M.W.H. v. R.W. 100 So.3d 603 (Ala. Civ. App.) (2012).
Link for opinion: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14119849504351512530&q=M.W.H.+v.+R.W.+100+So.3d+603+%28Ala.+Civ.+App.%29+%282012%29.&hl=en&as_sdt=2,24
On July 19, 2006, the maternal grandparents filed a dependency petition in juvenile court for their grandson. The grandparents alleged that the father is unknown and the mother has manic depression and is unfit to care for the child. The mother wanted to take the child and move to Illinois, the grandparents allege that the home to where the child would be living was also unfit and it would be abandonment of the child. In August 2006, the court awarded custody of the child to the grandparents.
The mother filled a motion to set aside the default judgment. On September 26, 2006, the Juvenile court set aside the default judgment that awarded the grandparents custody “after colloquy with the parties.” The court granted visitation to the mother that was to be supervised by the grandparents.
On August 16, 2007, the grandparents filled a petition to revise the visitation rights of the mother on the basis that the mother had been in an abusive relationship and her visitation rights should be terminated, and that they should receive child support from the mother. On August 22, 2007, the mother filed an answer to the motion and a counterclaim requesting sole custody of the child. The mother said that circumstances had changed and the child’s best interest would be to be with her. The court entered a pendente lite order with agreement of the mother and grandparents. The grandparents kept custody of the child, the mother was granted visitation rights, was ordered to pay $150 a month in child support, and to see a psychiatrist. The grandparents were ordered to attend family counseling.
On April 28, 2010, the mother filed a motion to set a final hearing and to have custody of the child. The mother claimed to have gone through treatment and to had a stale home for the child. The Juvenile court awarded “primary care, custody, and control” to the grandparents, awared the other with visitation, and ordered the mother to continue paying child support.
On June 17, 2011, the mother filled for an appeal and it was granted. The mother argued the Juvenile Court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction and erred when applying the McLendon standard to her request for custody.
The court found that there was “no procedural irregularity.” The court finds no merit in the juvenile court not having subject-matter jurisdiction. The court in regard to the argument of using the McLendon standard, said that they concluded that the September 2006 judgment found that the child was found to be dependent and that was a final judgment.
No comments:
Post a Comment