Liedel v. Juvenile Court of Madison County, Ala.

• Decision Date: 02 March 1989
• Docket Number: No. CV 89-HM-5069-NE.,CV 89-HM-5069-NE.
• Citation: 707 F. Supp. 486
• Parties: Ronald LIEDEL and Elizabeth Liedel, Plaintiffs, v. The JUVENILE COURT OF MADISON COUNTY, ALABAMA and The Alabama Department of Human Resources, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama

707 F. Supp. 486

Ronald LIEDEL and Elizabeth Liedel, Plaintiffs, v. The JUVENILE COURT OF MADISON COUNTY, ALABAMA and The Alabama Department of Human Resources, Defendants.

No. CV 89-HM-5069-NE.

United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Northeastern Division.

March 2, 1989.

E. Ray McKee, Jr., Huntsville, Ala., for plaintiffs.

No appearance for defendants.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

HALTOM, District Judge.

The above entitled civil action brought by plaintiffs Ronald Liedel and Elizabeth Liedel against defendants The Juvenile Court of Madison County, Alabama and The Alabama Department of Human Resources on February 14, 1989 and dismissed by this Court that same date without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is before the Court once again upon MOTION TO ALTER, AMEND OR VACATE JUDGMENT¹ filed by plaintiffs on February 23, 1989 pursuant to Rule 59(e), Fed.R.Civ.P.

The Court has carefully reviewed plaintiffs' Rule 59(e) motion and attachments thereto and has further re-visited plaintiffs' complaint and re-analyzed its allegations.

On December 1, 1987 the Madison County, Alabama Department of Human Resources through one of its social workers filed verified Petition in the Juvenile Court of Madison County, Alabama in that certain cause entitled "In the Matter of Charles Sullivan, a child" and designated JV 87-1381. The Petition alleged: 1 That the address of the child was 2703 Woodview Drive, Huntsville, Alabama 35801; 2 that the child's father was unknown; 3 that the child's mother was Elizabeth Lidell of the same address as the child; and 4 that the guardianship custody, control and supervision of the child was vested in the mother. The Petition further alleged that the child was dependent in that

the Department has received four founded reports of abuse, both physical and emotional, regarding this child since March, 1987. The stepfather, Ronald Lidell, has physically and emotionally abused this child on several occasions, the most recent of which occurred on or about Monday, November 30, 1987, when it was reported to the Department that the stepfather twisted the child's arm and squeezed his hand so hard it left bruises.

Apparently the child is a slow learner and the stepfather consistently refers to him as "Retard". The stepfather also sets unrealistic and unattainable goals for the child and the child is punished when these goals are not met. The child has been punished for leaving a scrap of paper on the floor, for raking the leaves in the yard the wrong way, and for not achieving straight A's on his report cards.

The Petition contained the following prayer for relief:

1 that the Court appoint a Guardian ad Litem, who is an attorney, to represent the said child; and that summons issue pursuant to law and rules of Court to the said child and to the said parents, guardian, or other custodian, and such other persons as appear to the Court to be proper or necessary parties to the proceedings, requiring them to appear personally before the Court at the time fixed to answer or testify as to the allegations herein.

2 that the Court grant temporary custody of the said child to the Madison Count sic DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES and that the Court grant such additional relief as the needs of justice may require for the best interests of the said child; and

3 that the Court will grant temporary custody of the said child to the Madison County DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES and that the Court grant relief to this Department by ordering the parent(s) to contribute to the cost of said child's care and grant such additional relief as the needs of justice may require for the best interest of the said child.

On the same day the Petition above referenced was filed the Circuit Court Clerk in and for Madison County, Alabama issues preprinted NOTIFICATION TO RIGHT TO COUNSEL in the above styled juvenile proceeding In Re: The Matter of Charles Sullivan addressed to Elizabeth Lidell at the address above set out which notified Elizabeth Lidell as follows:

You are hereby notified that there is a juvenile dependency case in progress which involves your rights in regard to your children. Pursuant to Code of Alabama, Section 12-14-63, you as the parent, guardian or custodian of the above referenced children, have the right to be represented by counsel and are further given notice as follows:

1. You have the absolute right to be represented by an attorney in this case.

2. Your children will be represented by a guardian ad litem who is a licensed attorney. Your children's attorney does not represent you.

3. If you are financially unable to retain an attorney and you want to be represented by an attorney, one will be appointed for you without charge. Should you desire to have an attorney appointed, please see Mr. Billy D. Harbin, Circuit Court Clerk; Madison County Courthouse, Huntsville, Alabama.

