Opinion
2180942 2180943
03-06-2020
G.J., Jr. v. J.Q. and I.S.
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) 229-0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter. Appeals from Elmore Juvenile Court
(JU-16-178.03 and JU-16-179.03) MOORE, Judge.
In appeal number 2180942, G.J., Jr. ("the father"), appeals from a judgment of the Elmore Juvenile Court ("the juvenile court"), entered in case number JU-16-178.03, terminating his parental rights to M.K.J. In appeal number 2180943, the father appeals from a separate, but otherwise almost identical, judgment of the juvenile court, entered in case number JU-16-179.03, terminating his parental rights to J.L.J. We dismiss the appeals.
Procedural History
The underlying cases were apparently initiated when J.Q. ("the maternal grandmother") and her husband, I.S., filed separate petitions to terminate the parental rights of the father and C.Q. ("the mother") to M.K.J. and J.L.J. ("the children"), respectively. Although the record on appeal does not contain the petitions filed by the maternal grandmother and I.S., it is clear from the record on appeal that the maternal grandmother and I.S. sought to terminate the parental rights of the mother and the father to the children and to adopt the children. See K.F. v. Cleburne Cty. Dep't of Human Res., 78 So. 3d 983, 985 n.1 (Ala. Civ. Ap p. 2011). On May 23, 2019, the juvenile court entered separate judgments terminating the parental rights of the mother and the father to the children. The father filed a notice of appeal from those judgments to the Elmore Circuit Court on June 6, 2019. Also on June 6, 2019, the juvenile court entered orders finding that the record was not adequate for the purpose of the father's appeals. On that same date, the juvenile court entered orders setting a trial de novo on the petitions insofar as they sought to terminate the father's parental rights. Following the trial de novo, which was conducted on July 30, 2019, the juvenile court entered, on August 1, 2019, separate judgments in case number JU-16-178.03 and in case number JU-16-179.03 purporting to terminate the parental rights of the father to the children. The father filed his notices of appeal to this court on August 13, 2019. This court consolidated the appeals ex mero motu.
Analysis
Although no party has raised the issue of the juvenile court's jurisdiction to this court,
"[i]t is well settled that 'subject-matter jurisdiction may not be waived; a court's lack of subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time by any party and may even be raised by a court ex mero motu.' C.J.L. v. M.W.B., 868 So. 2d 451, 453 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003); see, e.g., Ex parte Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 816 So. 2d 469, 472 (Ala. 2001) ('We are obliged to recognize an absence of subject-matter jurisdiction obvious from a record, petition, or exhibits to a petition before us.'). A judgment entered by a court that lacks subject-matter jurisdiction is void. See C.J.L., 868 So. 2d at 454; see also J.B. v. A.B., 888 So. 2d 528 (Ala. Civ. App. 2004)."S.B.U. v. D.G.B., 913 So. 2d 452, 455 (Ala. Civ. App. 2005).
Rule 28(A), Ala. R. Juv. P., provides, among other things, that appeals from final judgments of the juvenile court shall be to the appropriate appellate court when certain conditions have been met, including the existence of an adequate record on appeal. Rule 28(B), Ala. R. Juv. P., provides, in pertinent part, that "[a]ppeals from final orders or judgments in all other cases, including those cases in which there is not an adequate record as provided in subsection (A) of [Rule 28], shall be to the circuit court for trial de novo." In these cases, the juvenile court determined that the record was not adequate for review by this court, thus triggering the provision of Rule 28(B) requiring a trial de novo in the circuit court. However, the juvenile court instead ordered a retrial of the petitions to terminate the father's parental rights and, following that retrial, purported to enter new judgments terminating the parental rights of the father.
In R.P.J. v. Henry County Department of Human Resources, 42 So. 3d 129, 131 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010), this court clarified that, after a party has appealed a juvenile-court judgment, the juvenile court retains only limited jurisdiction over the case to determine the adequacy of the record. If the juvenile court finds that the record is inadequate for review by this court, the juvenile court can take no action other than allowing the appeal to proceed in the circuit court for a trial de novo. As we said in R.P.J., "a juvenile court has no jurisdiction to take any other action in regard to an appeal with an inadequate record. The juvenile court does not have jurisdiction to conduct a second trial to make the record adequate." 42 So. 3d at 131.
In these cases, following the trial on the petitions to terminate the mother's and the father's parental rights and the entry of judgments terminating the mother's and the father's parental rights, the father filed a notice of appeal from those judgments. The juvenile court subsequently entered orders stating that no adequate record was available for the purpose of the father's appeals and then proceeded to schedule and conduct a trial de novo on the petitions insofar as they sought to terminate the father's parental rights. However, because the juvenile court had no authority to order or to conduct a trial de novo, its judgments arising from that proceeding are void for lack of jurisdiction. R.P.J., 42 So. 3d at 131. "A void judgment will not support an appeal." J.B. v. A.B., 888 So. 2d 528, 532 (Ala. Civ. App. 2004). Accordingly, the father's appeals to this court, filed on August 13, 2019, are hereby dismissed. The appeals to the Elmore Circuit Court shall be disposed of by a trial de novo in that court.
2180942 -- APPEAL DISMISSED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
2180943 -- APPEAL DISMISSED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
Thompson, P.J., and Donaldson, Edwards, and Hanson, JJ., concur.