Ex Parte Ks
71 So. 3d 712
Ala. Civ. App.2011Background
- DHR becomes involved with K.S. and her child in March 2010, filing a dependency petition alleging medical neglect and lack of ability to care for the child's medical needs.
- The juvenile court found the child dependent and awarded custody to DHR, ordering the mother to work, budget, attend parenting classes, pursue a GED, stay drug/alcohol free, sign medical releases, and name relatives for possible care.
- In August 2010, DHR recommended that the mother remain at Mary’s Shelter, undergo a mental-health evaluation, take parenting classes, obtain GED, and receive transportation for weekly supervised visitation.
- The mother testified she had just entered the shelter, was pregnant, was pursuing a GED, applying for food stamps, attending parenting classes, and planned to stay at the shelter with a transitional-living program after the baby’s birth.
- The juvenile court announced it would order the mother to remain at the shelter and complete its program; the order was entered on August 18, 2010, without objections from the mother or counsel.
- The mother moved for reconsideration on August 24, 2010, arguing the shelter services could be obtained from family and that the order amounted to civil commitment; the motion was denied and the mother appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May an appeal from a nonfinal dependency order be treated as mandamus? | K.S. argues the order affects constitutional rights and merits review as mandamus. | DHR argues the appeal should be treated as regular appeal, or dismissed if nonfinal. | Court may treat as mandamus; ultimately denied on merits. |
| Was the shelter-residency directive a final judgment? | Mother contends the order altered custody/restricted residency, implicating final judgment standards. | Order was not a final disposition of custody or dependency; it was part of ongoing rehabilitation. | The order was not a final, appealable judgment. |
| Did invited error bar relief? | Mother argues error due to shelter residency order, not invited. | Mother invited the error by testifying she would stay at the shelter and not object to the order. | Invited-error doctrine bars relief; no clear legal right to the requested relief. |
| Can new evidence in a motion for reconsideration support relief? | Mother presented new evidence she could obtain similar services from family; could warrant relief. | New evidence presented post-trial cannot be used to support relief from the order. | New evidence cannot form the basis for relief; petition denied on this basis. |
| Should the court grant mandamus relief in light of constitutional concerns? | Constitutional issues exist regarding residency restrictions during rehabilitation. | No mandamus relief because invited-error and nonfinal status; nonconstitutional grounds suffice. | Petition for writ of mandamus denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- J.J. v. J.H.W., 27 So.3d 519 (Ala.Civ.App.2008) (finality of dependency/custody orders supports review despite labeling)
- C.L. v. D.H., 916 So.2d 622 (Ala.Civ.App.2005) (finality depending on disposition changes)
- E.D. v. Madison County Dep't of Human Res., 68 So.3d 163 (Ala.Civ.App.2010) (change of physical custody can render judgment final)
- Ex parte Amerigas, 855 So.2d 544 (Ala.Civ.App.2003) (mandamus standards and extraordinary relief)
- Ex parte Flint Constr. Co., 775 So.2d 805 (Ala.2000) (conditions for mandamus relief)
- Hayes v. Hayes, 16 So.3d 117 (Ala.Civ.App.2009) (oral judgments lack legal effect)
- Lowe v. Fulford, 442 So.2d 29 (Ala.1983) (avoidance of constitutional questions unless essential)