C.L.S. v. D.B.S. and Jefferson County Department of Human Resources (Appeal from Jefferson Juvenile Court: JU-21-62.01).

Rel: August 2, 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
SPECIAL TERM, 2024
_________________________

CL-2023-0646
_________________________

C.L.S.

v.

D.B.S. and Jefferson County Department of Human Resources

Appeal from Jefferson Juvenile Court
(JU-21-62.01)

HANSON, Judge.

On January 22, 2021, the Jefferson County Department of Human

Resources ("DHR") filed in the Jefferson Juvenile Court ("the juvenile

court") a petition seeking to have the minor child of C.L.S. ("the mother")

and D.B.S. ("the father") found dependent. The record indicates that, at
CL-2023-0646

that time, the mother and father were no longer in a relationship and

that the child was in the custody of the mother. On January 31, 2021, the

juvenile court entered a shelter-care order in which, among other things,

it placed the child in the pendente lite custody of the father and awarded

the mother supervised visitation with the child. The father filed in the

dependency action a request for an award of custody of the child and for

an award of child support.

On May 18, 2022, the father filed in the dependency action a motion

in which he again sought an award of child support from the mother. On

July 20, 2022, the mother filed a petition seeking the return of custody of

the child to her. On July 23, 2022, the juvenile court entered a pendente

lite order in which it found the child dependent and awarded custody of

the child to the father and awarded the mother visitation.

The juvenile court conducted an evidentiary hearing on August 25,

2022. At the beginning of that hearing, the father's attorney reminded

the juvenile court that the father had requested an award of child support

from the mother in the dependency action. The juvenile court referenced

a separate child-support action also pending in that court and stated that

it intended to address that action separately. At the close of the

2
CL-2023-0646

dependency hearing, the father's attorney represented to the juvenile

court that the father had requested an award of child support as a part

of the dependency action but that he had not made a request for an award

of child support in the child-support action. Accordingly, it appears that

the child-support action was initiated by DHR.

On August 26, 2022, the juvenile court entered an order in which it

found the child dependent, awarded custody of the child to the father,

and awarded the mother supervised visitation with the child. In addition,

in that August 26, 2022, order, the juvenile court relieved DHR of any

future supervision of the family and directed that the action be closed.

The August 26, 2022, order did not make any reference to the father's

request for an award of child support, which he had asserted in the

dependency action, nor did it reference the separate child-support action

that appears to have been initiated by DHR.

On September 9, 2022, the father, joined by the child's guardian ad

litem, filed in the dependency action a purported postjudgment motion. 1

1It is questionable whether the father's September 9, 2022, motion

could be said to be, in substance, a postjudgment motion pursuant to Rule
59(e), Ala. R. Civ. P., because, as discussed infra, it did not seek to alter
or amend the August 26, 2022, order. See Evans v. Waddell, 689 So. 2d
3
CL-2023-0646

In that motion, the father alleged that some background checks and an

investigation of relatives of the mother, upon which the award of

supervised visitation for the mother had been based, had not been

completed. The father requested that the juvenile court delay the

mother's scheduled visitation until those background checks and

investigation had been completed or to require the mother to exercise her

emergency visitation at a local counseling center. On that same date, the

juvenile court entered an order granting the father's motion and

specifying that the mother could visit the child at the counseling center

until the completion of the required background checks and investigation

of the relatives who were to supervise her visitations with the child.

The mother filed a notice of appeal to the Jefferson Circuit Court

("the circuit court") on October 13, 2022. See § 12-15-601, Ala. Code 1975

("A party, including the state or any subdivision of the state, has the right

to appeal a judgment or order from any juvenile court proceeding

pursuant to this chapter. The procedure for appealing these cases shall

be pursuant to rules of procedure adopted by the Supreme Court of

23, 26 (Ala. 1997) ("The substance of a motion and not its style
determines what kind of motion it is.").
4
CL-2023-0646

Alabama."); Rule 28, Ala. R. Juv. P. (governing appeals from a juvenile-

court judgment). On January 18, 2023, DHR filed in the circuit court a

motion to transfer the mother's appeal to this court, arguing that because

recordings of the August 25, 2022, hearing were available to create an

adequate appellate record, jurisdiction over the mother's October 13,

2022, appeal was in this court. See Rule 28, Ala. R. Juv. P. The mother

filed an opposition to the motion to transfer in which she argued that no

electronic recording of the August 25, 2022, hearing was available. 2 The

circuit court conducted a hearing, and, on March 13, 2023, it granted

DHR's motion and ordered that the matter "be transferred to the

[juvenile court] for submission" to this court.