Temporary Custody Hearing was set on the Petition for January 5, 1988 at 2:00 p.m.

On December 16, 1988 the Madison County Department of Human Resources filed Motion For Psychological Examination in the above styled cause moving the Court to order a psychological examination of Ronald Liedell, the stepfather of the child, alleging in support thereof the following:

1. The Petition of the Department alleges that the step-father, Mr. Ronald Liedell, has physically and emotionally abused the above named child and that he has exhibited inappropriate and strange methods and reasons for enforcing discipline on his step-child.

2. The Department has requested Mr. Liedell to submit to a psychological examination and counseling, if necessary, and Mr. Liedell has agreed to submit to such examination but has not yet done so.

3. The Department has arranged an appointment date for the psychological examination of Mr. Liedell on Tuesday, December 22, 1987, at 1:00 o'clock p.m. before Dr. Steven Guerin, or other licensed psychologist, at the SouthPark Clinic, 7501 Memorial Parkway SW, Huntsville, Alabama (882-0317).

4. A Temporary Custody Hearing has been set on the Petition filed by the Department for January 5, 1988, at 2:00 p.m. Any further delay in the obtaining of the psychological examination of him is the best evidence to determine Mr. Liedell's fitness to continue as the custodian of the child and to determine what counseling or therapy, if any, is needed by Mr. Liedell to modify his discipline and behavior to and with the child.

5. The Department further alleges that such predisposition study and report of the psychologist to the Court is relevant and necessary for proper disposition of the case.

Wherefore, the premises considered, the Madison County Department of Human Resources prays that the Court will issue it's sic Order to Mr. Ronald Liedell ordering him to appear at the SouthPark Clinic on Tuesday, December 22, 1987 at 1:00 o'clock p.m. for his examination by Dr. Steven Guerin or other licensed psychologist thereat.

Order was entered by the Juvenile Court Judge on December 16, 1988 in the above styled cause directing and requiring Ronald Liedell to appear and submit to a psychological examination on December 22, 1987 at time and place and by psychologist specified therein. Copy of Motion For Psychological Examination, accompanying Order and explanatory letter dated December 18, 1987 from legal counsel for the Madison County Department of Human Resources was served upon Ronald Liedell, 2703 Woodview Drive, Huntsville, Alabama 35801, by United States mail, postage prepaid, on or about December 19, 1987.

Affidavit of Indigency was filed in the above entitled cause by Elizabeth Liedel on January 5, 1988 and denied by the Judge of the Juvenile Court of Madison County, Alabama on the same date for the following entered reasons: "Denied based on incomplete and inaccurate information given by applicant."

Guardian Ad Litem was appointed for the child by the Juvenile Court of Madison County, Alabama on January 2, 1988.

By order entered on January 11, 1988 this juvenile court proceeding was set for further hearing on January 26, 1988 at 9:00 A.M.

The above styled cause came on to be heard in the Juvenile Court of Madison County, Alabama on January 26, 1988. Present for the hearing were: Elizabeth Liedel, the mother of the child; Ronald Liedel, the step-father of the child; Charles Sullivan, the child, with his guardian ad-litem Lynn Sherrod a practicing and duly licensed attorney; and Margaret Milde of the Madison County Department of Human Resources represented by Attorney L. Thomas Ryan, Jr.

Following presentation of evidence at such hearing and on January 26, 1988 the Juvenile Court of Madison County, Alabama entered order reading and providing as follows:

Prior to the hearing of this case on January 5, 1988, the court, in open court, explained to Elizabeth Liedel, the mother of said child, her rights to legal counsel in this cause, including the right to appointed counsel if she was unable to afford the same. The court's examination of the said Elizabeth Liedel on this point is a part of the records of these proceedings. The court declined to appoint counsel based upon what the court perceived to be incomplete and inaccurate information given by the said Elizabeth Liedel under the instructions of her husband, Ronald Liedel who was present at the time. It is the judgment of the court that Ronald Liedel, by his appearance in court and by his participation in these proceedings, has made himself a party to these proceedings. In fact, the court makes the observation that Ronald Liedel vitually sic assumed the role of legal counsel for his wife in this case and by his own actions assumed the role of a party. He is, therefore, bound by the terms of this order.

Before proceeding to hear testimony in this cause the court explained the nature of the proceedings, the burden of proof, and the rights of the parties to those present. The court finds that it has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this case and that all parties are

...