E.H.W. v. J.E. and A.E.

Rel: August 1, 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
SPECIAL TERM, 2025
_________________________

CL-2025-0118 and CL-2025-0119
_________________________

E.H.W.

v.

J.E. and A.E.

Appeals from Chilton Juvenile Court
(CS-23-900153.00 and CS-23-900153.01)

FRIDY, Judge.

In appeal number CL-2025-0119, E.H.W. ("the mother") appeals

from a judgment of the Chilton Juvenile Court ("the juvenile court")

purporting to award custody of Av.E. ("the child"), a child born of a

nonmarital relationship between the mother and J.E. ("the father"), to
CL-2025-0118 and CL-2025-0119

An.E. ("the paternal grandfather"). In appeal number CL-2025-0118, the

mother appeals from an interlocutory order of the juvenile court that

makes findings of fact but does not dispose of all the competing custody

claims in that action and, therefore, is not a final, appealable judgment.

Because the juvenile court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to enter the

judgment appealed from in appeal number CL-2025-0119 and lacked

subject-matter jurisdiction to enter the interlocutory order appealed from

in appeal number CL-2025-0118, we dismiss both appeals, albeit with

instructions to the juvenile court.

Background

On October 26, 2023, the father filed in the juvenile court a

complaint naming the mother as the defendant and seeking emergency

custody of the child. The father's complaint alleged that he had exercised

physical custody of the child for the previous two years after the Chilton

Circuit Court ("the circuit court") had awarded the paternal grandfather

custody of the child in an action docketed by that court as case number

DR-16-900215. The father's complaint further alleged that, on October

24, 2023, the circuit court had entered an order vacating its judgment

awarding the paternal grandfather custody of the child; that, upon the

2
CL-2025-0118 and CL-2025-0119

circuit court's entering its order vacating the judgment awarding the

paternal grandfather custody of the child, the mother had gone to the

child's school and taken custody of the child; that the mother had had

little to no contact with the child before October 24, 2023, and,

consequently, the child did not know the mother; that the mother was in

a relationship with a man who had an extensive criminal history; that

the mother had a history of using illegal drugs; and that it would be in

the child's best interest to award the father emergency custody of the

child. The father's complaint did not expressly allege that the child was

dependent or that there was any other statutory basis supporting an

exercise of subject-matter jurisdiction by the juvenile court. The juvenile

court docketed the father's complaint as case number CS-23-900153.00

("the .00 action").

On October 27, 2023, the mother filed a motion to dismiss the

father's complaint on the ground that it did not allege a set of facts

warranting an award of emergency custody. The juvenile court denied

the mother's motion to dismiss on the same day it was filed. Also on

October 27, 2023, the juvenile court held a hearing regarding the father's

3
CL-2025-0118 and CL-2025-0119

claim seeking emergency custody, denied that claim, and awarded him

visitation on alternating weekends.

In November 2023, the mother filed a motion asking the juvenile

court to appoint a guardian ad litem to protect the child's interests. The

juvenile court subsequently granted the mother's motion and appointed

a guardian ad litem for the child.

On January 1, 2024, the father filed a motion in the .00 action

asking the juvenile court to award him pendente lite custody of the child.

On February 21, 2024, the father filed a pleading titled "Objection to

Relocation and Petition for Custody." The juvenile court docketed that

pleading as a separate action and designated it as case number CS-23-

900153.01 ("the .01 action"). In his complaint in the .01 action, the father

alleged that the mother had moved with the child to Prattville without

giving him any advance notice. The complaint further alleged that the

move was not in the child's best interest because, it said, the move would

disrupt the child's life and separate her from all her friends who live in

Verbena and would irreparably harm the father's relationship with the

child. The complaint also alleged that the juvenile court should award

custody of the child to the father because, it said, the mother's husband

4
CL-2025-0118 and CL-2025-0119

was a perpetrator of domestic violence and used illegal drugs and the

mother had failed to administer all of the child's medications. The

complaint did not expressly allege that the child was dependent or that

there was any other statutory basis for the juvenile court to exercise

subject-matter jurisdiction over the .01 action.

On March 20, 2024, the juvenile court entered an order

consolidating the .00 action and the .01 action. That order also noted that

no order limiting the mother's relocation had been entered in either the

.00 action or the .01 action; noted that, although the mother had moved

before giving the father notice, she had moved less than sixty miles from

her previous residence; noted that, although the mother had not told the

father her new address in Prattville, the child's school had informed the

father of the mother and the child's new address; ruled that father was

entitled to daily telephone contact with the child without interference by

the mother; ordered the mother to respond to the father's discovery

requests within fourteen days; appointed a new guardian ad litem for the

child; and authorized the father to visit with the child on holidays.

On August 8, 2024, the juvenile court entered an order reciting that

the parties had commenced the trial of the consolidated actions but that

5
CL-2025-0118 and CL-2025-0119

it had been continued after the paternal grandfather and G.E. ("the

paternal grandmother") indicated that they wanted to intervene in the

.01 action to seek custody of the child. On August 14, 2024, the paternal

grandfather and the paternal grandmother filed a motion to intervene to

seek custody of the child in the .01 action. That same day, the juvenile

court granted the paternal grandfather and the paternal grandmother's

motion to intervene.

On November 15, 2024, the juvenile court entered an order in both

the .00 action and the .01 action reciting that the trial had been resumed

and completed and that the juvenile court had taken the consolidated

actions under advisement. On November 19, 2024, the juvenile court

entered separate orders in the .00 action and in the .01 action in which it

made findings of fact but did not adjudicate the parties' competing

custody claims. On December 3, 2024, the juvenile court entered a final

judgment in the .01 action but did not enter a corresponding final

judgment in the .00 action. In pertinent part, the final judgment entered

in the .01 action stated:

"The court finds as follows:

"1. [The p]arties were never married. Mother herein had
a child, [B.M.], before she and the father got together.

6
CL-2025-0118 and CL-2025-0119

Together [the father] and [the mother] had [the child] whose
date of birth is [in] August … 2013.

"2. Both parents have a drug history and both [B.M. and
the child] have been removed from these parents in the past.
[The] Department of Human Resources has been involved
with this family and [B.M. and the child].

"3. [The p]aternal grandfather, ... no relation to [B.M.]
by blood, got custody of [B.M.] and eventually adopted him.
[B.M.] presently lives with [the paternal grandfather] and
attends school in this county.

"4. [The paternal grandfather] received custody of [the
child], and she resided with him for several years and
eventually she migrated to her father, ... and resided between
[the] father and [the paternal] grandfather for several
months, as [the father] resides in the yard and on the
[paternal] grandfather's property.

"5. During the time the [paternal] grandfather had
custody of [the child], she was involved in extracurricular
activities and her grades were good and stable. The mother
visited some over the years, but very little.

"6. That the best interest of the child ... is to place her
custody in [the] paternal grandfather ....

"ORDERED,

"1. That the custody of [the child] is placed with the
Intervenor, [the paternal grandfather], subject to the
visitation schedule provided herein.

"2. That the mother ... shall have visitation with [the
child] on the weekend commencing on the first Friday and
third Friday of the month, for the weekend, returning [the]
child to [the paternal grandfather] by 5:00 p.m. on the Sunday

7
CL-2025-0118 and CL-2025-0119

of the weekend. Pick-up from the [paternal] grandfather at
5:00 p.m. on the first and third Friday afternoons.

"3. That the father shall have visitation with the child ...
on the second Friday, for the weekend, and returning [the]
child to [the paternal grandfather] by 5:00 p.m. on the Sunday
of the weekend. [The] court notes that the father lives on the
property of the [paternal grandfather] and sees [the] child at
her residence.

"4. The father is to pay [the paternal grandfather] child
support, monthly in the sum of $592.00 and [the mother] is
to pay [the paternal grandfather] child support, monthly in
the sum of $262.00, both to commence on December 15, 2024.
[The f]ather is to provide medical insurance coverage and
provide [the paternal grandfather] with an active insurance
card for his use for [the child]."

In the judgment, the juvenile court did not make a finding either that the

child was dependent or that there was any other statutory basis for the

juvenile court to exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over the .01 action.

By awarding the paternal grandfather sole physical custody of the child,

the juvenile court's final judgment in the .01 action implicitly denied the

custody claims of the mother, the father, and the paternal grandmother.

The juvenile court's November 19, 2024, order in the .00 action

contains the same factual findings as those recited in the first four

paragraphs of the judgment entered in the .01 action but does not contain

the factual findings recited in paragraphs 5 and 6 of that judgment and

8
CL-2025-0118 and CL-2025-0119

does not contain the language of that judgment adjudicating the

competing custody claims. Moreover, the November 19, 2024, order in the

.00 action did not make a finding either that the child was dependent or

that there was any other statutory basis for the juvenile court to exercise

subject-matter jurisdiction over the .00 action.

The mother subsequently filed postjudgment motions that were

untimely. Thereafter, the mother timely appealed to this court.

Jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court

The parties have not questioned whether the juvenile court had

subject-matter jurisdiction over the actions that resulted in the two

appeals that are now before us, but jurisdictional matters are of such

magnitude that we take notice of them at any time and do so even ex

mero motu. See K.C.G. v. S.J.R., 46 So. 3d 499, 501 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010).

Juvenile courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and have subject-

matter jurisdiction only in matters in which the legislature has conferred

such jurisdiction upon them by statute. Id. Neither the father's complaint

in the .00 action nor his complaint in the .01 action alleged that the child

was dependent or that there was any other statutory basis for the

juvenile court to exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over those actions.

9
CL-2025-0118 and CL-2025-0119

Moreover, the juvenile court denied the father's claim for emergency

custody and did not make a finding that the child was dependent in either

the .00 action or the .01 action. "A dependency action shall not include a

custody dispute between parents." § 12-15-114(a), Ala. Code 1975; see

K.C.G., 46 So. 3d at 503-04. For all that appears in the record, the .00

action and the .01 action were actions involving a pure custody dispute

between the parents and the paternal grandfather of the child. A juvenile

court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction over such disputes. See §

12-15-114(a) and K.C.G., 46 So. 3d at 503-04. Therefore, all the orders

the juvenile court entered in the .00 action and all the orders and the

judgment the juvenile court entered in the .01 action are void.

Conclusion

Because neither the father's complaint in the .00 action nor his

complaint in the .01 action alleged that the child was dependent or that

there was any other statutory basis for the juvenile court to exercise

subject-matter jurisdiction over those actions and because neither the

orders entered in the .00 action nor the orders and judgment entered in

the .01 action found that the child was dependent, the juvenile court did

not have subject-matter jurisdiction over the .00 action and the .01

10
CL-2025-0118 and CL-2025-0119

action. Therefore, all its orders entered in both actions and the judgment

it entered in the .01 action are void for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Consequently, we dismiss the appeals with instructions to the juvenile

court to vacate its orders and judgment in those actions and to dismiss

both actions.

CL-2025-0118 -- APPEAL DISMISSED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

CL-2025-0119 -- APPEAL DISMISSED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

Moore, P.J., and Hanson and Bowden, JJ., concur.

Edwards, J., concurs in the result, without opinion.

11