D.C.S. v. L.B.

15 Citing cases

  1. Entrekin v. Internal Med. Assocs. of Dothan

    689 F.3d 1248 (11th Cir. 2012)   Cited 18 times
    Holding that state law determines whether a dispute falls within the scope of an arbitration agreement

    ” Ex parte State ex rel. James, 711 So.2d 952, 964 (Ala.1998); accord Prince v. State Dep't of Revenue, 55 So.3d 273, 284 (Ala.Civ.App.2010) (holding that a plurality opinion “does not constitute binding authority”); Waddell v. Waddell, 904 So.2d 1275, 1285 (Ala.Civ.App.2004) (holding that a plurality opinion “does not constitute binding precedent”); see also Ex parte Disc. Foods, Inc., 789 So.2d 842, 845 (Ala.2001) (per curiam) (“The precedential value of the reasoning in a plurality opinion is questionable at best.”); Ex parte Achenbach, 783 So.2d 4, 7 (Ala.2000) (“[T]he precedential value of the reasoning in a plurality opinion is questionable.”); D.C.S. v. L.B., 84 So.3d 954, 956 (Ala.Civ.App.2011). Justice Woodall wrote the lead opinion and was joined by Justices Cobb and Parker. Noland, 971 So.2d at 682, 691. Justices Lyons and Murdock neither joined the lead opinion nor wrote their own; they simply concurred in the result.

  2. C.S. v. Morgan Cnty. Dep't of Human Res.

    No. 2200662 (Ala. Civ. App. Dec. 3, 2021)   Cited 1 times

    See Rule 53(a)(1) and (a)(2)(A), Ala. R. App. P.; § 12-15-102(8), Ala. Code 1975; § 12-15-310(b), Ala. Code 1975; Ex parte Patronas, 693 So.2d 473, 475 (Ala.1997); D.C.S. v. L.B., 84 So.3d 954, 961-62 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011); and R.F.W. v. Cleburne Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 70 So.3d 1270, 1272 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011)

  3. Laponsie v. Corley

    323 So. 3d 683 (Ala. Civ. App. 2020)   Cited 1 times

    We note that, before 2012, this court had interpreted the Alabama Juvenile Justice Act ("the AJJA"), § 12-15-101 et seq., Ala. Code 1975, which became effective on January 1, 2009, as limiting a juvenile court's jurisdiction to modify its own initial custody award when a child had not been found to be dependent, delinquent, or in need of supervision. See, e.g., Ex parte T.C., 63 So. 3d 627, 631 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010) (stating that initial custody award by a juvenile court would be prospectively modifiable only by the circuit courts); D.C.S. v. L.B., 84 So. 3d 954, 958 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011) ("[T]he juvenile court was without jurisdiction to consider the father's claims seeking to modify the child-support provision of its earlier judgment; the modification claims were required to have been brought in the circuit court."); Ex parte L.N.K., 64 So. 3d 656, 658 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010) ("Thus, this court has held that a juvenile court no longer has continuing jurisdiction over a child based solely on its having made a prior paternity determination."); K.C. v. R.L.P., 67 So. 3d 94, 96 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011) (holding that custody-modification action could have been properly filed only in the circuit court); R.T. v. B.N.H., 66 So. 3d 807 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011) (holding that juvenile court lacked jurisdiction over action involving claims to modify visitation). In 2012, however, the Alabama Legislature passed Ala. Acts 2012, Act No. 2012-383 ("the Act"), which is codified, in part, as § 12-15-117.

  4. Kelley v. Finley

    266 So. 3d 756 (Ala. Civ. App. 2018)   Cited 2 times

    Our initial review of the record indicated that, at the time the father appealed to the circuit court, the district court had not yet adjudicated a contempt motion filed by the mother on January 29, 2015. Upon noticing this potential jurisdictional defect, this court asked the parties to file letter briefs on this point. See D.C.S. v. L.B., 84 So.3d 954, 957 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011) (" ‘ "[T]his Court is duty bound to notice ex mero motu the absence of subject-matter jurisdiction." ’ " (quoting Baldwin Cty. v. Bay Minette, 854 So.2d 42, 45 (Ala. 2003), quoting in turn Stamps v. Jefferson Cty. Bd. of Educ., 642 So.2d 941, 945 n.2 (Ala. 1994) ) ).

  5. Weith v. Weith

    263 So. 3d 715 (Ala. Civ. App. 2018)   Cited 5 times
    Holding that jurisdiction to enter a divorce judgment cannot be conferred by agreement

    Although neither party raises the issue whether the trial court had jurisdiction to enter the divorce judgment in light of § 30–2–5, Ala. Code 1975, this court ordered the parties to file letter briefs on that issue. See D.C.S. v. L.B., 84 So.3d 954, 957 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011) (" ‘ "[T]his Court is duty bound to notice ex mero motu the absence of subject-matter jurisdiction." ’ " (quoting Baldwin Cty. v. Bay Minette, 854 So.2d 42, 45 (Ala. 2003), quoting in turn Stamps v. Jefferson Cty. Bd. of Educ., 642 So.2d 941, 945 n.2 (Ala. 1994) ) ).

  6. B.M. v. J.B.R.

    262 So. 3d 649 (Ala. Civ. App. 2017)

    Discussion On appeal, this court, ex mero motu, raised the issue whether the probate court had jurisdiction over the adoption petition in light of the fact that there exists a previous judgment entered by a Florida court regarding custody of the child, which is referenced in the record on appeal. See D.C.S. v. L.B., 84 So.3d 954, 957 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011) (" ‘ "[T]his Court is duty bound to notice ex mero motu the absence of subject-matter jurisdiction." ’ " (quoting Baldwin Cty. v. Bay Minette, 854 So.2d 42, 45 (Ala. 2003), quoting in turn Stamps v. Jefferson Cty. Bd. of Educ., 642 So.2d 941, 945 n.2 (Ala. 1994) )). The parties were requested to submit briefs on that issue.

  7. Dailey v. Monroe Cnty. Bd. of Educ.

    238 So. 3d 657 (Ala. Civ. App. 2017)

    Rather, this court must consider whether the hearing officer obtained jurisdiction to conduct an administrative review of the Board's decision in the absence of the written notice of the decision required by § 16–24C–6(d). D.C.S. v. L.B., 84 So.3d 954, 957 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011) ("[J]urisdictional issues are of such importance that this court may take notice of them ex mero motu.").In a recent case, this court considered, among other things, whether jurisdiction existed to consider an administrative action under the Alabama Administrative Procedure Act ("the AAPA"), § 41–22–1 et seq., Ala. Code 1975. Huntsville Hous. Auth. v. State Licensing Bd. for Gen. Contractors, 179 So.3d 146 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014).

  8. Dailey v. Monroe Cnty. Bd. of Educ.

    2150965 (Ala. Civ. App. Feb. 17, 2017)

    Rather, this court must consider whether the hearing officer obtained jurisdiction to conduct an administrative review of the Board's decision in the absence of the written notice of the decision required by § 16-24C-6(d). D.C.S. v. L.B., 84 So. 3d 954, 957 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011) ("[J]urisdictional issues are of such importance that this court may take notice of them ex mero motu."). In a recent case, this court considered, among other things, whether jurisdiction existed to consider an administrative action under the Alabama Administrative Procedure Act ("the AAPA"), § 41-22-1 et seq., Ala. Code 1975. Huntsville Hous. Auth. v. State Licensing Bd. for Gen. Contractors, 179 So. 3d 146 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014).

  9. S.S. v. Calhoun Cnty. Dep't of Human Res.

    212 So. 3d 940 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016)   Cited 43 times

    The juvenile court, as the trier of fact, is in the best position to resolve conflicts in the evidence. See D.C.S. v. L.B., 84 So.3d 954, 962 (Ala.Civ.App.2011) ("The trier of fact, and not this court, has the duty of resolving conflicts in the evidence."). Furthermore, "[t]his court has held that maintaining a child in foster care indefinitely while a parent attempts to rehabilitate himself or herself is not a viable alternative to the termination of parental rights."

  10. J.P. v. Calhoun Cnty. Dep't of Human Res.

    222 So. 3d 1177 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016)   Cited 1 times

    " ‘ Ex parte Patronas , 693 So.2d 473, 475 (Ala.1997) (quoting Ex parte Bryowsky , 676 So.2d 1322, 1326 (Ala.1996) ).’" D.C.S. v. L.B. , 84 So.3d 954, 961–62 (Ala.Civ.App.2011)."F.W. v. T.M. , 140 So.3d 950, 959 (Ala.Civ.App.2013).