Summary
The Alabama Supreme Court reviewed a maternal great-grandmother’s challenge to a judgment finding a child not dependent and leaving custody with the child’s biological father. The court held that the great-grandmother had standing to appeal but had not shown clear and palpable error in the trial court’s dependency determination. In the absence of a finding of parental unfitness, the court applied the presumption favoring a natural parent and affirmed.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether A.R.S. had standing to appeal the trial court's judgment finding K.D.H. not dependent and to petition for a writ of certiorari.
- Whether the trial court clearly erred in finding K.D.H. not dependent and dismissing the consolidated dependency petitions.
- Whether custody could properly remain with the child's natural father absent a finding that he was unfit or had voluntarily forfeited custody.
Holdings
- A.R.S. had standing because she sought custody of K.D.H. and her custody petition was consolidated with the dependency proceedings, even though the trial court allowed her to intervene only in the dispositional phase.
- The trial court's finding that K.D.H. was not dependent was not clearly erroneous, and the Court of Civil Appeals correctly affirmed that finding.
- In the absence of a finding that the natural parent is unfit or has voluntarily forfeited custody, the natural parent is presumed to be entitled to custody over a nonparent.
Key quotations
“A custody determination of the trial court entered upon oral testimony is accorded a presumption of correctness on appeal, and we will not reverse unless the evidence so fails to support the determination that it is plainly and palpably wrong.” (403)
“In the absence of a finding of unfitness, we must therefore presume that J.E.M. is a fit parent.” (404)
“This Court and the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals have repeatedly held that parents’ rights to custody of their children are fundamental and take precedence even over the rights of grandparents” (404)
Factual background
K.D.H. lived with her maternal great-grandmother, A.R.S., for almost her entire life. J.E.M. was determined by the trial court to be K.D.H.'s biological father; he acknowledged a troubled past but testified that he had been free of drugs and alcohol for approximately five years, and a social worker testified that he had no current substance-abuse problems. The trial court found K.D.H. not dependent and dismissed the consolidated petitions, without finding J.E.M. unfit or finding that he had voluntarily forfeited custody.
Procedural history
J.E.M. filed a petition to determine paternity and seeking custody. The Calhoun County Department of Human Resources filed a dependency petition, and A.R.S. moved to intervene and filed her own dependency and custody petition; the proceedings were consolidated. The trial court found the child not dependent, determined J.E.M. to be the biological father, and dismissed the consolidated petitions. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed without opinion. The Supreme Court of Alabama granted A.R.S.'s petition for a writ of certiorari and affirmed.