T.C. v. Mac.M.
2011 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 315
Ala. Civ. App.2011Background
- Maternal grandparents petitioned for dependency finding and custody with pendente lite custody and supervised visitation for parents.
- Mother died afterSuggestion of death; father moved to modify pendente lite visitation in 2010.
- Juvenile court repeatedly awarded pendente lite custody to maternal grandparents and denied father's modification request.
- Paternal relatives and aunt sought intervention; some motions treated as interventions, others denied as not proper motions to intervene.
- Trial court conducted ore tenus hearing (Sept. 21, 2010) focusing on dependency; court found child dependent and offered to hear disposition later; custody disposition paused.
- September 22, 2010 order found dependency on a standardized form with handwritten notes; order was not accompanied by a disposition, rendering it nonfinal for purposes of appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Sept. 22, 2010 dependency order is final for appeal | Father argues order is final due to dependency finding and custody award. | Mother’s side contends order is not final because disposition was deferred and custody was pendente lite. | Order is nonfinal; cannot support appeal |
| Effect of the new AJJA on appeals from nonfinal juvenile orders | 13-15-601 allows appeals from judgments or orders; new AJJA permits appeal of nonfinal orders. | Rules of Juvenile Procedure still govern appeals from final orders; no change to finality requirement. | Enactment did not alter requirement that appeals proceed from final judgments; nonfinal order dismissed |
| Proper remedy for challenging a nonfinal juvenile order | Writ of mandamus is warranted to compel review of nonfinal orders. | Appeal would be premature or improper; mandamus appropriate but not pursued. | Appeal dismissed; mandamus could be appropriate but not pursued |
Key Cases Cited
- D.P. v. Limestone Cnty. Dep’t of Human Res., 28 So.3d 759 (Ala.Civ.App.2009) (dependency order deemed final for appeal when disposition follows)
- J.J. v. J.H.W., 27 So.3d 519 (Ala.Civ.App.2008) (dependency finding with custody award is appealable despite pending motions)
- C.L. v. D.H., 916 So.2d 622 (Ala.Civ.App.2005) (pendente lite orders and final judgment distinction; reviewability when disposition follows)
- Ex parte J.P., 641 So.2d 276 (Ala.1994) (distinction between temporary vs pendente lite custody for finality)
- Ex parte Webb, 843 So.2d 127 (Ala.2002) (amendment allowing direct appeals when adequate record exists)
- Wright v. Montgomery Cnty. Dep’t of Pensions & Sec., 423 So.2d 256 (Ala.Civ.App.1982) (Rule 28 governs direct appeals from juvenile court when record adequate)