Rt v. Bnh
66 So. 3d 807
| Ala. Civ. App. | 2011Background
- R.T., paternal grandmother, appeals a Marshall Juvenile Court denial of her petition for grandparent visitation with the child D.F.
- Initial 2008 order in a paternity case granted joint custody to mother B.N.H. and father S.W. with paternity established.
- Feb. 2009 motion alleged abuse by the father; ex parte order suspended the father's visitation for risk of irreparable harm.
- June 2009 settlement provided supervised visitation; May 27, 2009 order not signed/initialed as a formal order per Rule 58(b).
- 2009–2010 proceedings included multiple orders and a May 7, 2010 Rule 60(a) correction; grandmother’s visitation was reinstated then set aside.
- June 28, 2010 judgment denied grandmother’s petition; appellate court later held the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction under the new AJJA and voided orders entered after June 15, 2009, dismissing the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court retained jurisdiction to modify custody/visitation after June 15, 2009. | Grandmother argues court had ongoing jurisdiction from prior paternity decision. | Court lacked continuing jurisdiction under the AJJA once standard custody disputes between parents arise post-adjudication. | Juvenile court lacked jurisdiction; post-June 15, 2009 orders are void. |
| Whether emergency jurisdiction under § 12-15-138 could support actions after the emergency period. | Mother's 2009 motion invoked emergency provisions to stop visitation. | Emergency jurisdiction Congress allowed temporary protection, but could not sustain custody/visitation disputes thereafter. | Emergency basis allowed initial relief but did not sustain later custody/visitation decisions. |
| Whether the appeal should be dismissed as to a void judgment. | Appeal challenges the June 28, 2010 judgment. | Judgment is void for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction due to AJJA changes. | Appeal dismissed as to a void judgment; remand with instruction to vacate post-June 15, 2009 orders. |
| Whether § 30-3-4.1(g) precludes grandmother visitation petition after voiding the court's jurisdiction. | Grandmother asserts preservation of visitation rights despite void orders. | Statutory preclusion applies when jurisdiction is voided and post hoc petitions are barred. | Court did not reach this issue because jurisdiction was void; preclusion moot. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte L.N.K., 64 So.3d 656 (Ala.Civ.App.2010) (recognizes that juvenile court lacks continuing jurisdiction after AJJA changes)
- Ex parte T.C., 63 So.3d 627 (Ala.Civ.App.2010) (supports narrowing juvenile-court custody role post-AJJA)
- Eagerton v. Second Econ. Dev. Coop. Dist. of Lowndes County, 909 So.2d 783 (Ala. 2005) (void judgments require dismissal when lack of jurisdiction exists)
- Owens v. Owens, 51 So.3d 364 (Ala.Civ.App.2010) (no subject-matter jurisdiction; void judgments; dismissal of appeal)