71 So. 3d 651
Ala. Civ. App.2011Background
- South Carolina judgment granted paternal grandparents unsupervised visitation every third weekend and two nonconsecutive two-week summers.
- On April 19, 2010, the mother obtained ex parte PFA orders against the paternal grandmother and paternal aunt.
- The paternal grandparents registered the SC custody determination in Alabama (DR-10-243.01) and sought expedited enforcement under the UCCJEA.
- August 10, 2010 Alabama judgments prohibited the grandparents and aunt from contacting the mother and child and suspended visitation pending SC review.
- Post-judgment, the paternal grandparents sought Rule 54(b) certifications; appeals were filed in DR-10-243, DR-10-481, and DR-10-243.01.
- The Alabama Court dismissed the appeals from DR-10-243 and DR-10-481 as untimely, but addressed and reversed the DR-10-243.01 judgment, remanding with instructions to cure the timing and wording and to communicate with SC court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Alabama could modify or suspend SC visitation under UCCJEA | LaroSe family argues SC order governs and Alabama lacks authority to modify. | Mother contends Alabama may enforce or suspend under emergency provisions. | The trial court had temporary emergency jurisdiction but lacked proper compliance under §30-3B-204(c)-(d); order invalid as written. |
| Proper exercise of temporary emergency jurisdiction under §30-3B-204(a) and (c) | Temporary emergency jurisdiction could suspend visitation pending SC review. | Emergency jurisdiction must include time limits and inter-state communications. | Although jurisdiction existed, the judgment failed to include a time limit and failed to communicate with SC as required. |
| Compliance with §30-3B-204(c) and §30-3B-204(d) in the enforcement order | Enforcement should proceed under emergency rule to protect child. | SC judgment should be enforced unless defenses exist; no defenses found here. | Judgment did not comply with §30-3B-204(c)-(d); remand to cure and communicate with SC. |
| Effect of registration/enforcement procedures on appealability | Appeals timely as to DR-10-243.01; other actions are separate. | Consolidated actions have separate identities; timetable governs timeliness. | Appeal concerning DR-10-243.01 timely; DR-10-243 and DR-10-481 untimely and dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashwood v. Ashwood, 371 So.2d 924 (Ala.Civ.App.1979) (custody judgments of sister states receive full faith and credit)
- G.P. v. A.A.K., 841 So.2d 1252 (Ala.Civ.App.2002) (UCCJEA enforcement principles applied)
- R.J.G. v. S.S.W., 42 So.3d 747 (Ala.Civ.App.2009) (timing and identity of consolidated actions; jurisdictional review)
- Ex parte Flexible Prods. Co., 915 So.2d 34 (Ala.2005) (procedural considerations in post-judgment matters)
- H.J.T. v. State ex rel. M.S.M., 34 So.3d 1276 (Ala.Civ.App.2009) (rules governing cross-action pleadings and consolidation)