Case Title: Ex parte A.R.S. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS (In re: A.R.S. v. J.E.M.)

Citation: 

Docket Number: 1051215

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 2007-08-31T00:00:00Z

Document:
Rel: 08/31/2007
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance
sheets of Southern Reporter.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-
0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before
the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
SPECIAL TERM, 2007
____________________
1051215
____________________
Ex parte A.R.S.
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
(In re: A.R.S.
v.
J.E.M.)
(Calhoun Circuit Court, JU-05-638.02;
Court of Civil Appeals, 2050186)
PARKER, Justice.
I. Trial Court Proceedings
This case concerns a minor child, K.D.H.  J.E.M.,
K.D.H.'s natural father, filed a petition to determine
1051215
Although A.R.S. claims that the trial court awarded
1
custody of K.D.H. to J.E.M, the record contains no order
expressly granting custody to J.E.M.  However, the trial
court's order found that K.D.H. "is not dependent pursuant to
§ 12-15-1(10) Code of Alabama 1975" and dismissed the
consolidated dependency petitions for failure of proof.
2
paternity and seeking custody of K.D.H.  The Calhoun County
Department of Human Resources ("DHR") filed a petition
alleging K.D.H. to be dependent and seeking custody of K.D.H.
A.R.S., the maternal great-grandmother, filed a motion to
intervene, 
which 
the 
trial 
court 
granted 
as 
to 
the
dispositional phase only, and a petition alleging dependency
and seeking custody of K.D.H.  These proceedings were
consolidated.  After a hearing, the trial court found K.D.H.
not to be dependent, and J.E.M. was determined to be K.D.H.'s
biological father.  Because K.D.H. was found not to be
dependent, J.E.M., as her biological father, gained legal
custody.  A.R.S. appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals,
claiming that the trial court committed clear and palpable
error by (1) awarding custody of K.D.H. to J.E.M., and (2)
denying her petition seeking to have K.D.H. declared
dependent.   The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial
1
court's judgment, without an opinion. A.R.S. v. J.E.M. (No.
1051215
3
2050186, May 12, 2006), ___ So. 2d ___ (Ala. Civ. App.
2006)(table). 
A.R.S. then filed a petition for a writ of certiorari
with this Court.  This Court granted A.R.S.'s petition and
ordered answer and briefs.
II. Standard of Review
As a general rule,
"'"[a] custody determination of the trial court
entered 
upon 
oral 
testimony 
is 
accorded 
a
presumption of correctness on appeal, and we will
not reverse unless the evidence so fails to support
the determination that it is plainly and palpably
wrong."'"
Ex parte Fann, 810 So. 2d 631, 633 (Ala. 2001) (quoting Ex
parte Perkins, 646 So. 2d 46, 47 (Ala. 1994), quoting in turn
Phillips v. Phillips, 622 So. 2d 410, 412 (Ala. Civ. App.
1993)).  Furthermore:  
"'It is also well established that in the absence of
specific findings of fact, appellate courts will
assume that the trial court made those findings
necessary to support its judgment, unless such
findings would be clearly erroneous.'"  
Ex parte Fann, 810 So. 2d at 633 (quoting Ex parte Bryowsky,
676 So. 2d 1322, 1324 (Ala. 1996)).
III. Analysis
A. Standing
1051215
4
J.E.M. argues that A.R.S. does not have standing to
appeal the trial court's judgment insofar as it found K.D.H.
not to be dependent, because A.R.S. was allowed to intervene
only in the dispositional phase of the dependency hearing.
Because the trial court found K.D.H. not to be dependent, the
court never reached the dispositional phase, and, J.E.M.
argues, a person may not appeal from a judgment to which she
was not a party.
However, A.R.S. also sought custody of K.D.H., and her
petition seeking custody was consolidated with the other
proceedings concerning K.D.H.  The trial court's order finding
K.D.H. not to be dependent refers to K.D.H. as "alleged to be
Dependent by [A.R.S.]."  Although the record is not entirely
clear, we conclude that A.R.S. did have standing to appeal and
does have standing to petition this Court for the writ of
certiorari.
B. Sufficiency of Evidence
A.R.S. alleges that K.D.H., who was born October 18,
2002, has lived with her almost K.D.H.'s entire life, that she
has provided a stable home for K.D.H., that J.E.M.'s
involvement with the child has been minimal to the point of
1051215
