H.A.A. v. B.J.J.
| Decision Date | 10 June 2022 |
| Docket Number | 2200928 |
| Parties | H.A.A. v. B.J.J. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
H.A.A.
v.
B.J.J.
No. 2200928
Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
June 10, 2022
Appeal from Colbert Juvenile Court (JU-21-83.01)
PER CURIAM
H.A.A. ("the biological father") appeals from a judgment of the Colbert Juvenile Court ("the juvenile court") terminating his parental rights to T.A.A. ("the child"), the child born of his nonmarital relationship
with B.J.J. ("the mother"). For the reasons set forth herein, we conclude that the juvenile court acted outside its statutory authority when it purported to terminate the biological father's parental rights, and, as a result, we dismiss the appeal as arising from a void judgment.
Background
On March 29, 2021, the mother filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of the biological father to the child. The child was almost eleven years old at that time. In her petition, the mother alleged that the child was born in Georgia and that, when the child was eight months old, the mother fled from her relationship with the biological father and relocated to Alabama. She further alleged that, during their relationship, the biological father had abused alcohol and had been unable to care for the child's needs. The mother acknowledged in her petition that the biological father had filed a petition to establish paternity, custody, and child support in the Colbert Juvenile Court.[1] She alleged that the biological father had failed to maintain contact with the child, and she further alleged that the child did not know the biological father. She
stated in her petition that she had begun a relationship with J.D.J. ("the stepfather") when the child was eighteen months old and that they had married. She alleged that the stepfather holds the child out as his child and that he wants to adopt her. She also alleged that, because of his lack of contact with the child, the biological father had voluntarily abandoned the child. In addition, she alleged, the biological father had failed to provide for the child's material needs and had failed to pay child support. She sought a judgment terminating the biological father's parental rights.
The biological father filed an answer in which, among other things, he denied the material allegations of the mother's petition and alleged that he had attempted numerous times to reconnect with the mother and the child. He alleged that he did not have an accurate address for the mother and the child until shortly before he filed his paternity petition, having previously searched for years to locate them. The juvenile court held a hearing on the mother's petition on July 22, 2021. The testimony and documents received into evidence reveal the following pertinent facts.
The biological father and the mother resided in Georgia when they began their relationship around 2008. At that time, the mother was married to a different man. She continued to be married to that other man when, in 2010, the child was born. It is undisputed that, despite her marriage to the other man, the biological father is the biological father of the child.
Near the end of 2010, and contrary to allegations in the mother's petition, the parties relocated with the child to Alabama. The mother testified that the reason they moved to Alabama was so that she could be closer to her friends and family because the biological father had not been helping to provide for her and the child. According to the mother, although the biological father worked, he would never bring home a paycheck.
The mother testified that, when they first moved back to Alabama, the mother and the child lived with a childhood friend of the mother's for two or three months and that the biological father would visit them. The mother described her relationship with the biological father at that time as "on and off" and not as serious as it had been when they had lived together in Georgia. The biological father testified that he had actually
lived with the mother and the child while they were staying with her friend.
After the mother (or both parties) and the child lived with the mother's childhood friend for two or three months, the mother and the biological father moved with the child to a home in Decatur, where they lived for a few months. They then moved with the child to a home in Trinity.
The mother and the biological father ended their relationship in October 2011. According to the biological father, while they lived in Trinity, he did not have a job for a couple of months because the mother had asked him to stay home with the child. However, because of their financial situation, the biological father testified, he agreed to go back to work and secured a job as a truck driver, an industry in which he had worked for several years. He testified that the day after he left for Nashville, Tennessee, to begin the job, the mother contacted him and told him not to come back. Later that year, the biological father's former wife, who lived in North Carolina, had a stroke, and the biological father began staying with her to help take care of the son that he had had with his former wife.
Thereafter, the mother obtained a job in Hartselle and moved with the child into a townhouse there. The last time the biological father saw the child was right after her first birthday party, when he came to the townhouse to retrieve the last of his belongings. The mother lived in the townhouse in Hartselle for at least a year and a half.
In an email dated January 6, 2012, the biological father accused the mother of lying to him about not having a telephone, accused her of trying to keep him from having a relationship with the child, and ended the email by threatening to file a lawsuit against her. The biological father did not, however, follow through on his threat to sue the mother. Instead, the parties continued to have contact with each other over the phone in an attempt to establish whether the biological father wanted to pay child support and whether he wanted to be in the child's life.
On March 13, 2012, the mother sent an email to the biological father in which she set forth the terms of a custody and child-support arrangement that they had apparently worked out through conversations on the phone. In pertinent part, she wrote:
"Per our conversation we have agreed to only have contact with each other when it pertains to [the child] and her well being.
"As of today, March 13, 2012, we have agreed for you to pay $50.00 a week in child support starting this Friday 3/16/12.
"When you want to establish visitation I ask that you give me at least a 72 to 48 hour notice that you are coming into town.
"We have also agreed that you will stay in the area of our home town when you are visiting [the child]. There will be no out of town visitation at this time due to [the child]'s age.
"Our agreement as of today as far as contact with each other will be done only by phone on our set days and time of contact.
"We will have no email, text or any other contact with each other with the exception of the scheduled phone calls two to three times a week to let you know how [the child] is doing for the week as far as daycare, sickness etc. is concerned."
Despite this email, the biological father neither paid the mother any child support nor contacted the mother with notice that he would be coming into town to exercise visitation with the child. According to the mother, although the biological father had agreed to the terms set forth in the email, he never complied with them.
Regarding visitation and child support, the biological father testified that he did not agree with what he called the mother's "demands." Although he said that he had had no problem with paying the $50-per-week child support, or with any of the other provisions in the email, he said that the mother had demanded in a phone conversation
that she be around while he exercised his visitation with the child and that he had not agreed to that. The email itself, however, does not reflect that "demand."
Around the time the mother and the biological father ended their relationship in October 2011, the mother met the stepfather. In 2012, she moved into his house, which was located in Sheffield ("the Sheffield home"). The mother had no contact with the biological father following that move, although she claimed that she received an envelope at the Sheffield home that she believed was from him. The envelope contained only a picture of a donkey and a tube of red lipstick. The mother admitted that there was no return address on the envelope.
The mother and the stepfather married in 2013, and they remained at the Sheffield home for four years. The mother began work as an insurance agent, and the stepfather was employed at a construction company that, by the time of the hearing, he had worked for almost thirty years. The mother and the stepfather have one child together, who, at the time of the hearing, was six years old.
The biological father testified that the mother's March 13, 2012, email to him was her last communication with him. He said that he had
tried to call and email her after that but that she had not responded to him. He said that the last address he had for her was her townhouse in Hartselle.
The biological father said that he had tried to locate the mother by reaching out to two of her relatives on a social-media platform. The messages he sent were admitted into evidence at the hearing. The biological father also found the stepfather's profile on a social-media platform and sent him a message through that platform in 2015. The biological father testified that, although he told the stepfather in the message that he had "lost" his address, he did not ever have the address. The biological father said that he was not able to locate a profile of the mother on social media.
The biological father never reached out to...
To continue reading
Request your trial