G.W.K. v. B.W.M.

387 So.3d 1126

G.W.K.

v.B.W.M. and G.M.

CL-2022-0911 and CL-2022-0912

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

July 14, 2023

Whitney E. Tillman, Huntsville, for appellant.

Mark A. Dutton, Moulton, for appellees.

MOORE, Judge.

G.W.K. ("the father") appeals from separate judgments entered by the Lawrence Juvenile Court ("the juvenile court") finding his children, S.L.K. and K.G.K. ("the children"), to be dependent and awarding their custody to B.W.M. and G.M ("the maternal grandparents"). We dismiss the father’s appeals with instructions.

Procedural History

On October 4, 2021, the maternal grandparents filed separate, but almost identical, petitions against the father in which they alleged:

"1. That the Petitioners are the maternal grandparents of the … child[ren] and are over the age of [19] years and [are] resident[s] of the State of Alabama ….

"2. That the [maternal grandparents] aver that [G.L.K.], is the natural mother of the … child[ren] and deceased on or about August 22, 2021.

"3. That the [father], is the biological father of the … child[ren] and is over the age of nineteen years and his present address is unknown.

"….

"5. The [maternal grandparents] aver that they are able to provide for the wants, needs, and desires of the … child[ren] at issue in this cause.

"6. The [maternal grandparents] aver that the … mother … and the … child[ren] resided with the [maternal grandparents] for approximately (7) seven years.

"7. The [maternal grandparents] further aver that the [father] …, agrees with the [maternal grandparents] having custody of the … child[ren] at issue in this cause.

"8. That there has been a material change in circumstances which calls for modification of the custody of the … child[ren], and that the [maternal grandparents] should have the legal and physical custody of the … child[ren]."

The maternal grandparents specifically requested that they be awarded sole physical and sole legal custody of the children. A juvenile-court intake officer reviewed the maternal grandparents’ petitions and filed the petitions by delivering them to the clerk of the juvenile court. The clerk assigned the petitions case numbers JU-21223.01 and JU-21-224.01.

On December 28, 2021, the father filed an answer in each case denying all the material allegations made by the maternal grandparents. Furthermore, he asserted counterclaims for custody, in which he asserted that he and the children have a strong relationship, that he is willing and able to provide a loving, stable, and wholesome environment for the children, that awarding him physical custody would be in the children’s best interest, and that he was willing to relocate to be closer to Lawrence County to prevent uprooting the children. Also on December 28, 2021, the father filed motions to transfer the underlying actions to the Limestone Circuit Court; he renewed those motions on January 17, 2022. On January 18, 2022, the maternal grandparents filed in each action a reply to the father’s counterclaim. In their replies, the maternal grandparents contended, among other things, that "they are the most fit and proper persons to exercise custody" of the children and that the children are "dependent." The maternal grandparents also moved the juvenile court to deny the father’s motions to transfer.

The father withdrew his motions to transfer, and the cases proceeded to trial. On August 1, 2022, after conducting ore tenus proceedings over the course of three separate days in April, May, and June 2022, the juvenile court entered a separate judgment in each case in which it determined that the children were dependent and awarded custody of the children to the maternal grandparents. On August 14, 2022, the father timely filed a separate notice of appeal in each case; the father’s appeals were docketed as appeal numbers CL-2022-0911 and CL-2022-0912. On September 7, 2022, this court consolidated the appeals ex mere motu.¹

Issue

The dispositive issue in these appeals is whether the maternal grandparents properly invoked the dependency jurisdiction of the juvenile court. The father asserts that the petitions filed by the maternal grandparents did not invoke the dependency jurisdiction of the juvenile court because, he says, they do not contain any specific factual allegations that would support a finding that the children were dependent. We agree. We, therefore, pretermit any discussion of any other issues raised by the father in these appeals.

Analysis

Section 12-15-114, Ala. Code 1975, a part of the Alabama Juvenile Justice Act ("the AJJA"), Ala. Code 1975, § 12-15-101 et seq., provides, in pertinent part, that "[a] juvenile court shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction of juvenile court proceedings in which a child is alleged to … be dependent …." To invoke the dependency jurisdiction of the juvenile court, the maternal grandparents had to file petitions complying with Ala. Code 1975, § 12-15-121(c)(1). See L.B. v. R.L.B., 53 So. 3d 969, 972 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010). Section 12-15-121(c)(1) provides, in pertinent part, that "the petition shall set forth with specificity … the facts constituting the alleged dependency …."