We interpret the circuit court's March 13, 2023, order not as

effecting a transfer of jurisdiction over the appeal to the juvenile court,

2We note that, as the court receiving the appeal, the circuit court

was required to determine whether the appeal was properly filed in that
court or whether it should have been filed in this court. Rule 28(E), Ala.
R. Juv. P. ("An appellate court or circuit court may transfer an appeal to
another court if it determines that the appeal should be transferred to or
should have been brought in that court."); Ex parte A.A., 263 So. 3d 1063,
1066 (Ala. Civ. App. 2018) ("Pursuant to Rule 28(D), [now Rule 28(E),]
Ala. R. Juv. P., the court that receives an appeal must determine whether
the appeal should have been brought in another court before transferring
the appeal to the other court.")
5
CL-2023-0646

but, instead, as an order directing the juvenile court to compile the record

on appeal for the mother's appeal to this court. In Ex parte A.A., this

court explained:

"We note that the circuit court has general superintendence
over the juvenile court. See § 12-11-30(4), Ala. Code 1975 ('The
circuit court shall exercise a general superintendence over all
district courts, municipal courts, and probate courts.').
Accordingly, the circuit court may take measures, if
necessary, to direct the completion of the records in order to
determine whether an adequate record exists in each case."

263 So. 3d at 1067.

The juvenile court took no action in response to the circuit court's

March 13, 2023, order. Instead, on August 15, 2023, the juvenile court

entered an order again stating that the case was "closed," and it ordered

the action removed from the juvenile court's docket. Thereafter, on

August 24, 2023, DHR filed a motion in the circuit court requesting that

the appeal be transferred to this court. On August 28, 2023, the circuit

court entered an order granting that request, and the appeal was

transferred to this court.3

3DHR had also filed in the circuit court on July 26, 2023, a motion

seeking the dismissal of the mother's appeal because she had failed to
prosecute the appeal, which she had filed on October 13, 2022. The circuit
court did not rule on that motion to dismiss before it ordered that the
appeal be transferred to this court.
6
CL-2023-0646

Initially, we note that this court, ex mero motu, may take notice of

any jurisdictional issues such as whether a judgment from which an

appeal arises is not sufficiently final to support that appeal. P.D.S. v.

Marshall Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 32 So. 3d 1288, 1290 (Ala. Civ. App.

2009); Butler v. Phillips, 3 So. 3d 922, 925 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008); J.S. v.

J.D.R., 987 So. 2d 1147, 1149 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007). An appeal from a

judgment entered under the Alabama Juvenile Justice Act § 12-15-101 et

seq., Ala. Code 1975, which governs, among other things, dependency

actions, must be taken from a final judgment or order. P.J. v. Shelby

Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 338 So. 3d 781, 784 (Ala. Civ. App. 2021). See

also § 12-15-601, Ala. Code 1975 ("A party, including the state or any

subdivision of the state, has the right to appeal a judgment or order from

any juvenile court proceeding pursuant to this chapter."); Rule 28(A)(1),

Ala. R. Juv. P. ("Appeals from final orders or judgments of the juvenile

court shall be to the appropriate appellate court."); Ex parte T.C., 96 So.

3d 123, 129 (Ala. 2012) (quoting T.C. v. Mac.M., 96 So. 3d 115, 121 (Ala.

Civ. App. 2011) quoting in turn former Rule 28, Ala. R. Juv. P.) (" ' Rule

28, Ala. R. Juv. P., continues to govern the detailed procedure for appeals

from the juvenile court, and that rule expressly authorizes appeals only

7
CL-2023-0646

from "final orders, judgments, or decrees of the juvenile court." ' "); B.J. v.

Calhoun Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 372 So. 3d 1213, 1217 (Ala. Civ. App.

2022) ("In a dependency proceeding, an appeal will lie only from a final

judgment."); and S.A.M. v. M.H.W., 227 So. 3d 1232, 1233 (Ala. Civ. App.

2017) ("An appeal of a juvenile court's order lies from a final judgment.").

A final judgment is one that adjudicates all the claims and issues

presented to the trier of fact. Bean v. Craig, 557 So. 2d 1249, 1253 (Ala.

1990); S.M. v. C.A., 267 So. 3d 851, 852 (Ala. Civ. App. 2018); S.A.M. v.

M.H.W., 227 So. 3d at 1233; M.H. v. H.N.M., 46 So. 3d 967, 969 (Ala. Civ.

App. 2009). In J.M.M. v. J.C., 50 So. 3d 1076 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010), the

juvenile court entered an order that left custody of a child with the child's

custodian and "reserved" the issue of an award of child support from the

mother. This court dismissed the mother's appeal as taken from a

nonfinal order, holding that because the pending child-support claim

remained pending, the judgment from which the mother had appealed

was nonfinal and could not support the appeal. J.M.M. v. J.C., 50 So. 3d

at 1078.

Similarly, in T.H. v. Jefferson County Department of Human

Resources, 100 So. 3d 583 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012), a juvenile court entered

8
CL-2023-0646

orders in the dependency actions pertaining to a mother's four children

in which, among other things, it left custody of the children with DHR

and ordered the mother to produce evidence of her income for the purpose

of determining her child-support obligation at a later date. The mother

appealed those orders, and this court dismissed the mother's appeals on

the basis that those appeals were taken from a nonfinal judgment

because the child-support claims remained pending. T.H. v. Jefferson

Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 100 So. 3d at 585-86.

