Court: Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama; January 25, 2018; Alabama; State Appellate Court
B.W. petitions for a writ of mandamus to compel the Mobile Juvenile Court to dismiss an action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction regarding paternity. The court denies the petition. B.W. gave birth to A.E. on November 3, 2015, and both she and A.L.E. signed a paternity acknowledgment form, which was submitted to the Alabama Center for Health Statistics. The form did not indicate whether genetic testing was performed. On July 18, 2016, A.L.E. filed a complaint in juvenile court to establish paternity, seek custody, and request child support. B.W. responded, labeling A.L.E. as the "putative father." On October 23, 2017, B.W. moved to dismiss the case, arguing that A.L.E.'s paternity was already established, thus the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction. The juvenile court conducted a hearing and denied the motion on November 17, 2017, imposing a sanction on B.W. for failing to respond to discovery. Following this, B.W. filed her petition for a writ of mandamus and motions to stay proceedings.
B.W. claims the acknowledgment form definitively established paternity, thereby eliminating the juvenile court's subject-matter jurisdiction. The court explains that subject-matter jurisdiction pertains to a court's authority to hear certain types of cases. According to Alabama law, juvenile courts have original jurisdiction over proceedings to establish parentage and related issues such as custody and support. The court concludes that statutory provisions grant the juvenile court the necessary jurisdiction in this case under the Alabama Uniform Parentage Act.
The juvenile court had subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the case initiated by A.L.E. B.W. contends that the acknowledgment of paternity form executed between the parties established A.L.E.'s paternity prior to this action, thus negating the juvenile court's jurisdiction. According to Alabama Code § 26-17-102(7), "determination of parentage" requires either a valid acknowledgment of paternity or a court adjudication. Further, § 26-17-201(b) indicates that a father-child relationship can be established through an effective acknowledgment unless it has been rescinded or challenged.
For a valid acknowledgment of paternity, as outlined in § 26-17-302(a), several requirements must be met, including notarization, specific statements regarding the child's presumed father status, genetic testing results, and an understanding of the legal implications of the acknowledgment. In this case, the acknowledgment form lacked a declaration about genetic testing, failing to meet all statutory requirements. Consequently, B.W. could not prove that a parent-child relationship had been established before A.L.E. filed the paternity action, referencing F.C. v. S.J.M., which held that an acknowledgment not properly filed does not legally establish paternity.
The court deemed further discussion on jurisdiction unnecessary, denying B.W.'s petition for a writ of mandamus and motion to stay as moot. The court noted that while B.W.'s petition was filed beyond the 14-day period post the order denying her motion to dismiss, such a delay does not affect the consideration of jurisdictional challenges, as established in Ex parte K.R. Ultimately, the court recognized B.W.'s jurisdictional argument despite the untimeliness of her petition.
