M.L. v. Jefferson Cnty. Dep't of Human Res.

362 So.3d 1242

M.L. v. JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2200948

2200949

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

March 4, 2022

Pooja Chawla, Birmingham, for appellant.

Steve Marshall, att'y gen., and Felicia M. Brooks, chief legal counsel, and Elizabeth Hendrix, asst. att'y gen., Department of Human Resources, for appellee.

MOORE, Judge.

In appeal number 2200948, M.L. ("the mother") appeals from a judgment entered by the Jefferson Juvenile Court ("the juvenile court"), in case number JU-03-61738.05, terminating her parental rights to J.D.M., whose date of birth is December 11, 2002. In appeal number 2200949, the mother appeals from a separate, but almost identical, judgment entered by the juvenile court, in case number JU-10-96534.05, terminating her parental rights to L.D.C., whose date of birth is January 19, 2007. We dismiss the appeal from the judgment pertaining to J.D.M., and we affirm the judgment pertaining to L.D.C.

Procedural History

On June 17, 2020, the Jefferson County Department of Human Resources ("DHR") filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of the mother to L.D.C. On October 13, 2020, DHR filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of the mother to J.D.M. After a trial, the juvenile court entered separate, but almost identical, judgments on August 18, 2021, terminating the parental rights of the mother to both J.D.M. and L.D.C. On August 26, 2021, the mother filed her notice of appeal of both judgments.

Standard of Review

A judgment terminating parental rights must be supported by clear and convincing evidence, which is " ‘ "[e]vidence that, when weighed against evidence in opposition, will produce in the mind of the trier of fact a firm conviction as to each essential element of the claim and a high probability as to the correctness of the conclusion." ’ "

C.O. v. Jefferson Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 206 So. 3d 621, 627 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016) (quoting L.M. v. D.D.F., 840 So. 2d 171, 179 (Ala. Civ. App. 2002), quoting in turn Ala. Code 1975, § 6-11-20(b)(4) ).

" ‘[T]he evidence necessary for appellate affirmance of a judgment based on a factual finding in the context of a case in which the ultimate standard for a factual decision by the trial court is clear and convincing evidence is evidence that a fact-finder reasonably could find to clearly and convincingly ... establish the fact sought to be proved.’

" KGS Steel[, Inc. v. McInish,] 47 So. 3d [749] at 761 [(Ala. Civ. App. 2006) (emphasis omitted)].

"... [F]or trial courts ruling on ... civil cases to which a clear-and-convincing-evidence standard of proof applies, ‘the judge must view the evidence presented through the prism of the substantive evidentiary burden[,]’ [ Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 254, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) ]; thus, the appellate court must also look through a prism to determine whether there was substantial evidence before the trial court to support a factual finding, based upon the trial court's weighing of the evidence, that would ‘produce in the mind [of the trial court] a firm conviction as to each element of the claim and a high probability as to the correctness of the conclusion.’ "

Ex parte McInish, 47 So. 3d 767, 778 (Ala. 2008). This court does not reweigh the evidence but, rather, determines whether the findings of fact made by the juvenile court are supported by evidence that the juvenile court could have found to be clear and convincing. See Ex parte T.V., 971 So. 2d 1, 9 (Ala. 2007). When those findings rest on ore tenus evidence, this court presumes their correctness. Id. We review the legal conclusions to be drawn from the evidence without a presumption of correctness. J.W. v. C.B., 68 So. 3d 878, 879 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011).

Discussion

A. Appeal No. 2200948

The mother first argues that the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction to enter a judgment terminating her parental rights to J.D.M. because, she contends, the Alabama Juvenile Justice Act ("the AJJA"), Ala. Code 1975, § 12-15-101 et seq., does not confer statutory authority upon the juvenile courts to terminate the parental rights of a parent of a child who is over 18 years of age. We have not located any caselaw precisely addressing this point, which we consider to be a matter of first impression.

Section 12-15-114(c)(2), Ala. Code 1975, which is a part of the AJJA, grants to the juvenile courts of the state original, exclusive jurisdiction over "[p]roceedings for termination of parental rights." Section 12-15-301(18), Ala. Code 1975, which is also a part of the AJJA, defines "termination of parental rights" as "[a] severance of all rights of a parent to a child." (Emphasis added.) Section 12-15-319(a), Ala. Code 1975, also a part of the AJJA, authorizes the juvenile courts to terminate the parental rights of the "parents of a child." (Emphasis added.)

