J.C. and C.C
from Walker Juvenile Court. (JU-11-290.02).
(" the father" ) appeals from a judgment of the
Walker Juvenile Court (" the juvenile court" )
terminating his parental rights to K.T.S. (" the
child" ), asserting that the juvenile court erred in
failing to provide him with appointed counsel both before the
juvenile court and on appeal. We remand the case to the
August 8, 2014, J.C. and C.C., the child's maternal uncle
and aunt, respectively, filed a petition to terminate the
father's parental rights to the child. The father,
through counsel, filed an answer to the petition on August
19, 2014. On September 22, 2014, the father's attorney
filed a motion to withdraw, in which he indicated, among
other things, that the father wished for him to withdraw as
his attorney, that the father was incarcerated in the
Limestone Correctional Facility, that the father was indigent
and could not pay the attorney for representation, and that
the father requested that the juvenile court appoint him
another attorney to represent him in the present case. The
juvenile court granted the motion in part, allowing the
father's attorney to withdraw, by a notation on the
motion dated September 29, 2014.
October 16, 2014, the juvenile court entered a final
judgment, terminating the parental rights of the father. In
that judgment, the juvenile court noted, among other things,
that the father's attorney had withdrawn as the
father's counsel, that the father's attorney had
requested that the father receive a court-appointed attorney,
and that the father had not been appointed an attorney. The
father filed his notice of appeal to this court on October
father argues on appeal that the juvenile court erred in
failing to appoint him an attorney, both at the hearing on
the termination of his parental rights and on appeal, and
that his due-process rights were violated as a result. J.C.
and C.C. argue, citing D.A. v. Calhoun County Department
of Human Resources, 976 So.2d 502 (Ala.Civ. 2007), that
the father failed to preserve this issue for review on
appeal. In D.A., this court affirmed a judgment terminating
the parental rights of the father in that case, in which the
juvenile court had dismissed the father's appointed
attorney before conducting the termination-of-parental-rights
hearing. This court stated, in pertinent part:
" The oft-quoted and long-standing rule is that an
appellate court may not consider an issue raised for the
first time on appeal. See Ex parte Weaver, 871 So.2d
820, 823 (Ala. 2003); W.C. v. State Dep't of Human
Res., 887 So.2d 251 (Ala.Civ. 2003); and Centers v.
Jackson County Dep't of Pensions & Sec., 472 So.2d
1069, 1070 (Ala.Civ. 1985). '" [A juvenile] court
should not be placed in error [by an appellate court] on
matters which the record reveals it neither ruled upon nor
was presented the opportunity
to rule upon" ' at trial or in a postjudgment
motion. J.K. v. Lee County Dep't of Human Res.,
668 So.2d 813, 817 (Ala.Civ. 1995) (quoting Wilson v.
State Dep't of Human Res., 527 So.2d 1322, 1324
(Ala.Civ. 1988)); see also Norman v. Bozeman, 605
So.2d 1210, 1214 (Ala. 1992)."
976 So.2d at 504.
father cites J.A.H. v. Calhoun County Department of Human
Resources, 846 So.2d 1093 (Ala.Civ. 2002), in which this
court concluded that, because the defendant in that case had
previously completed an affidavit of substantial hardship and
had requested that an attorney be appointed to represent him,
the defendant was not required to repeatedly request
assistance of counsel upon the dismissal of the attorney who
was initially appointed by the court. 846 So.2d at 1095. In
the present case, the father's attorney filed a motion to
withdraw and requested that the father be appointed an
attorney because the father was indigent. The juvenile court
granted that motion in part, allowing the attorney to
withdraw, and later noted in its judgment that the father had
requested that an attorney be appointed to represent him but
that he had not been appointed an attorney.
" '" To preserve an issue for appellate review,
the issue must be timely raised and specifically presented to
the trial court and an adverse ruling obtained."
Mitchell v. State, 913 So.2d 501, 505 (Ala.Crim.App.
2005). The purpose of requiring an issue to be preserved for
review is to allow the trial court the first opportunity to
correct any error. See, e.g., Ex parte Coulliette,
857 So.2d 793 (Ala. 2003).'"
Ex parte Malone,
12 So.3d 60, 66 (Ala. 2008). In the
present case, the father, via his attorney, presented his
request to the juvenile court for the appointment of counsel,
and, by the juvenile court's granting the motion in part
and allowing the father's attorney to withdraw and noting
in its judgment that the father had requested an attorney but
that one had not been appointed, an adverse ...