REL: February 17, 2023

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) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections 

may be made before the opinion is published in Southern Reporter.

ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS

OCTOBER TERM, 2022-2023

_________________________

2210354

_________________________

J.P.

v.

Limestone County Department of Human Resources

_________________________

2210368

_________________________

A.C.

v.

Limestone County Department of Human Resources

Appeals from Limestone Juvenile Court

(JU-21-246.01)

On Applications for Rehearing
2210354 and 2210368

2

THOMPSON, Presiding Judge.

2210354 -- APPLICATION OVERRULED.

2210368 -- APPLICATION OVERRULED.

Edwards, Hanson, and Fridy, JJ., concur.

Moore, J., concurs specially, with opinion.
2210354 and 2210368

3

MOORE, Judge, concurring specially.

I concur that the applications for rehearing should be overruled. I 

write specially to explain why I concurred in the result in the no-opinion 

order of affirmance issued on original submission.

The record in this case shows that, on October 4, 2021, the 

Limestone County Department of Human Resources ("DHR") filed a 

petition against J.P. ("the father") and A.C. ("the mother") alleging that 

their child, S.P. ("the child"), whose date of birth is September 30, 2021, 

was a "dependent child," pursuant to Ala. Code 1975, § 12-15-102(8)a.1., 

a.6., and a.8. The Limestone Juvenile Court ("the juvenile court") 

conducted an adjudicatory hearing on the petition on January 13, 2022. 

See Ala. Code 1975, § 12-15-310. On January 18, 2022, the juvenile court 

entered a judgment finding, among other things, that the child "is a 

dependent child" and disposing of the issue of the temporary custody of 

the child. The mother and the father timely appealed from that 

judgment. 

On original submission, both the mother and the father asserted 

that the finding that the child was a dependent child was not supported 

by sufficient evidence. On original submission, Presiding Judge 
2210354 and 2210368

4

Thompson, pursuant to Rule 53, Ala. R. App. P., issued a no-opinion order 

of affirmance, affirming the judgment based on a thorough review of the 

evidence, concluding that the judgment of the juvenile court was 

supported by clear and convincing evidence. See H.C. v. S.L., 260 So. 3d 

884 (Ala. Civ. App. 2018) (holding that a finding of dependency must be 

supported by clear and convincing evidence). I concurred in the result in 

that no-opinion order of affirmance because I believed that the issue of 

the sufficiency of the evidence was not preserved for appellate review.

In K.M. v. S.R., 326 So. 3d 1062 (Ala. Civ. App. 2020), this court, 

following New Properties, L.L.C. v. Stewart, 905 So. 2d 797, 801-02 (Ala. 

2004), unanimously held that, when a juvenile court enters a judgment 

finding that a child is "dependent" without making specific findings of 

fact supporting that conclusion, a party aggrieved by the judgment must 

file a postjudgment motion or otherwise properly raise before that 

juvenile court the question relating to the sufficiency of the evidence to 

preserve that issue for appellate review. 

In this case, the juvenile court found that the child "is a dependent 

child" without further elaboration. The juvenile court did not even 

specify which part of the statutory definition of "dependent child" it had 
2210354 and 2210368

5

relied upon in reaching its conclusion. As noted, DHR alleged that the 

child was a dependent child and was in need of care or supervision under 

alternative theories, including that the child was a child "[w]hose 

parent[s] ... subject[] the child or any other child in the household to 

abuse ... or neglect ..., or allows the child to be so subjected," Ala. Code 

1975, § 12-15-102(8)a.1.; "[w]hose parent[s] ... [are] unable or unwilling 

to discharge [their] responsibilities to and for the child," Ala. Code 1975, 

§ 12-15-102(8)a.6.; and "[w]ho, for any other cause, is in need of the care 

and protection of the state," Ala. Code 1975, § 12-15-102(8)a.8. The 

juvenile court could have found the child to be dependent on any of those 

grounds or it could have based its determination on some other ground 

proven during the adjudicatory hearing. See M.M.S. v. D.W., 735 So. 2d 

1230, 1232 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999). Neither the mother nor the father filed 

a postjudgment motion to clarify the factual or legal basis of the 

dependency adjudication or to raise a question to the juvenile court as to 

the sufficiency of the evidence before filing their appeals. 

Based on K.M. v. S.R., this court could not, on original submission, 

review the issue of the sufficiency of the evidence argued by the mother 

and the father in their appellate briefs. The mother and the father did 
2210354 and 2210368

6

not make any other argument for reversal of the judgment. Thus, this 

court had no choice but to affirm the judgment. 

On application for rehearing, the mother and the father reiterate 

their sufficiency-of-the-evidence arguments. I remain convinced that this 

court cannot consider those arguments based on K.M. v. S.R.