omitted statutory language)
- J.A.P. v. M.M., 872 So.2d 861 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003) (distinguishing custody disputes from dependency proceedings)
- T.B. v. T.H., 30 So.3d 429 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009) (juvenile court cannot award custody once it determines case is not dependency)
- K.C.G. v. S.J.R., 46 So.3d 499 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010) (juvenile court loses jurisdiction over custody disputes not rooted in dependency)
- M.D. v. S.C., 150 So.3d 210 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014) (juvenile court jurisdiction is limited; custody issues fall to circuit court)