K.C.C. v. C.D.C. (Ex parte Autauga Cnty. Dep't of Human Res.)
| Decision Date | 24 August 2021 |
| Docket Number | 2200797, 2200798, 2200799 and 2200800 |
| Parties | EX PARTE AUTAUGA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES et al. (In re: K.C.C. v. C.D.C.) Ex parte Autauga County Department of Human Resources et al. (In re: Autauga County Department of Human Resources v. K.C.C. and C.D.C.) |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Steve Marshall, att'y gen., and Felicia M. Brooks, chief legal counsel, and Jonathan S. Schlenker and Joshua J. Lane, asst. att'ys gen., Department of Human Resources, for petitioners Autauga County Department of Human Resources, Commissioner Nancy Buckner, and Serena Cronier.
Jim T. Norman III, Prattville, for respondent K.C.C.; and Stephen M. Langham, Prattville, for respondent C.D.C.
The Autauga County Department of Human Resources ("DHR"); Nancy Buckner, the commissioner of the Alabama Department of Human Resources ("State DHR"); and Serena Cronier, counsel for DHR (hereinafter referred to collectively as "the petitioners"), petition this court for writs of mandamus directing the Autauga Circuit Court ("the trial court") to vacate its June 28, 2021, order, purportedly entered in multiple actions, requiring the petitioners to appear at a contempt hearing. This court consolidated the petitions ex mero motu.
The materials submitted to this court reveal the followings facts and procedural history. Three children, all of whom are still minors, were born of the marriage of K.C.C. ("the mother") and C.D.C. ("the father"). The mother initiated case number DR-19-900179 ("the divorce action") in the trial court in September 2019. On November 4, 2019, the trial court entered an order noting that the father was in jail, awarding pendente lite custody of the mother's and the father's children ("the children") to the mother, and ordering that the father have no contact with the mother or the children pending further order of that court.
On November 9, 2020, DHR initiated in the Autauga Juvenile Court ("the juvenile court) three actions ("the .01 actions") alleging that the children were dependent and seeking an award of custody of the children. Specifically, DHR alleged that the mother had attended a party at which gunfire had erupted and, as a result, the mother's car window had been broken. DHR further alleged that, at the time of the party, the children were with the father, in violation of the no-contact order issued by the trial court. We note that the judge in the divorce action is not the same judge that is presiding over the actions in the juvenile court. On November 17, 2020, the juvenile court entered orders in the .01 actions awarding DHR pendente lite custody of the children, noting that a safety plan had previously been implemented by DHR regarding the children and that there were concerns about domestic-violence, weapons, and drug use in the mother's home. Also, additional actions pertaining to the children were initiated in the juvenile court. Three .02 actions are referenced in the materials submitted to this court, and the children's paternal grandfather initiated .03 actions in the juvenile court. Very little information pertaining to the .02 and the .03 actions is included in the materials before this court. Regardless, the existence of those .02 and .03 actions does not impact the issues before this court or its resolution of these petitions for a writ of mandamus.
On November 16, 2020, DHR filed in the divorce action a notice to the trial court informing that court that it had pendente lite custody of the parents’ three children and that there was an open investigation pertaining to the safety and welfare of the children.
On January 10, 2021, the juvenile court entered orders in the .01 actions in which it awarded custody of the children to D.J., the children's maternal grandfather, "with DHR maintaining protective supervision." In those orders, the juvenile court stated that "DHR announced that it was not ready for an adjudicatory hearing, and upon further information, the Court was informed that in almost two months, DHR has failed to provide any services or take any action to reunify and reunite and/or preserve the family." Based on that finding, the juvenile court ordered that the court-appointed special advocate and the children's guardian ad litem monitor the children weekly. In addition, among other things, the juvenile court's orders set forth counseling and drug-testing requirements for the mother and the father and scheduled the matters for a hearing.
The trial court, on January 21, 2021, entered an order in the divorce action that maintained the no-contact order between the father and the mother; however, in that January 21, 2021, order, the trial court set aside that part of the earlier no-contact order that had prohibited the father's contact with the children.