J.E.M. testified that when he came to the hospital when
2
K.D.H. was born, another man was in the hospital room with
K.D.H.'s mother, and she was telling that man that he was
K.D.H.'s father.  When counsel asked J.E.M. whether he had
signed an affidavit of paternity, the trial judge interjected,
"I wouldn't sign one either if I walked in and somebody was
saying -– telling somebody else it wasn't my child.  It was
their child."  Subsequent paternity tests established to
J.E.M.'s satisfaction that he is K.D.H.'s father.
5
abandonment, and that J.E.M. had at one time been charged with
burglary and had a history of substance abuse.  For all these
reasons, A.R.S. alleges that J.E.M. is not a fit custodian for
K.D.H.
In his testimony, J.E.M. admitted to his checkered past.
He claims to have been drug-free and alcohol-free for about
five years, and Eric Brian Averette, a licensed graduate
social worker, testified that J.E.M. has no current substance-
abuse problems.  The psychological evaluation submitted as an
exhibit at trial portrays J.E.M. in a generally favorable
light.  He claims to have been more involved in K.D.H.'s life
than A.R.S. gives him credit for, and he claims his limited
involvement in K.D.H.'s life has been caused by A.R.S.'s
interference with his access to K.D.H. and, at first, his
uncertainty as to K.D.H.'s paternity.   He lives with a
2
common-law wife who has a daughter in her early teens.  He
1051215
6
rents a two-bedroom mobile home and has worked at the same job
in plant engineering and maintenance for nearly two years; his
current wage is $13.50 per hour.
K.D.H.'s mother has not sought custody of K.D.H., and by
her own testimony she has been "kicked out" of A.R.S.'s house,
has been fired from her last three jobs after holding each of
them only briefly, has a continuing problem with drug and
alcohol abuse, and was at the time of trial planning to enter
a substance-abuse program.
The trial court found that K.D.H. is not dependent.
Based upon the information presented to this Court, we
conclude that this finding of the trial court is not clearly
erroneous, and the Court of Civil Appeals was therefore
correct in affirming the trial court's judgment in that
respect.
The trial court made no finding that J.E.M. is an unfit
parent.  The Court of Civil Appeals stated in Gross v. Turner,
564 So. 2d 967, 969 (Ala. Civ. App. 1989): "[W]e find that the
trial court erred in awarding custody to a nonparent absent a
finding of unfitness or a voluntary forfeiture of custody by
the mother."  This Court has repeatedly recognized a
1051215
The right of A.R.S. to visit K.D.H. is not before the
3
Court at this time, and this Court does not address or decide
that issue.
At the time of the November 2005 hearing in this case,
4
A.R.S. was 78 years old and K.D.H. was 3 years old.
7
presumption in favor of a child's natural parents, because
"'[s]o strong is the presumption, that "the care which is
prompted by the parental instinct, and responded to by filial
affection, is most valuable of all."'" Ex parte Berryhill, 410
So. 2d 416, 417 (Ala. 1982) (quoting Striplin v. Ware, 36 Ala.
87, 89-90 (1860)).  In the absence of a finding of unfitness,
we must therefore presume that J.E.M. is a fit parent.
This Court and the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals have
repeatedly held that parents' rights to custody of their
children are fundamental and take precedence even over the
rights of grandparents; see Hays v. Hays, 946 So. 2d 867 (Ala.
Civ. App. 2006); C.D.P. v. D.P., 927 So. 2d 841 (Ala. Civ.
App. 2005); A.M.K. v. E.D., 826 So. 2d 889 (Ala. Civ. App.
2002); L.B.S. v. L.M.S., 826 So. 2d 178 (Ala. Civ. App. 2002);
and R.S.C. v. J.B.C., 812 So. 2d 361 (Ala. Civ. App. 2001).3
In light of the evidence concerning J.E.M.'s gainful
employment and his abstinence from drugs and A.R.S.'s advanced
age,  as well as conflicting evidence as to whether J.E.M.
4
1051215
8
abandoned K.D.H. or voluntarily relinquished custody of her or
whether A.R.S. prevented him from seeing K.D.H., we cannot
conclude that the trial court committed clear and palpable
error in finding that K.D.H. is not dependent and in
dismissing the consolidated petitions.  
IV. Conclusion
A.R.S. has failed to prove that the trial court's order
was clearly erroneous.  We therefore affirm the judgment of
the Court of Civil Appeals.
AFFIRMED.
Cobb, C.J., and See, Lyons, Woodall, Smith, and Bolin,
JJ., concur.
Stuart, J., concurs in the result.
Murdock, J., recuses himself.