Madison County Department of Human Resources
Appeal from Madison Juvenile Court. (JU-11-1582.01).
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
For Appellant: Ronald W. Smith, Huntsville.
For Appellee: Sharon E. Ficquette, Chief Legal Counsel, and Karen P. Phillips, Asst. Atty. Gen., Department of Human Resources.
Thompson, P.J., and Pittman, Thomas, and Donaldson, JJ., concur.
C.L.W. appeals from a judgment of the Madison Juvenile Court (" the juvenile court" ) determining that D.S. is the father of J.W. (" the child" ). We reverse.
This is the second time this case has been on appeal to this court. See C.L.W. v. Madison Cnty. Dep't of Human Res.,
[Ms. 2120934, Feb. 14, 2014] 148 So.3d 1083 (Ala.Civ.App. 2014). In C.L.W., this court set forth the procedural history of this case as follows:
" On February 28, 2011, the Madison County Department of Human Resources ('DHR') filed a petition alleging that the child was dependent. DHR alleged that the child's mother is S.W. ('the mother') and that the mother had identified her husband, C.L.W., as the father of the child. On June 7, 2011, the juvenile court entered separate judgments finding the child dependent and awarding custody of the child to DHR.
" In October 2011, D.S. wrote a letter to the DHR caseworker for the child
stating that he is the child's father and requesting that DNA testing be done. On March 9, 2012, A.S. filed a motion requesting, among other things, that she and D.S. be added as parties, that she be awarded custody of the child, and that the juvenile court order DNA paternity testing. A.S. alleged, among other things, that she is the biological paternal grandmother of the child and that the child had lived with her from the time he was three months old until February 23, 2011, when DHR removed him from her home. On March 16, 2012, the juvenile court denied A.S.'s request that she and D.S. be allowed to intervene as parties; it also denied her request for custody. The juvenile court, however, granted the motion for DNA paternity testing. On April 19, 2012, the results of the DNA paternity testing were filed with the juvenile court; those results indicated that there was a 99.998% probability that D.S. was the biological father of the child. On June 7, 2012, A.S. filed a motion requesting that she be allowed to intervene, that D.S. be allowed to intervene, that D.S. be adjudicated as the child's father, and that ...