In this case, in addition to the dependency claims and the parties'

competing claims for custody of the child, the father asserted a claim

seeking an award of child support from the mother in the dependency

action. The August 26, 2022, order does not mention the father's child-

support claim. Moreover, that order does not contain any ruling that

contains language or grants relief that might be said to implicitly deny

the father's claim seeking an award of child support. See Wells v.

Tankersley, 244 So. 3d 975, 977 (Ala. Civ. App. 2017) (holding that

because the relief granted by the trial court in its judgment was

incompatible with certain claims asserted by the mother, the trial court

had implicitly denied the mother's claims); Morgan v. Morgan, 183 So. 3d

9
CL-2023-0646

945, 966 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014) (holding that a claim seeking relief from

all pendente lite support obligations was implicitly denied when the trial

court reduced only the pendente lite child-support obligation); and

Wellborn v. Wellborn, 100 So. 3d 1122, 1126 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012)

(holding that because the trial court had granted the father's request to

decrease his child-support obligation, it had implicitly denied the

mother's claim seeking an increase in that child-support obligation).

In Faellaci v. Faellaci, 67 So. 3d 923 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011), a trial

court orally indicated that its award of a child-support arrearage was

intended as a ruling on the wife's claim seeking to have the husband held

in contempt for his failure to pay child support as previously ordered. The

trial court's judgment in that case did not address the issue of contempt,

and this court determined that, under the specific facts of that case, the

trial court had implicitly denied the wife's contempt claim. This court

explained:

"At the conclusion of the ore tenus hearing in this case,
the trial court issued its judgment from the bench and ordered
the parties' attorneys to draw up an order reflecting its ruling.
During that discussion, the wife's attorney stated that the
trial court had not ruled on the wife's pending petition for a
rule nisi, and he pointed out that the trial court's failure to do
so would render the judgment nonfinal. The trial-court judge
responded that his award of a child-support arrearage to the

10
CL-2023-0646

wife was intended as a ruling on her petition for a rule nisi.
See Frasemer v. Frasemer, 578 So. 2d 1346, 1349 (Ala. Civ.
App. 1991) (child-support arrearage must be awarded even if
payor's behavior was not contemptuous). We conclude that
such an expression, followed by an order that did not
specifically hold the husband in contempt, satisfies this court,
in these particular circumstances, that the trial court
implicitly concluded that the husband's behavior did not rise
to the level of contempt in this case. Although an explicit
ruling on pending contempt petitions is always more
desirable, we find that the trial court's judgment sufficiently
indicates an intention to conclusively rule on the wife's
pending petition for a rule nisi."

Faellaci v. Faellaci, 67 So. 3d 923, 925 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011).

As in Faellaci v. Faellaci, supra, the juvenile court in this case made

oral statements during an evidentiary hearing regarding its intention not

to address a claim asserted by one of the parties to the dependency action,

i.e., the father's child-support claim. In Faellaci v. Faellaci, however, the

mother had alleged that the father was in contempt for his failure to pay

child support, and the trial court's judgment in that case awarded the

mother a child-support arrearage for amounts that the father had failed

to pay. Thus, this court held that the judgment in Faellaci v. Faellaci,

together with the trial court's oral statements during the hearing,

contained a sufficient expression of an intent to determine the contempt

claim.

11
CL-2023-0646

In this case, however, the juvenile court's judgment contains no

indication that the juvenile court considered the father's child-support

claim as a part of the dependency action. The juvenile court orally stated

that it intended to determine the issue of child support as a part of the

separate child-support action initiated by DHR. Given that distinction,

i.e., that the father had no other child-support claim pending in another

action, the juvenile court's failure to adjudicate all the pending claims in

the dependency action rendered the August 26, 2022, order nonfinal.

We note that the record also indicates that, had the August 26,

2022, order been a final judgment, this appeal was arguably untimely.

We need not resolve that issue, however. This court may not dismiss an

appeal as untimely if it is taken from a nonfinal order. Ex parte

Harrington, 289 So. 3d 1232, 1235-37 (Ala. 2019); Kyles v. Kyles, 202 So.

3d 684, 686 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016). See also Grubbs v. Grubbs, 729 So. 2d

346, 347 (Ala. Civ. App. 1998) (holding that, generally, an appeal lies only

from a final judgment); T.B. v. A.J., 812 So. 2d 1287, 1289 n.1 (Ala. Civ.

App. 2001) ("Because the father's appeal was taken from a nonfinal

judgment, we deny the grandmother's motion to dismiss the appeal as

untimely (i.e., late)."). "Because the order appealed from was not final, it

12
CL-2023-0646

is irrelevant whether [the appellant's] appeal was [arguably] untimely."

Erskine v. Guin, 384 So. 3d 583, 597 (Ala. 2023).

" 'The question whether a judgment is final is a jurisdictional

question, and the reviewing court, on a determination that the judgment

is not final, has a duty to dismiss the case.' Hubbard v. Hubbard, 935 So.

2d 1191, 1192 (Ala. Civ. App. 2006)." M.H. v. H.N.M., 46 So. 3d at 969.

The mother's appeal is taken from a nonfinal judgment, and, therefore,

we dismiss the appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

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

13