259 So. 3d 677
Ala. Civ. App.2018Background
- Three children (S.L., M.K., P.S.) born in Tennessee were taken by their maternal grandmother to her Alabama home in March 2016; grandmother filed separate juvenile petitions in Alabama alleging dependency, neglect, and abandonment.
- Petitions stated the children had lived in Tennessee since birth and had been with the grandmother for "two months."
- The juvenile court granted the grandmother pendente lite custody; the fathers (R.L. for S.L., D.K. for M.K.) later appeared, filed counterclaims asserting custody, and purported to submit to the court’s jurisdiction.
- Trial was consolidated; the juvenile court ultimately found S.L. and M.K. not dependent but transferred custody to their fathers, found P.S. dependent, and awarded custody to the grandmother.
- The mother appealed; the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals concluded the juvenile court exceeded its subject-matter jurisdiction under the UCCJEA by failing to follow the mandatory procedures for temporary emergency jurisdiction in § 30-3B-204.
- The appeals were dismissed with instructions that the juvenile court vacate its judgments, develop the record regarding prior custody determinations, and comply with § 30-3B-204 in resolving jurisdiction and any interim protective orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Alabama juvenile court had home‑state jurisdiction under the UCCJEA | Mother: Alabama lacked home‑state jurisdiction because children’s home state was Tennessee | Grandmother/fathers: Alabama could exercise jurisdiction (grandmother invoked dependency; fathers submitted to jurisdiction) | Home‑state jurisdiction lacked; UCCJEA controls and Tennessee was the home state at filing |
| Whether Alabama could exercise non‑home‑state jurisdiction via declination by home state | Mother: No declination by Tennessee in record, so no jurisdiction | Defendants: Claimed Tennessee orders were extinguished or submitted | No—no Tennessee declination order in record, so this basis failed |
| Whether temporary emergency jurisdiction under §30‑3B‑204 authorized adjudication and modification | Mother: At most temporary emergency jurisdiction; court had to check for prior determinations and contact home‑state court before adjudicating | Defendants: Grandmother alleged neglect/abandonment; fathers relied on children’s residence in Alabama | Court had limited temporary emergency jurisdiction but failed to comply with §30‑3B‑204; thus it could not make final dependency or custody determinations |
| Whether parties’ consent or submission cured subject‑matter jurisdiction defects | Mother: Subject‑matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by party agreement | Defendants: Fathers argued they submitted to jurisdiction, and later residence justified jurisdiction | Held: Submission does not confer subject‑matter jurisdiction under the UCCJEA; judgment void for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- J.D. v. Lauderdale Cty. Dep't of Human Res., 121 So.3d 381 (Ala. Civ. App.) (interpreting home‑state and emergency jurisdiction under the UCCJEA)
- M.B.L. v. G.G.L., 1 So.3d 1048 (Ala. Civ. App.) (temporary emergency jurisdiction under UCCJEA is extremely limited)
- LaRose v. LaRose, 71 So.3d 651 (Ala. Civ. App.) (court must follow §30‑3B‑204 procedures when exercising emergency jurisdiction)
- K.C.G. v. S.J.R., 46 So.3d 499 (Ala. Civ. App.) (dependency petition must be dismissed if child is found not dependent)
- A.L. v. Morgan Cty. Dep't of Human Res., 102 So.3d 394 (Ala. Civ. App.) (void judgments do not support appeals)
- M.B. v. R.P., 3 So.3d 237 (Ala. Civ. App.) (dependency jurisdiction may be invoked by alleged facts even if petition labels differ)