In re P.J.
Decision Date | 03 May 2019 |
Docket Number | 2180351,2180350 |
Citation | 289 So.3d 1255 |
Parties | EX PARTE T.J. (In re: In the Matter of P.J.) |
Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Jacquelyn D. Tomlinson of Delk & Tomlinson Attorneys at Law, Montgomery, for petitioner.
T.J. ("the mother") petitions this court for writs of mandamus, challenging whether the Montgomery Juvenile Court ("the juvenile court") had jurisdiction over dependency actions involving the mother's child, P.J. ("the child"), and jurisdiction to determine a custody arrangement for the child. We grant the petitions in part and deny the petitions in part.
The materials submitted by the parties indicate the following. On May 20, 2014, D.H., Sr. ("the grandfather"), filed a complaint in the juvenile court alleging that the child was dependent and seeking custody of the child. In the complaint, the grandfather alleged that the child's parents were unable to discharge their responsibilities for the child. That complaint was assigned case number JU-14-401.01. On April 21, 2016, the grandfather obtained custody of the child through an order.1 On February 22, 2017, the mother filed a complaint in which she alleged that the child was dependent and sought custody of the child. That complaint was assigned case number JU-14-401.02. The cases initiated by the complaints were assigned to Judge Anita Kelly.
On November 8, 2017, over three years after the grandfather filed the initial complaint, a hearing was held to determine the dependency of the child. Judge Aubrey Ford, Jr., presided over the hearing held on that date.2 On December 5, 2017, Judge Ford entered an order, stating:
(Capitalization in original.)
On June 20, 2018, the juvenile court conducted another hearing with Judge Kelly presiding. During that hearing, the mother made an "oral motion"4 to dismiss the proceedings, because, she asserted, the December 5, 2017, order found that the child was not dependent. On June 21, 2018, Judge Kelly entered an order that stated, in part: On July 18, 2018, the mother filed a "Brief in Support of Oral Motion to Dismiss." The mother's brief stated, in part:
The grandfather filed a brief in opposition to the mother's motion. A hearing was held in August 2018 on the mother's motion. No transcript of that hearing has been provided to us. On October 29, 2018, and November 27, 2018, the mother filed motions asking the juvenile court to rule on her motion.
Another hearing was held on January 16, 2019. No transcript of that hearing has been provided to us. On that same date, Judge Kelly entered an order stating: 6
On January 22, 2019, the mother filed petitions for the writ of mandamus in this court. The mother seeks writs from this court ordering the juvenile court to dismiss the two dependency cases, and she also included a claim for relief seeking an order requiring the juvenile court to return custody of the child to his parents. We asked for answers to the petition. See Rule 21(b), Ala. R. App. P. Judge Kelly filed a response, but the grandfather did not respond.
"The question of subject-matter jurisdiction is reviewable by a petition for a writ of mandamus." Ex parte Liberty Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 888 So.2d 478, 480 (Ala. 2003). This court has jurisdiction to review the mother's mandamus petitions pursuant to § 12–3–11 and § 12-15-601, Ala. Code 1975, and Rule 28, Ala. R. Juv. P.
" ‘Mandamus is a drastic and extraordinary writ, to be issued only where there is (1) a clear legal right in the petitioner to the order sought; (2) an imperative duty upon the respondent to perform, accompanied by a refusal to do so; (3) the lack of another adequate remedy; and (4) properly invoked jurisdiction of the court.’ "
Ex parte Perfection Siding, Inc., 882 So.2d 307, 309–10 (Ala. 2003) (quoting Ex parte Integon Corp., 672 So.2d 497, 499 (Ala. 1995) ).
The mother contends that the juvenile court was compelled to dismiss the dependency actions because, she asserts, the juvenile court found that the child was no longer dependent in the December 5, 2017, order. "[T]his court has held that, in a dependency action, ‘[i]f a juvenile court determines that the child is not dependent, the court must dismiss the dependency petition.’ " J.A. v. C.M., 93 So.3d 953, 954 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012) (quoting K.C.G. v. S.J.R., 46 So.3d 499, 501–02 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010) ). Section 12-15-102(8)a., Ala. Code 1975, defines a "dependent child," in pertinent part, as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial- Adcock v. Fronk
-
E.W. v. Limestone Cty. Dep't of Hum. Res.
...adjudicated to be dependent."). The paternal grandfather and N.S.’s petition for custody should also be dismissed. See Ex parte T.J., 289 So. 3d 1255 (Ala. Civ. App. 2019) (holding that a juvenile court has jurisdiction to make a custodial disposition only if the child is dependent at the t......
- E.W. v. Limestone Cnty. Dep't of Human Res.