S.S. v. R.D.
258 So. 3d 340
Ala. Civ. App.2018Background
- Child born Nov. 4, 2011; mother was married to L.G., who is the presumed father under Alabama law, though alleged biological father (R.D., Sr.) and paternal grandmother (R.D.) asserted competing claims.
- Paternal grandmother filed a pro se dependency petition (May 2012) and received pendente lite custody; multiple related actions (including the mother’s pro se visitation/custody petition) were filed and loosely litigated together but not formally consolidated.
- Juvenile court ordered genetic testing to resolve paternity; testing had not occurred by the Aug. 18, 2015 trial. At trial the court orally dismissed the alleged father as a party, the presumed father persisted in paternity, and the court orally adjudicated dependency and awarded custody to the paternal grandmother.
- The juvenile court did not enter a written final judgment until May 16, 2017—about 21 months after trial—and entered substantially similar written orders in both the dependency action and the mother’s separate action.
- Mother moved for postjudgment relief and new trial; some posttrial motions lapsed or were denied by operation of law. Mother appealed; the appellate court consolidated appeals ex mero motu.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a dependency/dispositional determination may be based on evidence presented ~21 months before entry of judgment | Mother: dependency must be assessed based on current circumstances at disposition; 21‑month delay deprived her due process and rendered adjudication unsupported | Grandmother: trial evidence was sufficient to support dependency and custody award | Court: Reversed the mother’s action—dependency/disposition could not be based on evidence 21 months old; remanded for full evidentiary hearing on custody/dependency |
| Whether the appeal from the dependency-action judgment is reviewable (finality/jurisdiction) | Mother: May 16, 2017 judgment was final; denial of visitation implicitly denied contempt motion | Grandmother: judgment is final and supports custody award | Court: Appeal from dependency action dismissed for lack of finality—pending contempt motion (and unresolved paternity issues) rendered the May 16, 2017 dependency‑action judgment nonfinal |
| Whether the juvenile court erred on sufficiency of evidence at the Aug. 2015 trial | Mother: trial evidence was insufficient to support dependency | Grandmother: evidence was sufficient | Court: Pretermitted consideration of sufficiency because remand required on timeliness grounds (would need current-evidence hearing) |
| Whether juvenile court abused discretion by not appointing counsel for indigent pro se petitioner (grandmother) | Grandmother: requested appointed counsel and says court denied request | Mother/presumed father: not argued to require reversal | Court: Noted appointment of counsel for indigent petitioners is discretionary under §12‑15‑305(a); no reversible-error finding on that point |
Key Cases Cited
- D.D.P. v. D.M.B., 173 So.3d 1 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015) (when adjudicatory and dispositional stages are bifurcated, dependency must be shown at adjudication and at disposition)
- J.B. v. Jefferson County Dept. of Human Resources, 252 So.3d 674 (Ala. Civ. App. 2017) (dependency judgment improper where adjudication predates disposition and current dependency was not established)
- C.P.M. v. Shelby County Dept. of Human Resources, 185 So.3d 461 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015) (delay between testimony and judgment may preclude reliance on stale evidence; reversed where judgment could not be based on current circumstances)
- A.C. v. C.C., 34 So.3d 1281 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009) (pendency of unresolved contempt motion renders a judgment nonfinal for purposes of appeal)
- Faellaci v. Faellaci, 67 So.3d 923 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011) (an express statement in the judgment can, in some circumstances, constitute an implicit ruling on pending contempt claims)