EX PARTE K.W.
v.
K.A.W. In re: A.J.D.
Page 931
(Jefferson
Juvenile Court, CS-06-1957.04 and CS-06-1957.06) THOMPSON,
Presiding Judge.
Austin
Burdick of Burdick Law Firm, Bessemer, for petitioner.
Submitted
of mandamus petition only.
THOMPSON,
Presiding Judge.
K.W.
("the mother")[1] petitions this court for a writ of
mandamus directing the Jefferson Juvenile Court ("the
juvenile court") to vacate the juvenile court's May
17, 2019, order that, among other things, denied the
mother's motion to dismiss filed in case no.
CS-06-1957.06 ("the .06 action") and to enter an
order dismissing that action. Additionally, the mother seeks
mandamus relief directing the juvenile court to vacate any
order or judgment entered after February 1, 2017, in a
related action involving the same parties, case no.
CS-06-1957.04 ("the .04 action"), which the
juvenile court purported to consolidate with the .06 action.
Both the .04 action and the.06 action involve disputes
between the mother and A.J.D. ("the father")
concerning the custody of, specifically the father's
visitation with, their child ("the child"). The
mother asserts that, under the Uniform Child Custody
Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act ("the UCCJEA"),
§ 30-3B-101 et seq., Ala. Code 1975, the juvenile court
lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to entertain the .06
action and to enter any orders in the .04 action after it had
entered a judgment dismissing that action on February 1,
2017[2], from which neither party appealed. On
May 31, 2019, pursuant to Rule 21(b), Ala. R. App. P., this
court called for answers to the petition to be filed, but
none was received from the respondent juvenile-court judge or
from the father. Therefore, in assessing the merits of the
mother's petition, this court will "take the
averments of fact in the ... petition as true." Ex
parte Allison, 238 So.3d 1260, 1262 (Ala.Civ.App.
2017)
Page 932
(citing Ex parte Turner, 840 So.2d 132, 135 (Ala.
2002)).
The
petition and the materials the mother submitted to this court
in support of her petition indicate the following. According
to the petition, the mother and the father never married. The
mother asserts that the father's paternity was
established in 2006 and that he was ordered to pay child
support of $304 each month at that time, but there are no
court orders to that effect in the materials submitted to us.
It appears that the paternity and child-support action in the
juvenile court was designated case no.
CS-06-1957.[3]
In the
petition, the mother asserts that the father served an
"extended period" in prison and that he was
unemployed at the time his child-support obligation was
established. Included in the materials submitted to this
court is a motion in which the mother stated that on
September 16, 2008, the juvenile court entered an order
directing the father to pay $129 each month toward a
child-support arrearage that had accrued. There are no
documents in the materials before us demonstrating that an
action was filed to establish the father's arrearage.
Also, the September 16, 2008, order is not included in the
materials. However, the action resulting in the September 16,
2008, judgment was apparently designated as case no.
CS-06-1957.02.
In 2009
the mother and the child moved to Atlanta, Georgia, where
they still reside. In January 2015, the father filed a
petition in the juvenile court seeking visitation with the
child. That petition was designated as case no. CS-06-1957.03
("the .03 action"). According to the mother, the
petition in the .03 action was dismissed because the father
failed to timely serve the mother.
On June
10, 2016, the father, appearing pro se, filed a second
petition in the juvenile court seeking visitation with the
child. That petition was designated as case no. CS-06-1957.04
("the .04 action"). When that petition was filed,
the father resided in Birmingham and, as mentioned, the
mother and the child were living in Atlanta.
On
November 18, 2016, the mother filed a petition in the
juvenile court for a rule nisi and for modification of the
father's child-support obligation. Although it is not
entirely clear from the materials before us, it appears that
the juvenile court designated the mother's petition as
case no. CS-06-1957.05 ("the .05 action"). In her
petition, the mother alleged that, as of November 4, 2016,
the father's child-support arrearage was $55,052.28.
Furthermore, the mother alleged, the father had obtained
employment since the entry of the 2006 judgment originally
establishing child support. Therefore, she said, a material
change in circumstances had occurred warranting a
modification of his monthly child-support obligation.
On
February 1, 2017, the juvenile court entered the following
judgment, apparently addressing both the .04 action and .05
action:
"The child and mother are both residents of the State of
Georgia, Fulton County, and this court lacks jurisdiction to
hear the ...