B.H. v. Tuscaloosa County Department of Human Resources

Citations: 161 So. 3d 1215; 2014 WL 341067; 2014 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 17Docket: 2120805, 2120806, and 2120807

Court: Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama; January 30, 2014; Alabama; State Appellate Court

Lead Opinion SummaryLead Opinion OriginalConcurrence Opinion AnalysisConcurrence Opinion Original

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

In November 2012, the Tuscaloosa County Department of Human Resources (DHR) filed petitions in the Tuscaloosa Juvenile Court to have the children J.M.H., I.H., and A.H. declared dependent and to obtain custody. B.H. (mother) and M.H. (father) adopted the children in 2001 and divorced in 2008, with the father receiving sole custody and the mother having no child-support obligation due to plans to terminate her parental rights, which were never formally initiated. In March 2013, the juvenile-court referee declared the children dependent and awarded custody to DHR, also scheduling a hearing for child-support obligations. The juvenile court ratified these decisions on March 19, 2013. Subsequently, on May 16, 2013, the referee reaffirmed prior findings and ordered both parents to pay child support and arrearages for April and May 2013, with ratification by the juvenile court on May 23, 2013. The mother requested a rehearing, but the juvenile court upheld the referee's decisions on June 14, 2013. The mother appealed, arguing that the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction for child-support awards, claiming they improperly modified the 2008 divorce judgment that waived her support obligation.

The mother references Ex parte M.D.C., 39 So.3d 1117 (Ala. 2009) to support her argument regarding parental rights and child support obligations. In the cited case, following a 2003 divorce, the juvenile court terminated the father's parental rights in 2005, which the DeKalb Circuit Court later denied in regard to enforcing child support. The Alabama Supreme Court reversed the appellate court's decision, clarifying that under the former Alabama Child Protection Act, a parent's obligation to provide child support remains intact despite the termination of parental rights. The court emphasized that once a child support order is entered by a circuit court, that court retains exclusive jurisdiction to modify it, preventing juvenile courts from making child support determinations in termination proceedings. The mother argues that the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction to issue child support orders, asserting that the circuit court maintained exclusive authority to modify the divorce judgment's child support terms. She contends that although the children are deemed dependent and custody awarded to DHR, child support remains a separate issue from custody. However, Alabama law indicates that exceptions exist wherein the circuit court's jurisdiction is not retained, such as when a child's immediate welfare is at stake or in dependency actions.

A circuit court generally retains exclusive jurisdiction over child custody issues arising from divorce actions unless exceptions apply: (1) when emergency circumstances threaten the child's welfare, or (2) when a separate dependency action is initiated. In this case, a dependency action filed by the Department of Human Resources (DHR) established the juvenile court's exclusive jurisdiction over custody matters concerning the children, overriding the circuit court's earlier custody determination from the divorce judgment. The juvenile court found the children dependent and awarded custody to DHR, which is consistent with its jurisdiction under Alabama law. The juvenile court also ordered child support from the mother, in accordance with Alabama’s child support guidelines. The juvenile court's judgments regarding custody and child support were valid and not modifications of the divorce judgment. The mother failed to demonstrate any lack of jurisdiction by the juvenile court regarding child support, and she did not contest her ability to contribute financially or the amount ordered. The father's lack of appeal and the mother's failure to raise certain arguments on appeal resulted in those issues being deemed waived. The court affirmed the juvenile court's decisions.