K.L. v. M.W. (Appeal from Autauga Juvenile Court: JU-23-44.01).

Rel: January 5, 2024

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, 2023-2024
_________________________

CL-2023-0274
_________________________

K.L.

v.

M.W.

Appeal from Autauga Juvenile Court
(JU-23-44.01)

THOMPSON, Presiding Judge.

In late February or early March 2023, M.W., acting pro se, filed in

the Autauga Juvenile Court ("the juvenile court") a petition pertaining to

Pa.L. ("the child"), a minor child born to K.L. ("the mother"). The juvenile-

court intake officer and the juvenile court treated M.W.'s petition as one
CL-2023-0274

seeking to have the child found dependent and in which M.W. was

seeking an award of custody of the child. On the court-supplied form that

served as her petition, M.W. indicated that the child was five years old.

As a factual basis for her petition, M.W. included on the form the

following handwritten allegations:

"[The mother] and I were strangers. We spoke over the
telephone. [A.G.], a cousin of [the mother] and an associate of
mine, informed me that [the mother] and the [child] were
living in a hotel with people who did drugs. [The] seven-
month-old [child] was given to [A.G.'s] mother[, H.G.], who
was already raising [the child's older sibling].[1] [The child's
older sibling] had been with [H.G.] since she was four years
old. [H.G.] could not care for [the child's older sibling] and [the
child]. They wanted to find someone that would take care of
[the child]. I called [A.G.] one day just to chat, and [A.G.]
began to tell me she was on the side of the road, praying and
asking God to send her someone to take care of the [child].
[A.G.] asked me to care for the [child]."

In addition, in her petition, M.W. alleged that she had been informed that

the child's father or alleged father was in prison.

Later, in an ex parte motion in which she requested an immediate

award of "emergency" pendente lite custody of the child, M.W. alleged

1The handwritten, pro se petition does not identify H.G. by her last

name, but H.G.'s full name is set forth in other places in the record on
appeal.
2
CL-2023-0274

that she had maintained custody of the child for approximately four

years, that the mother had executed a "delegation of parental authority"

in favor of M.W. in August 2022, and that the mother was not fit to take

care of the child. M.W. further stated in that motion for an award of

immediate pendente lite custody of the child that she believed that the

mother would attempt to remove the child from the jurisdiction of the

juvenile court.

On April 3, 2023, the juvenile court entered an ex parte order in

which it awarded M.W. pendente lite custody of the child and found the

child to be dependent. In that order, the juvenile court also scheduled a

hearing on M.W.'s motion for April 5, 2023.

On April 7, 2023, the juvenile court entered an order in which it

found, based upon evidence presented at the April 5, 2023, hearing and

upon the arguments of the parties, that the child was dependent. The

juvenile court again awarded pendente lite custody of the child to M.W.,

and it suspended the mother's visitation with the child pending a final

hearing, which it scheduled for April 26, 2023.

Following that hearing, on April 28, 2023, the juvenile court

entered a judgment in which it determined that the child was dependent,

3
CL-2023-0274

awarded custody of the child to M.W., and awarded the mother visitation

with the child. The juvenile court also admonished the parties to work

together for the best interests of the child, and it ordered the action

"closed."

The mother filed a postjudgment motion on May 1, 2023. On that

same date, the mother filed a notice of appeal to this court. The mother's

appeal was held in abeyance pending the disposition of her postjudgment

motion. See Rule 59.1, Ala. R. Civ. P.; Rule 1(B), Ala. R. Juv. P.; and Rule

4(a)(5), Ala. R. App. P. On May 9, 2023, the juvenile court entered an

amended judgment in which it modified the schedule of visitation

awarded to the mother. The mother's appeal became effective on May 9,

2023. See Rule 4(a)(5); and K.R.S. v. DeKalb Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res.,

236 So. 3d 910, 912 (Ala. Civ. App. 2017).

The mother's first argument is dispositive of this appeal. The

mother argues that the juvenile court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction

over this matter because, she contends, M.W.'s petition did not contain

sufficient allegations to invoke the dependency jurisdiction of the juvenile

court. The mother did not assert this argument in the juvenile court.

However, the issue of subject-matter jurisdiction may not be waived, and

4
CL-2023-0274

it may be raised at any time, even for the first time on appeal or by an

appellate court, ex mero motu. R.J. v. J.N.M.W., 339 So. 3d 935, 937 (Ala.

Civ. App. 2021); M.B.L. v. G.G.L., 1 So. 3d 1048, 1050 (Ala. Civ. App.

2008) (citing S.B.U. v. D.G.B., 913 So. 2d 452 (Ala. Civ. App. 2005)). This

court reviews a question concerning subject-matter jurisdiction de novo.

M.B.L. v. G.G.L., 1 So. 3d at 1050.

Section 12-15-114(a), Ala. Code 1975, a portion of the Alabama

Juvenile Justice Act ("the AJJA"), § 12-15-101 et seq., Ala. Code 1975,

provides that "[a] juvenile court shall exercise exclusive original

jurisdiction of juvenile court proceedings in which a child is alleged to …

be dependent." The AJJA requires that a dependency action must be

commenced by filing a petition with a juvenile-court intake officer. See §

12-15-114(a) ("Juvenile cases before the juvenile court shall be initiated

through the juvenile court intake officer pursuant to [the AJJA]."); and §

12-15-120(a), Ala. Code 1975 ("[D]ependency cases … shall be initiated

by the filing of a petition by the juvenile court intake officer who shall

receive verified complaints and proceed thereon pursuant to rules of

procedure adopted by the Supreme Court of Alabama."). The juvenile-

5
CL-2023-0274

court intake officer must then determine whether the proposed

dependency petition should be allowed to proceed in the juvenile court.

"(B) In determining whether to receive a complaint, the
juvenile court intake officer shall conduct a preliminary
inquiry to determine whether the acts or conditions alleged
are within the subject-matter jurisdiction of the juvenile
court, whether venue is proper, and whether probable cause
exists to believe that the child is delinquent, dependent, in
need of supervision, or in violation of an order of probation or
aftercare."

Rule 12(B), Ala. R. Juv. P. See also § 12-15-120(b) (providing that a

dependency petition may not be filed unless the juvenile-court intake

officer determines, among other things, that the petition invokes the

subject-matter jurisdiction of the juvenile court).

The requirements for the form and content of a dependency petition

are set forth in § 12-15-121, Ala. Code 1975, which provides, in pertinent

part:

"(a) A juvenile petition alleging delinquency, in need of
supervision, or dependency may be signed by any person 18
years of age or older, other than a juvenile court intake officer,
who has knowledge of the facts alleged or is informed of them
and believes that they are true. However, the person signing
a dependency petition, in the petition or in an attached
affidavit, shall give information, if reasonably ascertainable,
as required in Section 30-3B-209[, Ala. Code 1975].

".…
6
CL-2023-0274

"(c) The petition shall set forth with specificity … the
following:

"(1) The facts which bring the child under the
jurisdiction of the juvenile court, the facts
constituting the alleged dependency, delinquency,
or need of supervision and the facts showing that
the child is in need of supervision, treatment,
rehabilitation, care, or the protection of the state,
as the case may be."

A petition that will invoke the dependency jurisdiction of a juvenile court

is one that "avers facts that, if proven to be true, would establish the

dependency of the child under § 12-15-102(8), [Ala. Code 1975,]

regardless of the particular language pleaded." R.J. v. J.N.M.W., 339 So.

3d at 938. See also Ex parte L.E.O., 61 So. 3d 1042, 1047 n.4 (Ala. 2010).

In this case, the juvenile-court intake officer allowed M.W.'s

petition to proceed for consideration in the juvenile court. Thus, the

juvenile-court intake officer implicitly determined that M.W.'s petition

was sufficient to invoke the subject-matter jurisdiction of the juvenile

court over dependency actions. However, the determination of the

juvenile-court intake officer is not dispositive, and the issue of subject-

matter jurisdiction may be questioned at any point in the proceedings.

G.W.K. v. B.W.M., [Ms. CL-2022-0911, July 14, 2023] ___ So. 3d ___, ___

7
CL-2023-0274

(Ala. Civ. App. 2023); M.B.L. v. G.G.L., supra. In fact, the juvenile court,

in initially reviewing the petition, should examine its jurisdiction over

the matter and determine whether its dependency jurisdiction has been

invoked; if not, it must dismiss the action. G.W.K. v. B.W.M., ___ So. 3d

at ___. See also M.H.-J. v. P.H.-J., 324 So. 3d 1270, 1271 (Ala. Civ. App.

2020) (affirming a juvenile-court judgment that dismissed a dependency

action filed in regard to a person who was 18 years old and, therefore,

was not a "child" as defined by § 12-15-102(3), Ala. Code 1975, who could

be determined to be dependent under the AJJA).

Thus, this court must determine whether the allegations in M.W.'s

petition, if proven to be true, were sufficient to support a determination

that the child was dependent. This court has recently reiterated that

" ' "[a] child is dependent if, at the time a petition is filed in the juvenile

court alleging dependency, the child meets the statutory definition of a

dependent child." ' " G.W.K. v. B.W.M., ___ So. 3d at ___ (quoting A.G. v.

Ka.G., 114 So. 3d 24, 26 (Ala. 2012), quoting in turn Ex parte L.E.O., 61

So. 3d at 1046) (emphasis added). Under the AJJA, a "dependent child"

is:

8
CL-2023-0274

"[a] child who has been adjudicated dependent by a juvenile
court and is in need of care or supervision and meets any of
the following circumstances:

"1. Whose parent, legal guardian, legal
custodian, or other custodian subjects the child or
any other child in the household to abuse, as
defined in Section 12-15-301[, Ala. Code 1975,] or
neglect as defined in Section 12-15-301, or allows
the child to be so subjected.

"2. Who is without a parent, legal guardian,
or legal custodian willing and able to provide for
the care, support, or education of the child.

"3. Whose parent, legal guardian, legal
custodian, or other custodian neglects or refuses,
when able to do so or when the service is offered
without charge, to provide or allow medical,
surgical, or other care necessary for the health or
well-being of the child.

"4. Whose parent, legal guardian, legal
custodian, or other custodian fails, refuses, or
neglects to send the child to school in accordance
with the terms of the compulsory school
attendance laws of this state.

"5. Whose parent, legal guardian, legal
custodian, or other custodian has abandoned the
child, as defined in subdivision (1) of Section 12-
15-301.

"6. Whose parent, legal guardian, legal
custodian, or other custodian is unable or

9
CL-2023-0274

unwilling to discharge his or her responsibilities to
and for the child.

"7. Who has been placed for care or adoption
in violation of the law.

"8. Who, for any other cause, is in need of the
care and protection of the state."

§ 12-15-102(8)a., Ala. Code 1975.

M.W.'s petition alleges, in essence, that, when the child was seven

months old, the mother and the child were living with people who used

illegal drugs. That petition further alleges that, when the child was seven

months old, the mother left the child in the care of H.G., who was already

caring for the child's older sibling and who could not care for both the

older sibling and the child. Therefore, H.G.'s daughter, A.G., asked M.W.

"to care for" the child. The petition also indicates that, at the time it was

filed, the child was five years old.

M.W.'s petition contains no other information concerning the

mother's conduct toward the child in the years between the time the child

was seven months old and the date of the petition, when M.W. indicated

that the child was five years old. M.W.'s petition contains no allegations

or assertions that, if proven to be true, would show that the child was

10
CL-2023-0274

dependent at the time the petition was filed in the juvenile court. See Ex

parte L.E.O., supra; and G.W.K. v. B.W.M., supra. Accordingly, we agree

with the mother's argument that M.W.'s petition did not contain

sufficient allegations that could result in a determination that the child

was dependent at the time the petition was filed in the juvenile court.

A.G. v. Ka.G., supra; Ex parte L.E.O., supra; G.W.K. v. B.W.M., supra.

In her brief submitted to this court, M.W. argues that, in context,

considering the petition as a whole, "it can be presumed" that the child

had remained in M.W.'s home and had been abandoned by the mother.

We cannot agree. "To satisfy § 12-15-121(c)(1)[, Ala. Code 1975,] and to

invoke the dependency jurisdiction of a juvenile court, a party must allege

specific facts in its petition indicating that a child is a 'dependent child'

as defined in § 12-15-102(8)a.[, Ala. Code 1975]." G.W.K. v. B.W.M., ___

So. 3d at ___ (emphasis added). See also L.B. v. R.L.B., 53 So. 3d 969, 972

(Ala. Civ. App. 2010) ("By failing to allege with specificity that the child

was in need of supervision or to otherwise allege facts that, if proven,

would establish the child's dependency, the father, in turn, failed to

properly invoke the jurisdiction of the juvenile court."). The requirement

11
CL-2023-0274

that a child's dependency must be alleged through specific facts prevents

the courts from inferring dependency based on speculation.

We note that, in M.W.'s motion seeking an immediate award of

pendente lite custody of the child, M.W. made additional assertions that

might arguably be considered to be dependency allegations. However,

later motions or amendments to a complaint or a dependency petition

that contain additional factual allegations do not operate to cure a

petitioner's failure to properly invoke the subject-matter jurisdiction of a

court in his or her original complaint or petition. Alabama Dep't of Corr.

v. Montgomery Cnty. Comm'n, 11 So. 3d 189, 191 (Ala. 2008); G.W.K. v.

B.W.M., supra. Therefore, we hold that the assertions made in M.W.'s

motion for pendente lite custody, together with the allegations in the

petition, could not operate to create subject-matter jurisdiction in the

juvenile court over this matter.

M.W.'s petition filed in the juvenile court did not properly invoke

the juvenile court's subject-matter jurisdiction. Therefore, the

proceedings in, and the judgment of, the juvenile court were void. G.W.K.

v. B.W.M., supra. A void judgment will not support an appeal, and,

12
CL-2023-0274

therefore, we dismiss this appeal. R.L. v. J.E.R., 69 So. 3d 898, 902 (Ala.

Civ. App. 2011).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

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

13