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
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
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.