T.C.M. v. W.L.K., 2160032
Decision Date | 28 April 2017 |
Docket Number | 2160032 |
Citation | 248 So.3d 1 |
Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Parties | T.C.M. and C.N.M. v. W.L.K. W.L.K. v. T.C.M. and C.N.M. |
Alabama Supreme Court 1160867
Robert E. Lusk, Jr., of Lusk Law Firm, LLC, Fairhope; and Bryant Andrew Whitmire, Jr., Birmingham, for appellants/cross-appellees T.C.M. and C.N.M.
Richard L. Wyatt, Homewood; and Robert M. Echols, Jr., Birmingham, for appellee/cross-appellant W.L.K.
This is the eighth time these parties—W.L.K. ("the father") and T.C.M. and C.N.M. ("the prospective adoptive parents")—have appeared before this court seeking review of one or another court's orders respecting the custody of M.M. ("the child"). See Ex parte W.L.K., 175 So.3d 652 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015) (plurality opinion) (" W.L.K. I"); T.C.M. v. W.L.K. (No. 2130936, February 27, 2015), 206 So.3d 593 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015) (table) (appeal dismissed); Ex parte T.C.M. (No. 2140717, June 30, 2015), 212 So.3d 241 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015) (table) (petition denied); Ex parte W.L.K., 222 So.3d 357 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015) (" W.L.K. II") ( ); T.C.M. v. W.L.K., 208 So.3d 39 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016) (" T.C.M. II") ( ); Ex parte T.C.M. (No. 2150935, September 16, 2016), 231 So. 3d 330 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016) (table) ( ); and T.C.M. v. W.L.K., 237 So.3d 238 (Ala. Civ. App. 2017) (released today).
The basic procedural history underlying these appeals was set out in W.L.K. I, 175 So.3d at 654–55 :
This court determined in W.L.K. I that the probate court had been required by Ala. Code 1975, § 26–10A–24(d), to dismiss the prospective adoptive parents' adoption petition after it had decided the father's adoption contest in his favor. 175 So.3d at 659. After the resolution of the father's first petition for the writ of mandamus in W.L.K. I, the probate court failed to enter a judgment dismissing the prospective adoptive parents' adoption petition, so the father filed a second petition for the writ of mandamus to compel the probate court to do so. W.L.K. II, 222 So. 3d at 358. This court ordered the probate court to enter a judgment awarding the prospective adoptive parents reimbursement for the costs of caring for the child in compliance with W.L.K. I and § 26–10A–24(d), id. at 360–, which the probate court did on October, 3, 2016, after the prospective adoptive parents' petition for the writ of certiorari in W.L.K. II was denied by the Alabama Supreme Court. See Ex parte T.C.M., 222 So. 3d 360 (Ala. 2016). The prospective adoptive parents have appealed the October 3, 2016, judgment, arguing that the probate court erred by not concluding that the father's consent to the adoption was irrevocably implied under Ala. Code 1975, § 26–10A–9(a)(5), by his failure to register with the Alabama Putative Father Registry, codified at Ala. Code 1975, § 26–10C–1, and that the evidence does not support the probate court's conclusion that the father did not abandon the child under § 26–10A–9(a)(1). The father has filed a cross-appeal of the probate court's October 3, 2016, judgment, seeking its reversal insofar as it assessed against him one-half of the $4,200 guardian ad litem fee and "all additional costs of court" related to the action.1
In its judgment, the probate court recounted the history of the parents' brief relationship. The probate court found that the father and the mother had begun planning for the arrival of the child after they learned of the mother's pregnancy. The probate court found that the father was unaware of the mother's reasons for leaving the home they shared on July 5, 2012, but commented that the parties had had an argument about the mother's smoking during her pregnancy. The probate court recounted that the father had discovered that the mother had broken into the house and stolen some of his property and that, as a result, the mother was arrested.
