CL-2024-0505
Ala. Civ. App.Aug 29, 2025Background
- C.R.B. (“the mother”) appealed the Jackson Juvenile Court’s termination of her parental rights to three children.
- The children and mother lived in Tennessee or Georgia before briefly residing in Alabama, where the mother was arrested and the children were removed.
- The children entered Alabama foster care after the mother's 2022 arrest; the mother returned to Tennessee immediately upon release.
- The Juvenile Court based its custody and termination orders on emergency jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA).
- After appellate review, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals found insufficient evidence that Alabama had subject-matter jurisdiction under any basis provided by the UCCJEA.
- The Court dismissed the appeals, vacating the termination judgments, finding the Juvenile Court lacked authority to enter them.
Issues
| Issue | C.R.B.'s Argument | DHR's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama’s subject-matter jurisdiction under UCCJEA for dependency and termination | Alabama was not the home state; children lived in TN/GA; no significant connection to AL | Emergency jurisdiction and children in AL foster care rendered AL the proper forum | Alabama was not the home state nor did it meet other jurisdictional tests; jurisdiction lacking |
| Whether emergency jurisdiction can become permanent final custody under §30-3B-204(b) | Emergency orders didn’t explicitly make permanent determinations; dependency orders void | DHR as legal custodian/foster care gave AL home state status after 6 months | Emergency orders didn’t suffice; dependency/termination judgments void without explicit permanency |
| Continuing jurisdiction under UCCJEA §30-3B-202 for later proceedings | No valid initial jurisdiction, so none could continue | DHR had legal/physical custody, so continuing exclusive jurisdiction | No valid initial jurisdiction, so no continuing jurisdiction |
| Whether the children or DHR had sufficient “significant connection” with Alabama | Only present in AL briefly; connections in TN/GA | Physical presence in AL foster care is sufficient | Physical presence alone doesn’t meet “significant connection” standard |
Key Cases Cited
- W.B.B. v. H.M.S., 141 So. 3d 1062 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013) (Juvenile court's limited jurisdiction must affirmatively appear on record)
- J.D. v. Lauderdale Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 121 So. 3d 381 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013) (Temporary emergency jurisdiction does not confer permanent custody authority)
- B.B. v. L.W., 163 So. 3d 1042 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014) (Temporary emergency jurisdiction does not authorize permanent custody awards)
- H.A.A. v. B.J.J., 368 So. 3d 876 (Ala. Civ. App. 2022) (Every jurisdictional fact must affirmatively appear for juvenile court jurisdiction)
- G.W.K. v. B.W.M., 387 So. 3d 1126 (Ala. Civ. App. 2023) (Judgment void when court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction)