C.B.W. v. R.H. and J.H. (Appeal from Baldwin Juvenile Court: JU-18-952.02).

Rel: January 10, 2025

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, 2024-2025
_________________________

CL-2024-0537 and CL-2024-0538
_________________________

C.B.W.

v.

R.H. and J.H.

Appeals from Baldwin Juvenile Court
(JU-18-952.02 and JU-18-952.03)

FRIDY, Judge.

C.B.W. ("the mother") appeals from judgments of the Baldwin

Juvenile Court ("the juvenile court") terminating her parental rights to

her child, J.H.H. ("the child") and dismissing as moot her petition seeking
CL-2024-0537 and CL-2024-0538

custody of, or visitation with, the child. 1 For the reasons set forth herein,

we conclude that the judgment terminating the mother's parental rights

is not a final judgment that is capable of supporting an appeal, that the

mother's appeal from that judgment is therefore due to be dismissed, and

that the judgment dismissing the mother's custody petition as moot is

due to be reversed and remanded because that judgment is dependent on

the judgment terminating the mother’s parental rights.

Background

The child was born to the mother and J.Jo.H. ("the father") in July

2018 but had always lived in the home of R.H. ("the paternal

grandmother") and J.Ju.H. ("the paternal grandfather") (collectively "the

paternal grandparents"). According to the paternal grandmother, when

the child was born, the mother and the father suffered from substance-

abuse issues. In December 2018, the paternal grandparents obtained

custody of the child pursuant to a judgment in which the juvenile court

confirmed a juvenile-court referee's order finding the child dependent and

awarding the paternal grandparents "sole and exclusive custody" of the

1The child's father, J.Jo.H., consented to the termination of his
parental rights, and he is not a party to this appeal.
2
CL-2024-0537 and CL-2024-0538

child. The judgment did not contain any provisions regarding visitation

for the mother. Neither the mother nor the father appealed from the

dependency judgment.

On September 22, 2021, the paternal grandparents filed a petition

in the juvenile court seeking to terminate the parents' parental rights.

That action was assigned case number JU-18-952.02 ("the .02 action"). In

support of that petition, the paternal grandparents alleged that the

mother and the father were unable or unwilling to discharge their

responsibilities to and for the child and that the parents' conduct was

unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. They also alleged that the

mother had abandoned the child.

On October 22, 2021, the mother filed a "counter-petition for

modification," asserting that she was fit and capable of being the primary

physical custodian of the child and asking for custody of the child or,

alternatively, for visitation with the child. The mother's modification

action was assigned case number JU-18-952.03 ("the .03 action").

The juvenile court held a trial involving both the .02 and the .03

actions on June 13, 2024. On June 18, 2024, it entered a judgment in the

.02 action terminating the mother's parental rights. That judgment did

3
CL-2024-0537 and CL-2024-0538

not include a permanent custodial disposition of the child, however. Also

on June 18, the juvenile court entered a judgment in the .03 action

dismissing that action as moot.

The mother filed motions to alter, amend, or vacate both the

judgment in the .02 action and the judgment in the .03 action; the

motions were denied by operation of law. The mother then appealed both

judgments, which were assigned case numbers CL-2024-0537 and CL-

2024-0538, respectively. This court consolidated the appeals.

Analysis

Although neither party raises the issue of whether this court has

jurisdiction to consider these appeals, it is well settled "that an appellate

court must initially consider whether it has jurisdiction to hear and

decide an appeal: '[J]urisdictional matters are of such magnitude that we

take notice of them at any time and do so even ex mero motu.' Nunn v.

Baker, 518 So. 2d 711, 712 (Ala. 1987)." Alabama Dep't of Revenue v.

WestPoint Home, LLC, 256 So. 3d 1197, 1199 (Ala. Civ. App. 2018).

The Alabama Juvenile Justice Act ("the AJJA"), § 12-15-101 et seq.,

Ala. Code 1975, governs actions involving the termination of parental

rights. § 12-15-319, Ala. Code 1975. Except in circumstances not present

4
CL-2024-0537 and CL-2024-0538

here, an appeal in an action governed by the AJJA may be taken only

from a final judgment. P.J. v. Shelby Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 338 So.

3d 781, 784 (Ala. Civ. App. 2021). In D.L. v. E.L., [Ms. CL-2023-0198,

Mar. 1, 2024] ___ So. 3d ___ (Ala. Civ. App. 2024), a case procedurally

similar to the instant case, this court discussed the issue of finality with

regard to a judgment that terminates a parent's parental rights. In D.L.,

a child's paternal grandparents filed a petition alleging that their

grandchild was dependent and requesting an award of custody of the

grandchild. The juvenile court in that case granted the petition, finding

the grandchild dependent and awarding the grandparents pendente lite

custody. About five months later, the grandparents filed a second

dependency petition based on new circumstances and again sought

custody of their grandchild. The juvenile court again found the

grandchild dependent, awarded the grandparents custody, and ordered

that the case be closed. About fifteen months after the entry of the second

dependency judgment, the grandparents filed a petition to terminate the

parental rights of the parents. The juvenile court entered a judgment

terminating the parent's parental rights; however, the judgment did not

include a custodial disposition of the child.

5
CL-2024-0537 and CL-2024-0538

On appeal, this court considered whether the judgment terminating

the parent’s parental rights was a final judgment. We set forth the

pertinent portion of § 12-15-320(b), Ala. Code 1975, which provides:

"(b) If the juvenile court determines that the parents of
a child are unwilling or unable to act as parents and
terminates their parental rights, it may do the following:

"(1) Transfer or continue the permanent
legal custody of the child to the Department of
Human Resources or to any public or private
licensed child-placing agency able and willing to
assume the care and maintenance of the child. An
order of the juvenile court which terminates
parental rights and awards permanent legal
custody to the Department of Human Resources or
to a licensed child-placing agency shall mean that
the Department of Human Resources or the
licensed child-placing agency shall have authority
to make permanent plans for the child, including
the authority to place for adoption and consent to
adoption.

"(2) Transfer or continue the permanent
legal custody of the child to the petitioner who,
after study by the Department of Human
Resources, is found to be able to properly receive
and care for the child."

We observed that in S.H. v. Macon County Department of Human

Resources, 195 So. 3d 311 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015), and Ex parte Alabama

Department of Human Resources, 154 So. 3d 1060 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014)

(abrogated on other grounds by S.H., supra)), this court had interpreted

6
CL-2024-0537 and CL-2024-0538

§ 12-15-320(b) as requiring juvenile courts in judgments terminating

parental rights to specify that an award of permanent custody of the child

has been made or that a previous award of permanent custody of the child

is to be continued. D.L., ___ So. 3d at ___.

The judgment terminating the mother's parental rights to the child

in this case did not contain a provision continuing permanent custody of

the child with the paternal grandparents, nor did it otherwise award

permanent custody of the child to them. See § 12-15-320(b). Applying the

holding in D.L. to the substantially similar facts in this case, we conclude

that the judgment was not final and will not support an appeal. D.L., ___

So. 3d at ___. We are therefore constrained to dismiss the appeal with

instructions to the juvenile court to make a custody disposition in the .02

action.

Separately, the mother has also appealed the dismissal of the .03

action in which she sought custody of or visitation with the child. As

noted above, the juvenile court dismissed the .03 action as moot based on

its judgment terminating her parental rights in the .02 action. Because

of our conclusion that the judgment in the .02 action is not final and is

open to being changed, the mother's custody petition in the .03 action is

7
CL-2024-0537 and CL-2024-0538

not moot. See 13B Charles Alan Wright, Arthur K. Miller, and Edward

H. Cooper, Federal Practice & Procedure § 3533.2.1 (2008) (explaining

that a related proceeding may not be moot when the issue of mootness

turns on a decision in a related action that is subject to revision). As a

result, we reverse the judgment in the .03 action and remand that action

to the juvenile court. In doing so, we note that, should the juvenile court

enter a final judgment in the .02 action that terminates the mother's

parental rights and makes a disposition of the child's custody, it could

then consider whether that judgment renders the .03 action moot and

enter a new judgment in the .03 action.

Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, the appeal in the .02 action is

dismissed with instructions to the juvenile court to comply with the

requirements of § 12-15-320(b). The judgment in the .03 action is

reversed, and the cause is remanded to the juvenile court for further

consideration consistent with this opinion.

CL-2024-0537 -- APPEAL DISMISSED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

CL-2024-0538 -- REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Moore, P.J., and Edwards, Hanson, and Lewis, JJ., concur.

8