The AJJA generally defines "child" as "[a]n individual under the age of 18 years." Ala. Code 1975, § 12-15-102(3). ¹ We note that the term "child" ordinarily refers to an individual under the age of majority, see Ex parte Christopher, 145 So. 3d 60, 64 (Ala. 2013), which, in Alabama, is 19 years old. See Ala. Code 1975, § 26-1-1. However, in the AJJA, the legislature specifically defined "child" as an individual under 18 years of age while simultaneously defining "minor" as "[a]n individual who is under the age of 19 years and who is not a child within the meaning of" the AJJA § 12-15-102(18). The legislature clearly intended that "child" and "minor" would have two different meanings for the purposes of the AJJA. Where the term "child" appears in the AJJA, the specific legislated definition controls its meaning. See Pruitt v. Oliver, 331 So.3d 99 (Ala. 2021).

Applying the plain language of the statutory definition of "child" in the AJJA, we agree with the mother that, in the foregoing statutes regulating the termination of parental rights, the legislature has authorized the juvenile courts to terminate the parental rights of parents to only an individual under 18 years of age. See IMED Corp. v. Systems Eng'g Assocs. Corp., 602 So. 2d 344, 346 (Ala. 1992) ("[W]here plain language is used a court is bound to interpret that language to mean exactly what it says. If the language of the statute is unambiguous, then there is no room for judicial construction and the clearly expressed intent of the legislature must be given effect." ). In the absence of some other specific statutory authority, a juvenile court is powerless to terminate the parental rights of a parent of a child who has reached 18 years of age. See generally T.J. v. Calhoun Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 116 So. 3d 1168, 1176 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013) (noting that "juvenile courts only have power as is conferred upon them by statute" and holding that an order of a juvenile court entered without statutory authority is void).

DHR and the guardian ad litem for J.D.M. argue that Ala. Code 1975, § 12-15-117(a), bestows jurisdiction upon the juvenile courts to terminate the parental rights of a parent to a dependent child after that child has reached 18 years of age. Section 12-15-117(a) provides, in pertinent part:

"Once a child has been adjudicated dependent ..., jurisdiction of the juvenile court shall terminate when the child becomes 21 years of age unless, prior thereto, the judge of the juvenile court terminates its jurisdiction by explicitly stating in a written order that it is terminating jurisdiction over the case involving the child."

DHR and the guardian ad litem for J.D.M. maintain that, pursuant to § 12-15-117(a), a juvenile court that has adjudicated a child to be a dependent child retains jurisdiction over the child, including the power to terminate parental rights relating to the child, until the child attains 21 years of age. In this case, the juvenile court adjudicated J.D.M. a dependent child in 2018, when he was 15 years old; thus, DHR and the guardian ad litem maintain, the juvenile court, which had not explicitly terminated its dependency jurisdiction, could lawfully terminate the parental rights of the mother after J.D.M. turned 18 years of age.

Section 12-15-117(a) is the successor statute to former § 12-15-32, Ala. Code 1975, which was part of the former Alabama Juvenile Justice Act ("the former AJJA"), § 12-15-1 et seq., Ala. Code 1975, and which provided, in pertinent part:

"For purposes of [the former AJJA], jurisdiction obtained by the juvenile court in any case of a child shall be retained by it until the child becomes 21 years of age unless terminated prior thereto by order of the judge of the juvenile court ...." This court construed former § 12-15-32 as "repos[ing] statutory and equity powers in the juvenile court to permit it to assume continuing jurisdiction over minors when their welfare and best interests require it." In re Warrick, 501 So. 2d 1223, 1227 (Ala. Civ. App. 1985) (emphasis added). This court has consistently recognized that former § 12-15-32 conferred upon juvenile courts the equitable power to make, enforce, and modify custody orders regarding a dependent child, see, e.g., Minchew v. Mobile Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 504 So. 2d 310, 311 (Ala. Civ. App. 1987), to the exclusion of other courts. See, e.g., Heller v. Heller, 558 So. 2d 961, 963 (Ala. Civ. App. 1990). This court also recognized that, under former § 12-15-32, once the dependency jurisdiction of a particular juvenile court had attached, that court would retain exclusive, continuing jurisdiction to exercise its statutory power to terminate parental rights. See, e.g., Carter v. Griffin, 574 So. 2d 800, 801 (Ala. Civ. App. 1990) ; Valero v. State Dep't of Hum. Res., 511 So. 2d 200 (Ala. Civ. App. 1987).

The legislature amended former § 12-15-32 when it enacted the AJJA and § 12-15-117(a). Although this court originally interpreted § 12-15-117(a) as limiting the continuing jurisdiction of juvenile courts solely to dependency, delinquency, and child-in need-of-supervision cases...