T.C. v. Mac. M.
2012 Ala. LEXIS 72
Ala.2012Background
- This case concerns whether the 2008 AJJA’s §12-15-601 allows appeals from interlocutory juvenile-court orders.
- Maternal grandparents filed a dependency petition for the child A.J.C. and sought pendente lite custody and supervised visitation for the parents.
- The juvenile court repeatedly entered pendente lite custody orders in favor of the maternal grandparents and ordered home studies for all parties.
- In Sept. 2010 the court found the child dependent and maintained pendente lite custody; it issued a detailed order with custody and intervention provisions, including a motion to continue on behalf of intervenors.
- The father appealed the Sept. 22, 2010 order to the Court of Civil Appeals, which dismissed as nonfinal; certiorari was granted to address a novel interpretation of §12-15-601.
- The Alabama Supreme Court held that §12-15-601 does not authorize appeals from nonfinal, interlocutory orders in juvenile proceedings; the appeal was properly dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does §12-15-601 permit interlocutory appeals in juvenile cases? | Father argues omission of 'final' shows interlocutory appeal allowed. | State contends only final orders are appealable under Rule 28 and related provisions. | No; §12-15-601 does not authorize interlocutory appeals. |
| What is the proper procedure for appealing juvenile-court orders under §12-15-601 and Rule 28? | Direct or de novo enrichment possible via §12-15-601 and rules; diverse records not needed for final orders. | Procedural alignment with Rule 28 and direct-appeal framework; no broad interlocutory path. | Proceedings must follow Rule 28 for final orders; Rule 28 governs appealability. |
| Is the Sept. 22, 2010 dependency finding a final appealable order? | Finding of dependency plus pendente lite custody could be final. | Order does not finalize disposition; remains pending further hearings. | Not a final order; not appealable on that basis. |
| Are pendente lite custody orders inherently final for purposes of appeal? | Pendente lite orders may become final upon subsequent disposition. | Pendente lite awards are generally not final; separate final disposition required. | Pendentes lite custody awards are not automatically final; finality depends on disposition. |
Key Cases Cited
- C.L. v. D.H., 916 So.2d 622 (Ala.Civ.App.2005) (temporary custody orders treated as final; nonfinal orders non-appealable if not dispositive)
- J.J. v. J.H.W., 27 So.3d 519 (Ala.Civ.App.2009) (dependency disposition with custody determination may yield appealable final judgment)
- Ex parte J.P., 641 So.2d 276 (Ala.1994) (distinguishes temporary custody from pendente lite and final orders)
- State ex rel. S.L. v. S.W., 700 So.2d 1369 (Ala.1997) (background on recording and direct appellate pathways in juvenile proceedings)
- Volkswagen of America, Inc. v. Dillard, 579 So.2d 1301 (Ala.1991) (statutory construction guidance on interpreting legislative language)
- F.G.W. v. S.W., 911 So.2d 1 (Ala.Civ.App.2004) (dissent discussing standards of review in dependency proceedings)