G.M. v. T.W.

Citations: 75 So. 3d 1181; 2011 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 175; 2011 WL 2657805Docket: 2100273

Court: Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama; July 8, 2011; Alabama; State Appellate Court

Lead Opinion SummaryLead Opinion OriginalConcurrence Opinion Original

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

In March 2009, T.W. and D.W. filed a dependency petition in the Jefferson Juvenile Court seeking custody of their deceased relatives' child, Z.M.S. The court granted them emergency temporary custody, confirmed by a referee. In April 2009, Z.M.S.'s maternal great-grandparents, G.M. and P.M., intervened and petitioned for custody. The juvenile court declared Z.M.S. dependent and awarded custody to the maternal aunt and uncle while granting the great-grandparents visitation rights based on an agreement. An amended judgment for holiday visitation was entered on November 19, 2009. The maternal aunt and uncle later adopted Z.M.S., with the adoption judgment issued on July 14, 2010.

In November 2010, the great-grandparents filed a contempt complaint against the aunt and uncle for failing to honor the visitation rights from the September 2009 judgment and sought additional visitation. The aunt and uncle moved to dismiss, claiming the great-grandparents lacked standing for grandparent visitation under Ala.Code 1975, 30-3-4.1, as established in L.R.M. v. D.M., which ruled that great-grandparents had no such rights. They also filed a "Motion to Alter or Amend" the September 4, 2009, judgment, effectively seeking relief under Rule 60(b) of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure. The great-grandparents countered, asserting that the juvenile court had the authority to grant visitation under its dependency jurisdiction, which allowed for orders deemed in the child's best interest, and that the visitation agreement should be enforced.

On December 6, 2010, the juvenile court dismissed the maternal great-grandparents’ contempt/modification complaint and the maternal aunt and uncle’s motion regarding a September 4, 2009 judgment, citing a lack of jurisdiction. The court asserted that the time for filing a postjudgment motion had expired and referenced Ex parte T.C., which mandated that modification petitions regarding custody or visitation be filed with the domestic-relations court. However, the actual scope of Ex parte T.C. is narrower than the juvenile court interpreted. The appellate court clarified that under Ala. Code 1975, 12-15-117(a), a juvenile court retains jurisdiction over a child previously adjudicated as dependent, delinquent, or in need of supervision until the child turns 21, unless the court explicitly terminates that jurisdiction. The court noted that 12-15-117(a) does not restrict a juvenile court’s jurisdiction to only cases where the child is again alleged to be dependent. 

Despite the appellate court disagreeing with the juvenile court's jurisdictional dismissal of the maternal great-grandparents’ complaint, it concluded that the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction to enforce or modify the September 4, 2009 judgment. This judgment stemmed from a prior settlement in a dependency case that awarded custody to the maternal aunt and uncle and visitation rights to the maternal great-grandparents, while also relieving the Jefferson County Department of Human Resources from further supervision. Following this, the juvenile court indicated a closure of the case, which typically would terminate its jurisdiction over the child.

The juvenile court terminated its jurisdiction under 12-15-117(a) by closing its file and indicating no further compliance or hearings were anticipated. When the parties attempted to invoke the court's jurisdiction a year later, the court ruled that the time to amend the closed case had expired, directing them to the domestic-relations court for visitation disputes. Despite potential misapplication of the law, the court's actions from November 13, 2009, onward demonstrated a clear intent to cease adjudicating custody disputes, including visitation issues. Consequently, the court properly dismissed the maternal great-grandparents' action due to lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and both parties’ requests for attorney fees on appeal were denied, leading to an affirmation of the lower court's decision. Notably, previous visitation agreements were made by the maternal great-grandparents but did not stem from the unconstitutional Section 30-3-4.1. The court clarified that a Rule 60(b) motion could be filed post-judgment, and while the maternal aunt and uncle did not appeal the dismissal of their Rule 60(b) motion, it was acknowledged that their petition for mandamus was treated as an appeal due to the finality of the dismissal.