O.Y.P. v. Lauderdale Cnty. Dep't of Human Res.

Decision Date14 February 2014
Docket Number2120850,2120875.
CourtAlabama Court of Civil Appeals
PartiesO.Y.P. v. LAUDERDALE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES. O.G.B. v. Lauderdale County Department of Human Resources.

Charlie A. Bottoms, Jr., Florence, for appellant O.Y.P.

Elizabeth G. Messer of Gonce & Messer, Attorneys at Law, Florence, for appellant O.G.B.

Sharon E. Ficquette, chief legal counsel, and Karen P. Phillips, asst. atty. gen., Department of Human Resources, for appellee.

Opinion

PITTMAN, Judge.

O.Y.P. (“the mother) and O.G.B. (“the father) appeal separately from an order of the Lauderdale Juvenile Court finding that reasonable efforts had been made by the Lauderdale County Department of Human Resources (“DHR”) to finalize the permanency plan regarding their child, M.Y. (“the child”), which recommended termination of their parental rights and adoption by the child's current foster parents. We dismiss the appeals as being from a nonfinal judgment.

DHR filed a petition for custody of the child on June 24, 2010. DHR also filed a custody affidavit and a request for a pickup order for the child on that date. The juvenile court signed a pickup order for the child and, following a shelter-care hearing, transferred pendente lite custody of the child to DHR. A court appointed special advocate was appointed to represent and protect the child's best interests. On October 4, 2010, the juvenile court entered an order finding the child dependent.

On June 26, 2012, the juvenile court entered an order approving the permanency plan recommending termination of parental rights and adoption by the current foster parents. On September 14, 2012, the mother filed a motion requesting that the juvenile court award her money for the purpose of translating from Spanish to English a report regarding a home study that had been completed on her home in Guatemala; the juvenile court granted that request. On December 14, 2012, the juvenile court entered a judicial-review order stating that it had reviewed the child's situation and that, based on a court report prepared by DHR and dated December 13, 2012, reasonable efforts toward reunification had been made and the most appropriate plan was termination of parental rights and adoption by the current foster parents. On June 27, 2013, the juvenile court entered a permanency-hearing order finding that reasonable efforts had been made by DHR to finalize the permanency plan of termination of parental rights and adoption by the current foster parents. The mother filed a notice of appeal (appeal no. 2120850) on July 2, 2013, regarding the June 27, 2013, order. The father filed a notice of appeal (appeal no. 2120875) on July 11, 2013. The appeals were consolidated by this court.

Both the mother and the father argue on appeal, among other things related to the June 27, 2013, order, that the juvenile court erred in approving DHR's permanency plan of termination of parental rights with adoption of the child.

“Even though this issue has not been addressed by either party, this court must first determine whether it has jurisdiction over this appeal. “Jurisdictional matters are of such importance that a court may take notice of them ex mero motu. Naylor v. Naylor, 981 So.2d 440, 441 (Ala.Civ.App.2007) (quoting McMurphy v. East Bay Clothiers, 892 So.2d 395, 397 (Ala.Civ.App.2004) ). ‘The question whether a judgment is final is a jurisdictional question, and the reviewing court, on a determination that the judgment is not final, has a duty to dismiss the case.’ Hubbard v. Hubbard, 935 So.2d 1191, 1192 (Ala.Civ.App.2006) (citing Jim Walter Homes, Inc. v. Holman, 373 So.2d 869, 871 (Ala.Civ.App.1979) ). [A] final judgment is a “terminal decision which demonstrates there has been a complete
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Ex parte Montgomery Cnty. Dep't of Human Res.
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • June 14, 2019
    ...(Ala. Civ. App. 1990) (quoting Tidwell v. Tidwell, 496 So. 2d 91, 92 (Ala. Civ. App. 1986) ).’ " O.Y.P. v. Lauderdale Cty. Dep't of Human Res., 148 So. 3d 1081, 1082–83 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014) (quoting Butler v. Phillips, 3 So. 3d 922, 925 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008) ). In Ex parte Limestone County......
  • S.J.H. v. N.T.S.
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • February 7, 2020
    ...(Ala. Civ. App. 1990) (quoting Tidwell v. Tidwell, 496 So. 2d 91, 92 (Ala. Civ. App. 1986) ).’ " O.Y.P. v. Lauderdale Cty. Dep't of Human Res., 148 So. 3d 1081, 1082–83 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014) (quoting Butler v. Phillips, 3 So. 3d 922, 925 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008) ). As noted above, this action ......
  • Quintana v. Quiroz
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • June 19, 2020
    ...(Ala. Civ. App. 1990) (quoting Tidwell v. Tidwell, 496 So. 2d 91, 92 (Ala. Civ. App. 1986) ).’ " O.Y.P. v. Lauderdale Cty. Dep't of Human Res., 148 So. 3d 1081, 1082–83 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014) (quoting Butler v. Phillips, 3 So. 3d 922, 925 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008) ). The divorce judgment does no......
  • Alexander T. v. Dep't of Child Safety & K.T.
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • May 8, 2018
    ...reasonable and appropriate reunification services.¶8 The Alabama Court of Appeals decision in O.Y.P. v. Lauderdale County Department of Human Resources, 148 So. 3d 1081 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014), which DCS cites in its answering brief, is distinguishable. The appeal in that case was taken from ......

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