P.S.R. v. C.L.P.
Decision Date | 28 January 2011 |
Docket Number | 2091118 and 2091119. |
Citation | 67 So.3d 917 |
Parties | P.S.R.v.C.L.P. |
Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Lindsey Mussleman Davis of Holt, Mussleman, Kelly & Morgan, Florence, for appellant.
Jeffrey L. Bowling of Bedford, Rogers & Bowling, P.C., Russellville, for appellee.MOORE, Judge.
P.S.R., the paternal grandmother of A.P.P. and Cy.L.P. (“the children”), appeals from a judgment of the Franklin Juvenile Court (“the juvenile court”) that dismissed the dependency petitions she had filed in the juvenile court relating to the children. We reverse.
Procedural History
On February 2, 2010, P.S.R. (“the grandmother”) filed an emergency petition for temporary custody in the Franklin Circuit Court (“the circuit court”) in case number DR–04–189.02, alleging:
“WHEREFORE, the premises considered, [the grandmother] prays that this Honorable Court will enter a temporary order granting custody of the minor children to the [grandmother].”
On February 4, 2010, the circuit court awarded the grandmother pendente lite custody of the children. On May 24, 2010, C.L.P. (“the mother”) filed an answer to the grandmother's petition. On July 7, 2010, the circuit court entered an order stating:
On July 12, 2010, the grandmother filed in the circuit court a motion to reinstate the case based upon a settlement agreement reached between the parties. That agreement apparently provided that the grandmother should be allowed visitation with the children.
On July 14, 2010, before the circuit court could rule on the motion to reinstate, the grandmother filed two separate petitions in the juvenile court, alleging that the children were dependent and requesting that the juvenile court award the grandmother the immediate custody of the children. 1 Specifically, the petitions stated:
“....
“WHEREFORE, [the grandmother] prays as follows:
“(A) That this court will take jurisdiction of this matter, and upon consideration hereof will issue an order directing that immediate temporary custody of the minor child be vested in the paternal grandmother ... and that visitation be had by the mother under such terms and conditions as the court deems appropriate;
“(B) That upon final hearing in this cause, that legal and physical custody will be vested in [the grandmother] who has been the custodial party for the minor child during the vast majority of her life;
“(C) That Your Honor will direct that such other orders as the court deems appropriate and in these premises [the grandmother] has shown herself to be entitled, including issues of child visitation and child support.”
Subsequently, on July 15, 2010, the circuit court entered an order granting the grandmother's motion to reinstate case number DR–04–189.02 to the circuit court's active docket. In that order, the circuit court adopted the visitation agreement of the parties and awarded the grandmother specified visitation with the children. The order did not address the grandmother's prior custody petition that had been dismissed.
On July 30, 2010, the juvenile-court judge that was initially assigned to the dependency cases entered an order recusing herself from presiding over the cases; that order stated, in pertinent part, “that the [Juvenile] Judge would not be able to maintain objectivity in that the [grandmother was] represented by the law firm of the Judge's spouse in [the] Circuit Court case over the same issues,” and the juvenile-court judge requested that “the Administrative Office of Courts arrange the appointment of another Judge to preside in this cause should the presiding Circuit Judge be unable to sit in this matter.” Although the juvenile court's case-action-summary sheets do not reflect that the cases were transferred to another judge, on August 6, 2010, the circuit judge of Franklin County, the same judge that had presided over the circuit-court action, entered the following judgment in the dependency actions:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Kruse v. City of Birmingham.
-
R.J. v. J.N.M.W.
...C.E. v. M.G., 169 So. 3d 1061, 1064 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015) ; T.K. v. M.G., 82 So. 3d 1, 3 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011) ; P.S.R. v. C.L.P., 67 So. 3d 917, 921 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011) ; B.R.G. v. G.L.M., 57 So. 3d 137 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010) ; M.B. v. R.P., 3 So. 3d 237 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008) ; W.T.H. v. ......
-
L.B.S. v. M.W.S.
...child, the juvenile court assumes exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate that dispute.’ " 321 So. 3d at 1281 (quoting P.S.R. v. C.L.P., 67 So. 3d 917, 922 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011) ). It is well settled that a circuit court lacks original subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the custody of a......
-
M.M. v. K.H.
...as to the dependency of the child, the juvenile court assumes exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate that dispute." P.S.R. v. C.L.P., 67 So.3d 917, 922 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011). "[A] circuit court does not retain exclusive jurisdiction over a child whose custody is addressed in a divorce judgmen......