Montgomery County Dept. v. McDermott, 2100290 (ala.civ.app. 6-24-2011), 74 So. 3d 455

DHR appeals a juvenile court custody judgment awarding custody of M.J.M. to DHR.
August 6, 2010: two delinquency petitions alleged burglary and theft; detention order issued due to threat.
November 23, 2010: juvenile court adjudicated child dependent and awarded custody to DHR for placement.
December 7, 2010: DHR moved to alter, amend, or vacate, asserting lack of jurisdiction and due-process violations.
January 2011: hearings scheduled; DHR’s motion denied by operation of law; mandamus petition filed and treated as appeal.
Court concludes juvenile court lacked jurisdiction to declare dependency or transfer custody without proper dependency/adjudicatory proceedings and statutory compliance; reverses and remands with instructions to vacate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction to adjudicate dependent and transfer custody	DHR contends no dependency petition or due-process hearing; court exceeded its statutory jurisdiction.	Court relied on AJJA provisions to protect the child and authorize transfer.	Lacked jurisdiction; reversed and remanded to vacate custody judgment.
Compliance with transfer provisions for child in need of supervision	DHR argues no adjudicatory hearing or proper referral under §12-15-215(a)(3)b. was conducted.	Court may transfer custody under AJJA provisions if procedures were followed.	Participation failure and lack of notice/referral rendered the transfer invalid; remanded with instructions.

L.B. v. R.L.B., 53 So.3d 969 (Ala.Civ.App. 2010) (juvenile courts have limited jurisdiction; question is statutory authorization)
Ex parte K.L.P., 868 So.2d 454 (Ala.Civ.App.2003) (jurisdiction depends on statutory empowering language)
Valero v. State Dep't of Human Res., 511 So.2d 200 (Ala.Civ.App.1987) (due process in juvenile-court custody proceedings)
K.L.B. v. W.M.F., 757 So.2d 476 (Ala.Civ. App.2000) (remand when proper statutory procedures are not followed)