P.B. v. P.C.
| Decision Date | 30 June 2006 |
| Docket Number | 2050280. |
| Citation | 946 So.2d 896 |
| Parties | P.B. v. P.C. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
James D. Walker, Albertville, for appellee.
P.B. ("the father") appeals from a pendente lite order entered in a dependency and custody dispute with P.C., the maternal grandmother ("the maternal grandmother") of the father's 11-year-old child in this case, M.S.B. ("the child"). The maternal grandmother initiated this action by filing in the juvenile court on June 3, 2005, a petition seeking grandparental-visitation rights, pursuant to § 30-3-4.1, Ala. Code 1975.
The father and mother of the child in this case were previously married, but they divorced in 1997. The father was granted custody of the child, who was approximately three years old at the time of the divorce. In 2002 the mother of the child died.
The maternal grandmother testified at a June 2005 hearing that for many years following the divorce of the child's parents she was able to have a close relationship with the child. In 2004, however, the maternal grandmother's visitation with the child ceased. Evidently, the cause of the abrupt end to the maternal grandmother's visitation with the child involved the maternal grandmother's being told in the summer of 2004, by the child, that her father had sexually molested her. Following the child's statement to her, the maternal grandmother contacted the police, who in turn contacted the Alabama Department of Human Resources ("DHR"). That same day, a DHR caseworker contacted the maternal grandmother and told her to take the child to a hospital for an examination. When the maternal grandmother did so, a DHR caseworker interviewed the child and a doctor examined the child. The maternal grandmother testified that the emergency-room doctor who examined the child found no physical evidence of sexual penetration and that the DHR caseworker did not believe the child had been sexually abused.
The next day the maternal grandmother returned the child to the father by leaving her with the paternal grandmother. The maternal grandmother told the paternal grandmother about the child's allegations of abuse and the ensuing investigation. In the following months, the father did not return the maternal grandmother's telephone calls, and the child did not have any contact with the maternal grandmother.
In May 2005, a visit was arranged between the child and the maternal grandmother; during the visit, the maternal grandmother testified, she spoke to the child out of earshot from the father and paternal grandmother. According to the maternal grandmother's testimony, the child told her that she had told the truth about being abused.
At the June 2005 hearing, the father denied that he had abused the child, but he testified that the child had told him that she had told the maternal grandmother that he had sexually abused her. The father testified that he has not taken the child for any counseling after she made the allegations of abuse.
On July 31, 2005, the juvenile court determined that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the proceeding and transferred the case to circuit court. The maternal grandmother then amended her petition to allege that the child was dependent. Based upon the maternal grandmother's new allegations of dependency, the circuit court entered an order on November 9, 2005, transferring the case back to the juvenile court.
Finally, on December 14, 2005, a pendente lite hearing was held by the juvenile court. At the time of the hearing the maternal grandmother again amended her petition to comply with § 12-15-50, Ala. Code 1975, by verifying the petition before a juvenile-intake officer. Following the hearing, on December 23, 2005, the juvenile court entered a pendente lite order stating, in part:
(Emphasis added.) The juvenile court's pendente lite order also included the following instructions:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Akl v. Akl (In re Akl)
...lite orders, a petition for the writ of mandamus is the proper method for seeking appellate review of them. See P.B. v. P.C., 946 So.2d 896, 898–99 (Ala. Civ. App. 2006) ("The proper method of review of pendente lite orders is by a petition for the writ of mandamus."). Despite the requireme......
-
J.C. v. A.J. (Ex parte A.J.)
...not a final determination of custody. “[W]hether to grant a pendente lite order is in the trial court's discretion,” P.B. v. P.C., 946 So.2d 896, 898 (Ala.Civ.App.2006), and a trial court's pendente lite custody determination is based on the best interests of the child. See Ex parte Russell......
-
L.R.M. v. D.M.
...did not, of themselves, affect a change in the custodial presumption in favor of the mother as A.M.'s natural parent. See P.B. v. P.C., 946 So.2d 896 (Ala.Civ.App.2006); Sims v. Sims, 515 So.2d 1, 2-3 (Ala.Civ. The remaining issues raised by the paternal great-grandparents are whether the e......
-
Hawkins v. Pirner (Ex parte Pirner)
...9, 2020, and May 22, 2020. A petition for a writ of mandamus is an appropriate means to review pendente lite orders. P.B. v. P.C., 946 So. 2d 896, 898 (Ala. Civ. App. 2006). We apply the following standard of review to the father's petition:" ‘Mandamus is a drastic and extraordinary writ, t......