M.L.R. v. M.C.M.
| Decision Date | 30 September 2022 |
| Docket Number | CL-2022-0587 |
| Parties | M.L.R. v. M.C.M. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Appeal from Talladega Juvenile Court (JU-19-87.02)
M.L.R appeals from a judgment of the Talladega Juvenile Court ("the juvenile court") purporting to terminate his parental rights to T.M.R. ("the child"). Because the record on appeal does not affirmatively indicate that M.L.R. is the legal father of the child and, therefore, does not affirmatively indicate that the juvenile court had subject-matter jurisdiction to terminate M.L.R.'s parental rights to the child, we dismiss the appeal with instructions.
In September 2020, M.C.M. ("the custodian") filed a complaint in the juvenile court alleging that she had been awarded custody of the child, that A.C.T. ("the mother") is the "natural and legal mother" of the child, that M.L.R. is the "natural and legal father" of the child, that M.L.R. was incarcerated, that the custodian had commenced a proceeding in the Probate Court of Talladega County ("the probate court") seeking to adopt the child, that the mother had executed a written consent to the custodian's adopting the child, and that there were grounds for terminating the parental rights of the mother and M.L.R. As relief, the complaint sought a judgment terminating the parental rights of the mother and M.L.R. to the child. The juvenile court appointed separate counsel to represent the mother and M.L.R.
The juvenile court tried the action on August 27, 2021. M.L.R.'s counsel appeared in person, and M.L.R. appeared by telephone from a federal prison where he was serving a prison sentence imposed after he had been convicted of the crime of possessing a firearm after having been convicted of a felony. He said that, in 2016, the Talladega Circuit Court ("the circuit court") had convicted him of three felonies: theft of property in the first degree receiving stolen property in the first degree, and felony obstruction of justice. He testified that the circuit court had then sentenced him to a term of incarceration in an Alabama prison. He was released on parole from the Alabama prison in August 2017. He was still on parole when the child was born in December 2018 and when he was arrested on April 5, 2019, on the charge of possessing a firearm after having been convicted of a felony. He testified that he was scheduled to transition from federal prison to a halfway house on December 22, 2021, and that his sentence was scheduled to end on April 26, 2022.
M.L.R. testified that he had placed the child in the care of the custodian three days after the child's birth in December 2018 because, he said, the mother was not capable of caring for the child and because, he said, he was still on parole for his 2016 felony convictions. During his testimony, none of the parties or their counsel asked M.L.R. whether he was the biological father of the child, whether he was married to the mother when the child was born, whether the mother was married to some other man when the child was born, or whether he had been adjudicated the legal father of the child. Moreover, no party introduced any documentary evidence addressing those issues.
M.L.R. testified that, before his incarceration in April 2019, approximately three months after the child's birth, he had provided the custodian with some diapers and clothes for the child and $60 to $80 in cash for the support of the child. He testified that he had not provided any clothes or financial support for the child since his incarceration in April 2019. He testified that he had visited the child in person several times during the three-month period before his incarceration and that, after his incarceration in April 2019, he had stayed in contact with the child by telephone until the custodian stopped accepting the charges for his telephone calls from prison.
M.L.R. testified that he had no complaints about the way the custodian was caring for the child but that he did not want his parental rights terminated because, he said, he thought a child should have a father in his life.
The custodian testified in person at the trial. She confirmed that the father had placed the child in her care three days after the child's birth and that she had cared for the child ever since. She testified that, sometime after M.L.R. had placed the child in her care in December 2018, the juvenile court had awarded her custody of the child. She said that she loved the child and that she wanted to adopt him to give him a permanent and stable home.
On September 28, 2021, the juvenile court entered a judgment that terminated the parental rights of the mother and purported to terminate the parental rights of M.L.R. to the child. That judgment did not, however, include a disposition regarding the permanent legal custody of the child, as required by § 12-15-320(b), Ala. Code 1975. M.L.R. filed what purported to be a Rule 59, Ala. R. Civ. P., motion challenging the September 28, 2021, judgment, which the trial court denied. M.L.R. then appealed to this court. On February 17, 2022, this court dismissed the appeal as being from a nonfinal judgment because the trial court's September 28, 2021, judgment had not included a disposition regarding the permanent legal custody of the child. See S.H. v. Macon Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 195 So.3d 311 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015). This court issued its certificate of judgment regarding the dismissal of that appeal on March 8, 2022.
On April 20, 2022, the juvenile court entered an amended judgment terminating the mother's parental rights to the child, purporting to terminate the parental rights of M.L.R. to the child, and vesting the custodian with permanent legal custody of the child. That same day, M.L.R. filed a notice of appeal to this court.
M.L.R. contends that the juvenile court did not have jurisdiction to terminate his parental rights to the child because, he says, the record does not contain any evidence indicating that he is the legal father of the child. In J.R.C. v. Mobile County Department of Human Resources, 342 So.3d 580 (Ala. Civ. App. 2021), this court held that the Alabama Juvenile Justice Act ("the AJJA"), § 12-15-101 et seq., Ala. Code 1975, authorizes a juvenile court to terminate the parental rights of a child's legal mother and legal father if clear and convincing evidence establishes that there are grounds for the termination. We further held that the AJJA does not authorize a juvenile court to terminate the parental rights of a man who is merely an alleged father or putative father of the child.
The record in the present case indicates that all the parties and the juvenile court assumed that M.L.R. is the legal father of the child, but no party introduced any evidence indicating that he is the legal father of the child. The record contains no evidence indicating that M.L.R. was ever married to the mother, that he had taken the child into his home and held him out as his child, that he...
To continue reading
Request your trial