188 So. 3d 675
Ala. Civ. App.2015Background
- T.N. and C.N. (foster/pre-adoptive caregivers) obtained a probate-court judgment on May 8, 2014, granting their petition to adopt S.B.; this probate judgment was later reversed by this court in a separate opinion.
- The Montgomery Juvenile Court had earlier entered an April 21, 2014 judgment (in a dependency proceeding initiated by D.C.) granting custody of the child to D.C.; that judgment was amended postjudgment on May 16, 2014.
- After the probate adoption judgment, the child’s guardian ad litem moved in juvenile court for a temporary restraining order to enjoin T.N. and C.N. from enforcing the probate adoption; the juvenile court entered and then extended a TRO (later characterized as a preliminary injunction) without T.N. and C.N. having been parties to the juvenile dependency case.
- T.N. and C.N. filed a petition for writ of mandamus with this court, later treated as an appeal challenging (1) the juvenile court’s injunctive orders restraining them from enforcing the probate adoption and (2) the juvenile court’s custody judgment granting D.C. custody (alleging lack of notice/standing).
- This court had already reversed the probate-court adoption judgment in a separate opinion (I.B. v. T.N.), which directly affected the basis for the juvenile-court injunctive relief.
- The juvenile court never ruled on T.N. and C.N.’s May 7, 2014 postjudgment motion seeking relief from the April 21 juvenile-court custody judgment; T.N. and C.N. were nonparties in the dependency action and did not move to intervene under Rule 24.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether juvenile court had authority to enjoin T.N. and C.N. from enforcing the probate adoption judgment | Juvenile court lacked authority to restrain enforcement of probate adoption and lost jurisdiction after probate adoption | Juvenile court acted to protect child pending resolution of custody issues | Moot — court reversed probate adoption in separate appeal, so injunction challenge dismissed as moot |
| Whether juvenile court’s May 20 order was a preliminary injunction entered without notice/hearing | May 20 order converted TRO into preliminary injunction without notice or hearing, violating Rule 65(a)/(b) | Juvenile court extended injunctive relief for good cause; used to protect child | Moot — basis for injunction (the probate adoption judgment) was eliminated by reversal; appellate court instructs juvenile court to vacate May 20 order as moot |
| Whether T.N. and C.N. may obtain Rule 60(b) relief (voidness) from the juvenile-court custody judgment because they lacked notice | April 21 custody judgment is void for lack of notice to foster/pre-adoptive parents under § 12-15-307 and thus subject to Rule 60(b)(4) relief | T.N. and C.N. were nonparties, not in care at time of dependency proceeding, and lacked standing to seek Rule 60(b) relief | Dismissed — T.N. and C.N. lacked standing to file Rule 60(b) relief in that juvenile action; their May 7 motion is a nullity and no ruling exists for appeal |
| Whether appeal should proceed despite intervening events | Seek review of injunction and custody order | Respondent relies on mootness and lack of standing; events (reversal of probate adoption) remove justiciable controversy | Appeal dismissed for mootness as to injunctive issues and for lack of standing as to custody/Rule 60(b) relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte A.M.P., 997 So.2d 1008 (Ala. 2008) (adoption proceedings are within probate court’s exclusive original jurisdiction absent transfer)
- B.C. v. Cullman Cnty. Dep’t of Human Res., 169 So.3d 1059 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015) (juvenile court cannot enjoin nonparties from pursuing probate adoption)
- J.A.W. v. G.H., 72 So.3d 1254 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011) (proper appellate vehicle to challenge injunctive orders affecting nonparties is appeal)
- Funliner of Alabama, L.L.C. v. Pickard, 873 So.2d 198 (Ala. 2003) (notice to adverse party before issuing a preliminary injunction is mandatory)
- South Alabama Gas Dist. v. Knight, 138 So.3d 971 (Ala. 2013) (events after injunction may render appeal moot)
- Ex parte Overton, 985 So.2d 423 (Ala. 2007) (standing is part of subject-matter jurisdiction and may be raised at any time)
- L.C.S. v. J.N.F., 941 So.2d 973 (Ala. Civ. App. 2005) (appellate review may be affected by intervening decisions)
- Young’s Realty, Inc. v. Brabham, 896 So.2d 581 (Ala. Civ. App. 2004) (appeal is dismissible when intervening events eliminate a justiciable controversy)
- Employees of the Montgomery Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t v. Marshall, 893 So.2d 326 (Ala. 2004) (appeal from injunction may be dismissed if subsequent events render the controversy moot)
- Davis v. Alabama Educ. Ass’n, 92 So.3d 737 (Ala. 2012) (when grounds for injunction cease to exist, injunction may be set aside or altered)