On January 29, 2021, the mother filed in the .01 actions a motion for the immediate return of the children to her custody. In that motion, the mother alleged that the children had been removed from her custody without notice in November 2020 during a review hearing concerning another child, R.J., of whom the mother had had temporary custody. The materials before us do not demonstrate whether, or how, R.J. is related to the family. The mother disputed that the children were dependent and noted that the juvenile court had made no dependency findings in its January 10, 2021, orders awarding custody of the children to the children's maternal grandfather.1 The maternal grandfather and A.J., the children's maternal grandmother, filed affidavits in support of the mother's motion for the immediate return of custody of the children.
On February 2, 2021, the juvenile court entered an order in at least one of the .01 actions directing DHR to respond to the mother's January 29, 2021, motion and stating that, unless good cause was shown, it would dismiss the .01 actions to allow the trial court to address the issue of child custody in the divorce action.2 On February 9, 2021, the juvenile court entered orders in the .01 actions finding that there was no basis for it to exercise emergency jurisdiction and that the children were not dependent; therefore, it dismissed the .01 actions. Those dismissal orders stated that, "[a]lthough this Court has attempted to assist this family through counseling and entered Orders to ensure the safety of the children, it appears this matter must be finalized in court."
The materials submitted to this court contain a May 26, 2021, safety plan describing the mother and the father as "dangerous as evidenced by the domestic-violence history between" them. Pursuant to that safety plan, the children were to live with their maternal grandparents and the mother and the father were to have supervised visits with the children. That safety plan was signed by the mother, the maternal grandfather, and DHR social workers.
On that same date, DHR filed a notice of limited appearance in the divorce action to inform the trial court of the safety plan, of its concerns about drug use by the mother and the father and domestic violence between them, and of its belief that the children would not be safe in either parent's home. DHR pointed out the existence of the January 21, 2021, no-contact order entered by the trial court, and it alleged that the mother and the father had resumed their relationship and were representing to others that they were married, which, DHR argued, violated the trial court's January 21, 2021, no-contact order. Apparently as evidence of that assertion, DHR has included in the materials submitted to this court a photograph of a social-media platform page in which the father posted that he "got married" on "May 22." It does not appear, however, that DHR submitted that evidence in support of its notice of limited appearance filed in the divorce action. In its notice of limited appearance, DHR also stated that it would be initiating new dependency actions pertaining to the children.
One hour after DHR filed its May 26, 2021, notice of limited appearance, the mother and the father filed in the divorce action a settlement agreement in which, among other things, they agreed that the mother would have "primary physical" custody of the children and that the father would have supervised visitation with the children. On May 27, 2021, the trial court entered a judgment in the divorce action in which it incorporated the terms of the settlement agreement.
On June 3, 2021, the mother and the father filed in the trial court a joint motion to enforce the custody provisions of the May 27, 2021, divorce judgment and to "quash" the DHR safety plan. It does not appear, however, that the mother and the father initiated a new action in the juvenile court to file a motion to quash in that court. DHR responded by filing in the trial court another notice of limited appearance in which it asserted, among other things, that the mother had not been truthful when she testified that she had had no contact with the father and had not admitted to that contact until she was confronted, in court, with photographic evidence indicating that the mother and the father had had contact. DHR reiterated its concerns about domestic violence between the mother and the father and the resumption of their relationship. The trial court scheduled that motion for a hearing on June 21, 2021.
On June 22, 2021, DHR initiated in the juvenile court new dependency actions pertaining to the children; those actions are hereinafter referred to as "the .04 actions." In the .04 actions, DHR alleged that the mother and the father had a lengthy history of domestic violence, that the father had attacked the mother when the children were present, and that the mother had been seriously injured as a result of that attack. It further maintained that the mother had not been truthful about her relationship with the father and that she had withdrawn her consent to the May 2021 safety plan. The juvenile court entered orders in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial