Rel: March 28, 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 OCTOBER TERM, 2024-2025 _________________________
CL-2024-0461 _________________________
B.B.
v.
Shelby County Department of Human Resources, B.G., and T.H.
Appeal from Shelby Juvenile Court (JU-16-425.06)
HANSON, Judge.
B.B. appeals from the judgment of the Shelby Juvenile Court ("the
juvenile court") "dismissing" B.B.'s Rule 60(b), Ala. R. Civ. P., motion
seeking relief from a dependency judgment, thereby effectively denying
that motion. We dismiss B.B.'s appeal. CL-2024-0461
Facts and Procedural History
K.J.G. ("the child"), who was the subject of the dependency
judgment, was born in 2010 to T.H. ("the mother"), who was single. B.G.
signed an acknowledgment of the child's paternity in 2010. The Alabama
Center for Health Statistics issued a birth certificate in 2010 naming
B.G. as the father of the child.
In May 2016, the Shelby County Department of Human Resources
("DHR") received a report regarding the child. Based on the report, five
separate petitions seeking to declare the child dependent were filed by
B.G., DHR, D.C. (a maternal aunt), L.G. (a maternal relative), and S.G.
(a paternal relative) in the juvenile court and were assigned case
numbers JU-16-425.01; JU-16-425.02; JU-16-425.03; JU-16-425.04; and
JU-16-425.05, respectively.
On December 2, 2016, the juvenile court held a hearing at which
the mother and B.G. stipulated that the child was dependent. On
December 6, 2016, the juvenile court entered an order placing custody of
the child with the mother and B.G., with certain restrictions to be
followed. The juvenile court also dismissed L.G.'s petition (JU-16-425.04)
because she had failed to appear at the hearing. The December 6, 2016,
2 CL-2024-0461
order set the matter for a separate dispositional hearing at a future date.
On June 12, 2017, the juvenile court entered an order setting the
dispositional hearing for August 25, 2017. On August 25, 2017, the
juvenile court entered a final order in each of the four remaining
dependency actions, determining that the child was no longer dependent.
The juvenile court stated in its judgment that it no longer had jurisdiction
over the child and closed the cases.
Subsequently, the mother and B.G. separated. On November 26,
2017, the mother filed a child-support petition in Shelby County that was
assigned case number CS-17-900241, the mother sought to address
custody, visitation, and child support. On June 5, 2018, the mother and
B.G. filed an agreement in CS-17-900241 providing for joint legal
custody, with the mother having sole physical custody and B.G. having
visitation. The agreement provided that B.G. would pay child support.
On February 4, 2019, the juvenile court entered a final judgment
adopting the parties' agreement.
On July 21, 2021, B.B. filed an action in the child-support division
of the Shelby Juvenile Court, which was given case number CS-21-
900133, and which named the mother and B.G. as defendants. B.B.
3 CL-2024-0461
challenged the validity of the acknowledgment of paternity executed by
B.G. in 2010. B.B. sought (1) to be adjudicated as the legal father of the
child because, he acknowledged, the acknowledgment of paternity was
based on fraud; (2) to be awarded joint physical custody of the child or, in
the alternative, to be awarded visitation; (3) to be named as the father of
the child on the child's birth certificate; and (4) to change the child's last
name to B.B.'s last name. On September 14, 2021, B.B. filed a petition
in the domestic-relations division of Shelby Circuit Court ("the circuit
court"), which was assigned case number DR-21-154. B.B.'s domestic-
relations petition was substantially similar to his petition filed in the
child-support division (CS-21-900133). The child-support action and the
domestic-relations action were consolidated for scheduling purposes. The
guardian ad litem for the child filed a motion to dismiss both of B.B.'s
petitions. On December 26, 2023, the juvenile court entered a judgment
dismissing with prejudice the child-support petition filed by B.B. in case
number CS-21-900133. In its judgment, the juvenile court stated:
"The court finds Defendant [B.G.] has
"A. Established a father-child relationship with the child herein pursuant to Ala. Code [1975,] § 26-17-201(b)(1) ([B.G.] is the only presumed father herein (See Ala. Code [1975,] § 26-17 204(a)(5));
4 CL-2024-0461
"B. Effectively acknowledged paternity, the same not having been rescinded or challenged by [B.G.], pursuant to Ala. Code [1975,] § 26-17-201(b)(2) ([B.G.] signed an Acknowledgment of Paternity the day after the child's birth and said Acknowledgment was filed with the Alabama Department of Vital Statistics (See Ala. Code [1975,] § 24-17- 305 through 308)); and
"C. On February [4], 2019, been adjudicated (in the instant case) to be the legal father of the child herein. See Ala. Code [1975,] § 26-17-201(b)(3) ….
"Therefore, the Guardian Ad Litem's Motion to Dismiss, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Ala. R. Civ. P, is due to be and is hereby GRANTED.
"Furthermore, the court finds the Guardian Ad Litem's Motion to Dismiss, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), Ala. R. Civ. P., is due to be and is hereby GRANTED as [B.B.] lacks standing to bring this action (only the presumed father herein, [B.G.], who has persisted in his status, may bring such an action (See Ala. Code [1975,] § 26-17-607(a)).
"[B.B.] is hereby Ordered to pay all expenses and fees of the Guardian Ad Litem herein. The parties hereto are Ordered to pay and be responsible for their own attorney fees."
That same day, the circuit court entered a similar judgment dismissing
with prejudice the domestic-relations petition in case number DR-2021-
154. On January 17, 2024, B.B. filed a motion to alter, amend, or vacate
the judgments, or, in the alternative, a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from
the judgments in both the child-support and domestic-relations cases. On
5 CL-2024-0461
February 15, 2024, orders were entered denying the postjudgment
motions. B.B. did not appeal from the judgments of dismissal in case
number CS-21-900133 or DR-21-154.
On March 3, 2024, B.B., invoking Rule 60(b), filed a motion 1 seeking
relief, which filing is the subject of this appeal. B.B.'s filing was docketed
with a new case number, JU-16-425.06. In that motion, B.B. sought relief
from the order entered on December 6, 2016, in the dependency actions
involving the child that had found the child dependent and had granted
custody to the mother and B.G. B.B. alleged that he was the biological
father of the child; that B.B. should have been made a party to the 2016
dependency actions; that the mother and B.G. had committed fraud and
perjury when B.G. had signed the acknowledgment of paternity in 2010;
and that B.B. was the child's presumed father under § 26-17-204, Ala.
Code 1975.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Rel: March 28, 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 OCTOBER TERM, 2024-2025 _________________________
CL-2024-0461 _________________________
B.B.
v.
Shelby County Department of Human Resources, B.G., and T.H.
Appeal from Shelby Juvenile Court (JU-16-425.06)
HANSON, Judge.
B.B. appeals from the judgment of the Shelby Juvenile Court ("the
juvenile court") "dismissing" B.B.'s Rule 60(b), Ala. R. Civ. P., motion
seeking relief from a dependency judgment, thereby effectively denying
that motion. We dismiss B.B.'s appeal. CL-2024-0461
Facts and Procedural History
K.J.G. ("the child"), who was the subject of the dependency
judgment, was born in 2010 to T.H. ("the mother"), who was single. B.G.
signed an acknowledgment of the child's paternity in 2010. The Alabama
Center for Health Statistics issued a birth certificate in 2010 naming
B.G. as the father of the child.
In May 2016, the Shelby County Department of Human Resources
("DHR") received a report regarding the child. Based on the report, five
separate petitions seeking to declare the child dependent were filed by
B.G., DHR, D.C. (a maternal aunt), L.G. (a maternal relative), and S.G.
(a paternal relative) in the juvenile court and were assigned case
numbers JU-16-425.01; JU-16-425.02; JU-16-425.03; JU-16-425.04; and
JU-16-425.05, respectively.
On December 2, 2016, the juvenile court held a hearing at which
the mother and B.G. stipulated that the child was dependent. On
December 6, 2016, the juvenile court entered an order placing custody of
the child with the mother and B.G., with certain restrictions to be
followed. The juvenile court also dismissed L.G.'s petition (JU-16-425.04)
because she had failed to appear at the hearing. The December 6, 2016,
2 CL-2024-0461
order set the matter for a separate dispositional hearing at a future date.
On June 12, 2017, the juvenile court entered an order setting the
dispositional hearing for August 25, 2017. On August 25, 2017, the
juvenile court entered a final order in each of the four remaining
dependency actions, determining that the child was no longer dependent.
The juvenile court stated in its judgment that it no longer had jurisdiction
over the child and closed the cases.
Subsequently, the mother and B.G. separated. On November 26,
2017, the mother filed a child-support petition in Shelby County that was
assigned case number CS-17-900241, the mother sought to address
custody, visitation, and child support. On June 5, 2018, the mother and
B.G. filed an agreement in CS-17-900241 providing for joint legal
custody, with the mother having sole physical custody and B.G. having
visitation. The agreement provided that B.G. would pay child support.
On February 4, 2019, the juvenile court entered a final judgment
adopting the parties' agreement.
On July 21, 2021, B.B. filed an action in the child-support division
of the Shelby Juvenile Court, which was given case number CS-21-
900133, and which named the mother and B.G. as defendants. B.B.
3 CL-2024-0461
challenged the validity of the acknowledgment of paternity executed by
B.G. in 2010. B.B. sought (1) to be adjudicated as the legal father of the
child because, he acknowledged, the acknowledgment of paternity was
based on fraud; (2) to be awarded joint physical custody of the child or, in
the alternative, to be awarded visitation; (3) to be named as the father of
the child on the child's birth certificate; and (4) to change the child's last
name to B.B.'s last name. On September 14, 2021, B.B. filed a petition
in the domestic-relations division of Shelby Circuit Court ("the circuit
court"), which was assigned case number DR-21-154. B.B.'s domestic-
relations petition was substantially similar to his petition filed in the
child-support division (CS-21-900133). The child-support action and the
domestic-relations action were consolidated for scheduling purposes. The
guardian ad litem for the child filed a motion to dismiss both of B.B.'s
petitions. On December 26, 2023, the juvenile court entered a judgment
dismissing with prejudice the child-support petition filed by B.B. in case
number CS-21-900133. In its judgment, the juvenile court stated:
"The court finds Defendant [B.G.] has
"A. Established a father-child relationship with the child herein pursuant to Ala. Code [1975,] § 26-17-201(b)(1) ([B.G.] is the only presumed father herein (See Ala. Code [1975,] § 26-17 204(a)(5));
4 CL-2024-0461
"B. Effectively acknowledged paternity, the same not having been rescinded or challenged by [B.G.], pursuant to Ala. Code [1975,] § 26-17-201(b)(2) ([B.G.] signed an Acknowledgment of Paternity the day after the child's birth and said Acknowledgment was filed with the Alabama Department of Vital Statistics (See Ala. Code [1975,] § 24-17- 305 through 308)); and
"C. On February [4], 2019, been adjudicated (in the instant case) to be the legal father of the child herein. See Ala. Code [1975,] § 26-17-201(b)(3) ….
"Therefore, the Guardian Ad Litem's Motion to Dismiss, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Ala. R. Civ. P, is due to be and is hereby GRANTED.
"Furthermore, the court finds the Guardian Ad Litem's Motion to Dismiss, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), Ala. R. Civ. P., is due to be and is hereby GRANTED as [B.B.] lacks standing to bring this action (only the presumed father herein, [B.G.], who has persisted in his status, may bring such an action (See Ala. Code [1975,] § 26-17-607(a)).
"[B.B.] is hereby Ordered to pay all expenses and fees of the Guardian Ad Litem herein. The parties hereto are Ordered to pay and be responsible for their own attorney fees."
That same day, the circuit court entered a similar judgment dismissing
with prejudice the domestic-relations petition in case number DR-2021-
154. On January 17, 2024, B.B. filed a motion to alter, amend, or vacate
the judgments, or, in the alternative, a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from
the judgments in both the child-support and domestic-relations cases. On
5 CL-2024-0461
February 15, 2024, orders were entered denying the postjudgment
motions. B.B. did not appeal from the judgments of dismissal in case
number CS-21-900133 or DR-21-154.
On March 3, 2024, B.B., invoking Rule 60(b), filed a motion 1 seeking
relief, which filing is the subject of this appeal. B.B.'s filing was docketed
with a new case number, JU-16-425.06. In that motion, B.B. sought relief
from the order entered on December 6, 2016, in the dependency actions
involving the child that had found the child dependent and had granted
custody to the mother and B.G. B.B. alleged that he was the biological
father of the child; that B.B. should have been made a party to the 2016
dependency actions; that the mother and B.G. had committed fraud and
perjury when B.G. had signed the acknowledgment of paternity in 2010;
and that B.B. was the child's presumed father under § 26-17-204, Ala.
Code 1975.
On April 29, 2024, the mother filed a motion to dismiss, asserting
that B.B. was not a party to any of the proceedings in the juvenile court
1Although the juvenile court docketed B.B.'s filing separately from
the underlying actions, B.B. has consistently treated his March 3, 2024, motion as a motion seeking relief purportedly cognizable under Rule 60(b)(1) through (6), Ala. R. Civ. P., and not as an independent action, both before and after his appeal. 6 CL-2024-0461
in cases JU-16-425.01 through .05; that B.B. lacked standing to challenge
the juvenile court's orders; that B.B. had raised the same issues in 2021
in CS-2021-900133.00 and DR-2021-154.00 and was now precluded from
raising the same issues; that B.B. had challenged the underlying
judgments based on fraud under Rule 60(b)(3), Ala. R. Civ. P., under
which any such challenge was required to be brought within four months
of the entry of the pertinent judgment; that if B.B.'s filing constituted an
"independent action" contemplated by Rule 60(b) seeking to set aside the
2016 judgment on the basis of fraud, then that action was untimely
because the judgment had been entered in 2016 and B.B. had been aware
of the acknowledgement of paternity in 2021; and that B.B. was not an
indispensable party to the juvenile or dependency cases. That same day,
the mother filed a motion to strike certain unverified documents attached
to B.B.'s Rule 60(b) motion. B.B. filed a response to the mother's motions,
positing that the juvenile court had authority to grant relief upon a
motion.
The juvenile court held a hearing on the motions on May 17, 2024.
On May 20, 2024, the juvenile court granted the mother's motion to
dismiss B.B.'s filing and the mother's motion to strike certain documents
7 CL-2024-0461
attached thereto. On May 23, 2024, B.B. filed a motion to alter, amend,
or vacate the May 20, 2024, ruling, arguing that B.G. had never been
properly adjudicated as the legal father of the child in the dependency
cases. The juvenile court purported to deny that motion on June 6, 2024.
On June 19, 2024, B.B. filed a notice of appeal.
Discussion
None of the parties have addressed this court's jurisdiction to
consider the appeal. However, jurisdictional issues are of such
significance that this court even takes notice of them ex mero motu.
Heaston v. Nabors, 889 So. 2d 588, 590 (Ala. Civ. App. 2004).
The underlying case before this court was a case filed in a juvenile
court. B.B., therefore, had 14 days, or until June 3, 2024, to appeal from
the juvenile court's May 20, 2024, judgment denying his Rule 60(b)
motion. Rule 28(D), Ala. R. Juv. P. B.B. filed his notice of appeal on June
19, 2024.
B.B. filed in the juvenile court a purported postjudgment motion on
May 23, 2024, asking the juvenile court to revisit its denial of his relief
under Rule 60(b) motion. However,
" ' "[a]fter a trial court has denied a postjudgment motion pursuant to Rule 60(b), that court does not have jurisdiction
8 CL-2024-0461
to entertain a successive postjudgment motion to 'reconsider' or otherwise review its order denying the Rule 60(b) motion, and such a successive postjudgment motion does not suspend the running of the time for filing a notice of appeal." ' "
Wright v. City of Mobile, 192 So. 3d 7, 8 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015) (quoting
Adkins v. Adkins, 61 So. 3d 1071, 1075 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010), quoting in
turn Ex parte Keith, 771 So. 2d 1018, 1022 (Ala. 1998)). See also M.E.W.
v. J.W., 142 So. 3d 1168, 1173 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013) (holding that juvenile
court's order purporting to deny mother's motion to set aside order
denying her relief from judgment was a nullity).
In the present case, the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction to
consider B.B.'s purported May 23, 2024, postjudgment motion and that
motion did not extend the time for taking a timely appeal of the May 20,
2024, judgment. Wright, supra. B.B.'s notice of appeal was filed more
than 14 days after the entry of the May 20, 2024, judgment. Therefore,
that notice of appeal was untimely filed, and this court lacks jurisdiction
to consider the appeal. Rule 2(a)(1), Ala. R. App. P. ("An appeal shall be
dismissed if the notice of appeal was not timely filed to invoke the
jurisdiction of the appellate court.").
APPEAL DISMISSED.
Moore, P.J., and Edwards, Fridy, and Lewis, JJ., concur.