from Coffee Juvenile Court (JU-16-183.01)
("the mother") appeals from a judgment entered by
the Coffee Juvenile Court ("the juvenile court")
finding N.S. ("the child") dependent and awarding
custody of the child to the child's maternal grandmother,
Z.B. ("the grandmother"). We reverse the judgment
insofar as it awards custody to the grandmother.
August 24, 2016, the grandmother filed in the juvenile court
a petition alleging that the child was dependent and
requesting custody of the child. On September 16, 2016,
pendente lite custody of the child was awarded to the
grandmother. After an adjudicatory hearing, the juvenile
court entered a judgment on January 18, 2017, dismissing the
petition based on the grandmother's failure to establish
the dependency of the child.
February 1, 2017, the grandmother filed a motion to alter,
amend, or vacate the judgment. On February 6, 2017, the
juvenile court held a hearing on that motion. On February 10,
2017, the juvenile court entered an order vacating its
January 18, 2017, judgment and reinstating the pendente lite
custody order. That same day, the juvenile court entered a
judgment finding the child dependent and awarding custody of
the child to the grandmother.
February 15, 2017, the mother filed a postjudgment motion
challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support the
judgment. On February 24, 2017, the mother filed a second
postjudgment motion arguing that the juvenile court had
failed to hold a dispositional hearing. The mother's
postjudgment motions were denied by operation of law on March
1, 2017, and March 10, 2017, respectively. See Rule
1(B), Ala. R. Juv. P. The mother filed her notice of appeal
on March 14, 2017.
appeal, the mother first argues that venue was improper. In
W.P. v. Baldwin County Department of Human
Resources, 208 So.3d 30 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016), this
court held that, when a request for a change of venue was not
made to the juvenile court, this court would not consider
that argument on appeal. 208 So.3d at 33 (quoting Andrews
v. Merritt Oil Co., 612 So.2d 409, 410 (Ala. 1992))
("'This Court cannot consider arguments raised for
the first time on appeal; rather, our review is restricted to
the evidence and arguments considered by the trial
court.'"). In this case, there is no indication that
the mother raised the issue of venue to the juvenile court.
Therefore, we cannot consider that issue.
mother also argues that the juvenile court erred in relying
on certain records relating to a criminal case involving the
mother. We note, however, that the juvenile court referenced
those records at the adjudicatory hearing, and the mother
made no objection to its consideration of those records.
"A timely objection is necessary to preserve an issue
for appellate review. Rule 103(a)(1), Ala. R. Evid.; Ex
parte Coulliette, 857 So.2d 793, 794-95 (Ala. 2003)
(holding that a timely objection is necessary to put the
trial court on notice of any error to be corrected);
Henning v. Henning, 26 So.3d 450, 457 (Ala. Civ.
App. 2009) (holding that a hearsay objection lodged after the
witness answered the question was untimely). A '[t]imely
objection is a condition precedent to raising an error on
appeal. Where a timely objection to the admission of evidence
is not made, ...