K.M. v. S.R.

Citation326 So.3d 1062
Decision Date05 November 2020
Docket Number2190472
Parties K.M. v. S.R.
CourtAlabama Court of Civil Appeals

326 So.3d 1062



Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

November 5, 2020

Alyssa L. Hawkins of Jones, Hawkins & Associates, LLC, Montgomery, for appellant.

Kelli McDaniel Day, Montgomery, for appellee.

MOORE, Judge.

K.M. ("the mother") appeals from a judgment entered by the Montgomery Juvenile Court ("the juvenile court") finding Kh.M. ("the child") dependent and awarding custody of the child to S.R. ("the custodian"). We affirm the juvenile court's judgment.

On September 23, 2019, the custodian filed in the juvenile court a petition alleging that the child was dependent and requesting custody of the child. After a trial, the juvenile court entered a judgment on February 21, 2020, adjudicating the child dependent and awarding custody of the child to the custodian. That same day, the mother filed a motion to alter, amend, or vacate the judgment, pursuant to Rule 59, Ala. R. Civ. P., and a motion for relief from the judgment, pursuant to Rule 60(b)(2), Ala. R. Civ. P. The mother argued in her Rule 59 motion that it was not in the best interest of the child to reside with the custodian and asserted various facts regarding the custodian's fitness to care for the child; she did not, however, challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the adjudication of the dependency of the child. The mother asserted in her Rule 60(b)(2) motion that she had newly discovered evidence supporting her argument that it was not in the best interest of the child to be placed with the custodian. On March 4, 2020, the mother filed her notice of appeal. Pursuant to Rule 4(a)(5), Ala. R. App. P., the mother's notice of appeal was held in abeyance pending the juvenile court's timely ruling on, or the denial by operation of law of, her Rule 59 motion challenging the February 21, 2020, judgment. See Rule 1(B), Ala. R. Juv. P. (providing that, in juvenile courts, postjudgment motions must be ruled upon within 14 days or they are deemed denied by operation of law). The juvenile court entered an order on March 9, 2020, purporting to deny both the mother's Rule 59 motion and her Rule 60(b) motion. However, as it relates to the mother's Rule 59 motion, that order was a nullity...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • T.E. v. Calhoun Cnty. Dep't of Human Res.
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • 9 Julio 2021
    ...REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, P.J., and Moore, Edwards, and Fridy, JJ., concur.--------Notes:1 Citing K.M. v. S.R., 326 So.3d 1062 (Ala. Civ. App. 2020), DHR asserts that the father failed to adequately raise, in his postjudgment motions attacking the February 4, 2021, ......
  • A.R. v. T.R.
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • 4 Noviembre 2022
  • M.L.W. v. J.W.
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • 12 Mayo 2023
  • Saucier v. Saucier
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • 5 Noviembre 2020
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT