Court Opinion

ID: 9372026
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-17 17:01:24.605174+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:31.865740
License: Public Domain

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

THOMPSON, Presiding Judge.

    2210354 -- APPLICATION OVERRULED.

    2210368 -- APPLICATION OVERRULED.

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

    Moore, J., concurs specially, with opinion.

                                  2
2210354 and 2210368

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

                                    3
2210354 and 2210368

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

                                    4
2210354 and 2210368

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

                                     5
2210354 and 2210368

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.

                                   6