The probate court found that the father had not had contact information for the mother after her arrest and that he had taken legal steps to safeguard his parental rights, including seeking advice from the Judge Advocate General, who referred him to a nonmilitary attorney, who instituted a paternity and custody action on the father's behalf. The probate court also found that the father had registered with the Florida Putative Father Registry. The probate court noted that the father had learned that the mother had been planning to have the child adopted by a couple from New York. In addition, the probate court found that the father, once he learned of the child's birth in Alabama and the pending adoption proceeding, had registered with the Alabama Putative Father Registry and had contacted the prospective adoptive parents to seek visitation with the child. Based on the testimony and documentary evidence, the probate court concluded that the father had not impliedly consented to the adoption of the child.
The prospective adoptive parents first argue that the father's failure to timely register with the Alabama Putative Father Registry resulted in his irrevocable implied consent to the adoption under § 26–10A–9(a)(5) and Ala. Code 1975, § 26–10C–1(i), and, thus, that his consent to the adoption was not required under Ala. Code 1975, § 26–10A–7(a)(5). The prospective adoptive parents rely on the general rule that adoption statutes require strict adherence to their requirements. See Anderson v. Hetherinton, 560 So.2d 1078, 1079–80 (Ala. Civ. App. 1990). They further contend, without citation to authority, that "there is no provision ... for substantial compliance" with the Alabama Putative Father Registry.
The probate court did not expressly decide any issue related to the application of § 26–10A–7(a)(5), § 26–10A–9(a)(5), or § 26–10C–1 in its judgment. Instead, it appears that the probate court either determined that the father's registration with the Florida Putative Father Registry was substantial compliance with the requirement that the father register with the Alabama Putative Father Registry or that Florida law should control the determination of whether the father's consent was required, both of which potential legal bases were argued to the probate court. The prospective adoptive parents do not provide this court with caselaw or other legal authority regarding either of those potential bases for the probate court's judgment, and we are not required to do their research on those issues. See Legal Sys., Inc. v. Hoover, 619 So.2d 930, 932 (Ala. Civ. App. 1993) (). Accordingly, we will not further consider the issue whether the father's failure to timely register with the Alabama Putative Father Registry should be fatal to his contest of the adoption.
We turn now to the prospective adoptive parents' argument that the evidence presented does not support the probate court's conclusion that the father did not...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
D.I. v. I.G.
...876 So.2d 1111, 1124 n.8 (Ala. 2003) ) (" ‘ "An argument not made on appeal is abandoned or waived." ’ "); see also T.C.M. v. W.L.K., 248 So.3d 1, 4 n.1 (Ala. Civ. App. 2017) (quoting Braxton v. Stewart, 539 So.2d 284, 286 (Ala. Civ. App. 1988) ) (" ‘An appeals court will consider only thos......
-
C.Z. v. B.G.
...of Rule 28, Ala. R. App. P. Stockton v. CKPD Dev. Co., LLC, 936 So. 2d 1065, 1078–79 (Ala. Civ. App. 2005). In T.C.M. v. W.L.K., 248 So. 3d 1 (Ala. Civ. App. 2017), this court stated: "The prospective adoptive parents first argue that the father's failure to timely register with the Alabama......
-
Shinaberry v. Wilson (Ex parte Shinaberry)
...court."2 We recognize that the Court of Civil Appeals in Roberts v. Roberts, 189 So. 3d 79 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015), and T.C.M. v. W.L.K., 248 So. 3d 1 (Ala. Civ. App. 2017), affirmed fees awarded to guardians ad litem, applying the attorney-fee factors set out in Van Schaack v. AmSouth Bank, ......
-
Ex parte Shinaberry
...court." 2. We recognize that the Court of Civil Appeals in Roberts v. Roberts, 189 So. 3d 79 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015), and T.C.M. v. W.L.K., 248 So. 3d 1 (Ala. Civ. App. 2017), affirmed fees awarded to guardians ad litem, applying the attorney-fee factors set out in Van Schaack v. AmSouth Bank......
-
A Primer on Alabama Adoptions
...father registry. § 26-10C-1(a)(2) and (c). If he fails to file, he forfeits his parental rights. § 26-10C-1(i)."); Cf. T.C.M. v. W.L.K., 248 So. 3d 1, 5 (Ala. Civ. App. 2017) ("we will not further consider the issue whether the father's failure to timely register with the Alabama Putative F......