EX PARTE T.A.W.
v.
T.A.W. In re: T.W.
Page 431
Dallas
Circuit Court, DR-18-51.
Letta
Dillard Gorman, Geneva, for petitioner.
David
B. Norton, Selma, for respondent.
MOORE,
Judge.
T.A.W.
("the father") petitions this court for a writ of
mandamus directing the Dallas Circuit Court ("the trial
court") "to domesticate and execute" an order
entered by a Florida circuit court ("the Florida
court") making an ex parte award of custody of A.M.W.
("the child") to the father.
Following
the father's filing of his mandamus petition with this
court, T.W. ("the mother") filed a notice with the
clerk of this court asserting that the father's mandamus
petition does not properly protect the identity of the child
in accordance with Alabama statutes and court rules. The
mother also filed with this court a motion to disallow and to
strike the father's mandamus petition based on the
father's failure to properly protect the confidentiality
of the proceedings following the consolidation of the case
before the trial court with the mother's juvenile-court
petition. The mother, however, has failed to direct this
court to any authority requiring that the father's
petition be dismissed based on his alleged failure to
properly protect the child's identity. In response to the
mother's motion, the father filed an objection and,
later, an amended objection to the mother's motion to
disallow and to strike his petition; in both his objection
and his amended objection, the father resubmitted the
attachments that had been originally submitted in support of
his petition for the writ of mandamus in redacted formats
such that any confidential information regarding the child
has been omitted. Additionally, initials are used throughout
this opinion to protect the identity of the child, who is the
subject of a juvenile-court proceeding. See Rule 52,
Ala. R. App. P. Because the father and this court have now
made reasonable efforts to preserve the child's
anonymity, the mother's motion to strike the father's
petition is denied.
In his
mandamus petition, the father asserts, among other things,
that, on June 6, 2016, the child was born to him and the
mother, to whom the father has never been married; that the
father's paternity of the child was established by a
Florida court in 2018; and that the father has provided
support for the mother and the child since the child was
born. The father asserts further that, in 2018, the Florida
court issued an order allowing the father to obtain custody
of the child ("the Florida custody order") and
that, thereafter, the mother absconded with the child from
Florida to Alabama. According to the father's petition,
since the entry of the Florida custody order, the mother has
initiated a number of petitions in different counties in
Florida and Alabama seeking protection from abuse against the
father, but, the father asserts, all of those petitions have
been dismissed. The father asserts that the present case was
initiated when the mother filed a petition for protection
from abuse against him in the trial court in 2018. Attached
to the father's mandamus petition is a copy of a petition
that the mother filed in the Dallas Juvenile Court ("the
juvenile court") in which she sought to keep the child
from being removed from her care. According to the father,
that petition has been consolidated with the mother's
petition for protection from abuse in the trial court.
Also
attached to the father's mandamus petition is a November
8, 2018, petition he filed in the trial court in which he
requested, among other things, that the trial court
"domesticate and enforce" the Florida custody
order, pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and
Enforcement
Page 432
Act, § 30-3B-101 et seq., Ala. Code 1975 ("the
UCCJEA"). He asserts in his mandamus petition that the
trial court "has refused to domesticate th[e Florida
custody] order some 6 months later and has set a hearing for
September 2019." (Petition, p. 6). A May 15, 2019,
motion filed by the father in the trial court and attached to
the father's mandamus petition indicates that the father
requested that the trial court expedite the final hearing and
again requested that the trial court domesticate the Florida
custody order. According to the father, the trial court
responded to his motion by setting the hearing on the motion
for September 2019; the father has failed, however, to
include the date of the trial court's order setting the
hearing or to attach the order as an exhibit to his mandamus
petition.
The
father purports to raise a number of issues in his petition
before this court. The legal authority cited by the father in
support of his mandamus petition, however, speaks solely to
the full faith and credit to be afforded by a court of this
state to a judgment issued by another state. See,
e.g., Pirtek USA, LLC v. Whitehead, 51 So.3d
291 (Ala. 2010) (discussing the domestication of a Florida
judgment); R.W. v. G.W., 2 So.3d
869 (Ala.Civ.App. 2008) (discussing jurisdiction pursuant to
the UCCJEA in a custody case); Tongue, Brooks & Co. v.
Walser, 410 So.2d 89 (Ala.Civ.App. 1982) (stating that
the judgment of a court of a sister state is due full faith
and credit in Alabama); and the UCCJEA. Although the father
requests that this court direct the trial court to grant his
request to domesticate and enforce the Florida custody order,
there is no indication before us that the trial court has
entered any ruling on the father's petition requesting
that relief. Our supreme court has stated that,
"[g]enerally, the writ of mandamus will not issue to
compel a trial court to exercise its discretion in a
particular manner." Ex parte Monsanto Co., 794
So.2d 350, 353-54 (Ala. 2001). Therefore, insofar as the
father's mandamus petition requests this court to direct
the trial court to grant his request to domesticate and
enforce the Florida custody order, we conclude that request
is premature, and we deny the father's petition insofar
as it requests such relief.
The
father also asserts, however, that the trial court has erred
by failing to timely rule on his petition seeking
domestication and enforcement of the Florida custody order.
We interpret the father's assertion as requesting this
court to issue a writ directing the trial court to rule on
his motion to domesticate and enforce the Florida custody
order.
The
mother has filed in this court an answer and a motion to
dismiss the father's petition for the writ of mandamus in
which she asserts that the father's petition is due to be
dismissed because it was untimely filed and because, among
other reasons, the father failed to attach to his petition
any orders issued by the trial court. As discussed above,
however, this court interprets the father's petition, in
part, as requesting this court to direct the trial court to
rule on his motion to domesticate and enforce the Florida
custody order. This court has considered petitions for the
writ of mandamus seeking an order directing that a pending
motion be ruled on when there was no adverse ruling by the
lower court. See, e.g., Ex parte RM Logistics, Inc.,
280 So.3d 439, ___ (Ala.Civ.App. 2019) (directing the Walker
Circuit Court to rule on a motion to dismiss or to transfer
that had been pending for over a year).
With
regard to the mother's assertion that the father's
petition was untimely filed, we note that this court
...