A.R. v. T.R.

Appeal from Limestone Juvenile Court (JU-19-275.01)

MOORE, JUDGE

A.R. ("the mother") appeals from an April 28, 2022, judgment entered by the Limestone Juvenile Court ("the juvenile court") finding B.H. ("the child") dependent and awarding custody of the child to the

child's maternal grandfather, T.R. ("the maternal grandfather"). We dismiss the appeal in part and affirm the juvenile court's judgment.

Procedural History

These parties have previously been before this court. See A.R. v. J.C.R., [Ms. 2200903, Jan. 14, 2022]___ So. 3d___ (Ala. Civ. App. 2022). In A.R., this court set forth the procedural history in this matter as follows:

"On November 22, 2019, the child's maternal great-grandmother, J.C.R. ('the maternal great-grandmother'), filed a petition alleging that the child was dependent. At the 72hour hearing, see Ala Code 1975, § 12-15-308, the mother failed to appear, and the juvenile court awarded the maternal great-grandmother temporary custody of the child. After a trial on the dependency petition, the juvenile court entered a judgment on October 20, 2020, stating that the mother had stipulated that the child was dependent, adjudicating the child dependent and awarding temporary legal and physical custody of the child to the maternal great-grandmother and the maternal grandfather.

"On August 6, 2021, the juvenile court held a 'permanency' hearing, at which only the child's guardian ad litem testified. The mother appeared after the presentation of the evidence was completed. During the hearing, the juvenile court made it clear that, because there had been an earlier stipulation of dependency, the only issue to be considered at the hearing was 'the appropriate permanent location or custody arrangement for [the] child.' The juvenile

court subsequently entered a judgment on August 9, 2021, stating, in pertinent part:

"'The Court having previously found the child to be a dependent child set a Permanency hearing for this date. ...

" '....

"'The Guardian ad Litem waived the child's presence in the courtroom, but informed the court that the child was nearby if needed for [the] hearing. The mother was not present. The court found that she waived her presence. The mother appeared for court after the close of testimony and evidence.

"'After having carefully considered the sworn testimony and evidence submitted, it is ORDERED that the permanent legal and physical custody of the ... child be awarded to the maternal grandfather. ... Visitation with the mother shall be at times and places within the discretion of the [maternal grandfather] taking into consideration the wishes of the ... child.'

"(Capitalization in original.) On August 10, 2021, the mother filed her notice of appeal.¹

"

"¹Although permanent custody of the child was awarded to the maternal grandfather, the mother identified the maternal great-grandmother as the appellee in the notice of appeal. This court subsequently entered an order directing the mother to immediately file an amended notice of appeal

naming the maternal grandfather as an appellee and to serve on the maternal grandfather a copy of the amended notice of appeal, the appellant's brief filed by the mother, and the appellee's brief filed by the maternal great-grandmother. This court's order also gave the maternal grandfather 21 days from the date the amended notice of appeal was filed to file any objection he might have to the amendment. The order also gave the maternal grandfather 42 days from the date included on the mother's amended certificate of service to file an appellee's brief. The maternal grandfather did not file an objection to the amended notice of appeal or an appellee's brief."

___So. 3d at___ .

On appeal, this court addressed whether sufficient evidence had been produced from which the juvenile court could have been clearly convinced that the child was dependent. We noted that, in finding the child dependent, the juvenile court had relied on a stipulation of dependency that had occurred almost one year before the August 6, 2021, dispositional hearing. We also noted that a written finding of dependency is not required when the dependency finding can be inferred from the judgment at issue, but we concluded that

"the juvenile court's statements at the August 6, 2021, hearing indicating that it was considering the disposition of the child only because of the previous stipulation of dependency, coupled with the language of the judgment indicating that it was relying on that previous finding of

dependency, ma[de] it impossible to infer that the juvenile court found the child dependent at the time of the custodial disposition."

___So. 3d at___ . Thus, we held that, "[b]ecause the juvenile court [had] failed to find that the child was dependent at the time of the custodial disposition, it [had] lacked jurisdiction to determine the disposition of the child," and we reversed the juvenile court's August 9, 2021,...