[1, 2] " ‘A child is dependent if, at the time a petition is filed in the juvenile court alleging dependency, the child meets the statutory definition of a dependent child.’ " A.G. v. Ka.G., 114 So. 3d 24, 26 (Ala. 2012) (quoting Ex parte L.E.O., 61 So. 3d 1042, 1046 (Ala. 2010)). Section 12-15-102(8)a., Ala. Code 1975, defines "dependent child" to mean:

"A child who has been adjudicated dependent by a juvenile court and is in need of care or supervision and meets any of the following circumstances:

"1. Whose parent, legal guardian, legal custodian, or other custodian subjects the child or any other child in the household to abuse, as defined in [Ala. Code 1975, §] 12-15-301[,] or neglect as defined in [§] 12-15-301 or allows the child to be so subjected.

"2. Who is without a parent, legal guardian, or legal custodian willing and able to provide for the care, support, or education of the child.

"3. Whose parent, legal guardian, legal custodian, or other custodian neglects or refuses, when able to do so or when the service is offered without charge, to provide or allow medical, surgical, or other care necessary for the health or well-being of the child.

"4. Whose parent, legal guardian, legal custodian, or other custodian fails, refuses, or neglects to send the child to school in accordance with the terms of the compulsory school attendance laws of this state.

"5. Whose parent, legal guardian, legal custodian, or other custodian has abandoned the child, as defined in subdivision (1) of [§] 12-15-301.

"6. Whose parent, legal guardian, legal custodian, or other custodian is unable or unwilling to discharge his or her responsibilities to and for the child.

"7. Who has been placed for care or adoption in violation of the law.

"8. Who, for any other cause, is in need of the care and protection of the state."

To satisfy § 12-15-121(c)(1) and to invoke the dependency jurisdiction of a juvenile court, a party must allege specific facts in its petition indicating that a child is a "dependent child" as defined in § 12-15-102(8)a. See L.B., supra.

[3, 4] In determining whether a petition alleges the dependency of a child, the court must look to the substance, not the form, of the pleading. See A.M. v. A.K., 321 So. 3d 1278, 1281 (Ala. Civ. App. 2020). In these cases, the petitions do not allege any specific facts implying that the father had abandoned, neglected, or abused the children; that he was unable or unwilling to properly parent the children; that he had subjected the children to any of the conduct prohibited by § 12-15-102(8)a; or that he had otherwise caused the children to be in need of care or supervision. The petitions allege only that the children had been residing with the maternal grandparents for seven years, that their mother had died, that the maternal grandparents were fit and proper persons to assume legal and physical custody of the children, and that the father did not contest their claims to custody. In essence, the petitions assert only a plea to resolve the custody of the children that does not fall within the dependency jurisdiction of the juvenile court but lies within the jurisdiction of the appropriate circuit court. See A.C. v. C.C., 49 So. 3d 726, 733 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010) (holding that allegations that grandmother had been exercising custody of child and that grandmother wished to retain custody rather than return child to mother stated a custody dispute that did not invoke the dependency jurisdiction of juvenile court).

[5–7] Section 12-15-118, Ala. Code 1975, requires a juvenile-court intake officer to "[r]eceive and examine written complaints or petitions, made under oath, of allegations of … dependency …." Furthermore, Rule 12(B), Ala. R. Juv. P., requires that a juvenile-court intake officer "conduct a preliminary inquiry to determine whether the acts or conditions alleged are within the subject-matter jurisdiction of the juvenile court[.]" In these cases, a juvenile-court intake officer received and examined the petitions and determined that they invoked the dependency jurisdiction of the juvenile court. In their brief to this court, the maternal grandparents imply that the endorsement of the juvenile-court intake officer resolves the jurisdictional issue. However, the AJJA does not make the determination of the juvenile-court intake officer conclusive. Regardless of the opinion of the juvenile-court intake officer, the subject-matter jurisdiction of a juvenile court may be questioned at any stage of the proceedings, see M.B.L. v. G.G.L., 1 So. 3d 1048, 1050 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008), including upon review by this court. See Ex parte K.S.G., 645 So. 2d 297 (Ala. Civ. App. 1992) (determining that juvenile court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over child-custody dispute even though juvenile-court intake officer had accepted and...