The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals has dismissed a Houston County Juvenile Court’s ruling that declared a child dependent, finding the lower court lacked proper jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA). The decision highlights the complexities of interstate child custody cases and the importance of adhering to the UCCJEA’s provisions.
The case, *T.S. v. Houston County Department of Human Resources*, stemmed from a July 2024 petition filed by the Houston County DHR, seeking to have a child, B.K., declared dependent. DHR’s petition noted the mother, T.S., had a history with the Florida Department of Children and Families (DCF) in Broward County, Florida. It also stated that the mother and child were residing in a Dothan motel when DHR became involved.
Background of the Case
The Houston County Juvenile Court initially assumed “emergency jurisdiction” and appointed a guardian ad litem for the child. The court later contacted a judge in Broward County, Florida, to verify whether any dependency, paternity, child-support, or custody cases involving the child existed there. The Florida judge reportedly confirmed that no such cases were active. Following a trial in February 2025, the juvenile court determined the child to be dependent.
The Appeal and Jurisdictional Issues
The mother appealed the decision, and while neither party initially raised the issue of the court’s jurisdiction, the Court of Civil Appeals raised the issue on its own. The appellate court noted that juvenile courts, as statutorily created courts of limited jurisdiction, require careful scrutiny to ensure subject-matter jurisdiction exists.
The appellate court focused on whether the Houston County Juvenile Court had jurisdiction under the UCCJEA to make an initial child-custody determination. While the lower court initially exercised temporary emergency jurisdiction, the Court of Civil Appeals found that this jurisdiction did not extend to making a final dependency determination.
UCCJEA and Home State Considerations
The UCCJEA prioritizes the “home state” of a child when determining jurisdiction. The court found that Florida appeared to be the child’s home state at the time the dependency proceeding commenced in Alabama, as the mother and child had only been residing in Alabama for approximately one month.
Under Alabama law, a court can only make an initial child custody determination if the state is the child’s home state, or was the home state within six months before the commencement of the proceeding and a parent continues to live in the state. Since Florida was deemed the home state, the Alabama court could only exercise jurisdiction if a Florida court had declined to do so, declaring Alabama the more appropriate forum.
While the Houston County Juvenile Court did communicate with a Florida judge, there was no indication that the Florida court declined jurisdiction in favor of Alabama.
Emergency Jurisdiction Limitations
The appellate court emphasized that temporary emergency jurisdiction under the UCCJEA is intended to protect a child in immediate danger but does not automatically grant a court the power to make a final custody determination.
The shelter-care order issued by the Houston County Juvenile Court did not explicitly state that it was intended to be a final custody determination. Therefore, it could not have “ripened” into a final custody determination under the UCCJEA.
The Dissenting Opinion
Judge Hanson dissented, arguing that the Houston County Juvenile Court did have subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to the UCCJEA. Hanson pointed to the circumstances surrounding DHR’s involvement, including concerns about the mother’s protective capacities and the living conditions of the child and her adult sibling. Hanson argued that the Florida court declined to exercise jurisdiction when the juvenile court contacted them, and that the Alabama court was the more appropriate forum.
The Outcome
Ultimately, the Court of Civil Appeals dismissed the appeal, finding the dependency judgment void due to the lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court clarified that its shelter-care order remains in effect until a Florida court enters a child-custody determination or until the Alabama court amends its order to reflect its intent that the shelter-care order become a final custody determination upon Alabama’s becoming the child’s home state.
This case serves as a crucial reminder of the importance of carefully evaluating jurisdictional issues in child custody cases that cross state lines, particularly concerning the UCCJEA and the concept of a child’s “home state.”