A.D.W. v. C.L. (Appeal from Autauga Juvenile Court: JU-21-54.03).

Rel: February 7, 2025

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter.
Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue,
Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections
may be made before the opinion is published in Southern Reporter.

ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
OCTOBER TERM, 2024-2025
_________________________

CL-2023-0776 and CL-2023-0777
_________________________

A.D.W.

v.

C.L.

Appeals from Autauga Juvenile Court
(JU-21-54.01 and JU-21-54.03)

PER CURIAM.

This is the second set of appeals filed by A.D.W. ("the mother") from

a judgment entered by the Autauga Juvenile Court ("the juvenile court")

declaring J.H. ("the child") to be dependent and awarding custody of the

child to C.L. ("the custodian"). We set out the procedural history of the
CL-2023-0776 and CL-2023-0777

dependency actions leading to the juvenile court's initial dependency

judgment -- and the mother's first set of appeals -- in our first opinion,

which we issued on November 4, 2022. See A.D.W.H. v. C.L., 375 So. 3d

1264 (Ala. Civ. App. 2022).1 In A.D.W.H., we reversed a January 28,

2022, judgment entered by the juvenile court that found the child to be

dependent because, we concluded, the juvenile court had failed to hold an

evidentiary hearing on the issue of the child's dependency. 375 So. 3d at

1269 ("As the mother in this case correctly contends, allegations or

evidence concerning a parent's drug use are not sufficient, alone, to form

the basis of a dependency finding. Moreover, the transcript of the

January 25, 2022, dispositional trial not only lacks evidence supporting

the conclusion that the child was dependent, but also lacks any evidence

at all."). After the issuance of our certificate of judgment, the juvenile

court set the custodian's dependency action, which had been assigned

case number JU-21-54.01, and a dependency action commenced by the

child's maternal grandmother, J.M. ("the maternal grandmother"), which

1The record on appeal indicates that the mother and the child's
father, J.A.H., divorced after the mother filed her appeals from the initial
dependency judgment that resulted in our opinion in A.D.W.H.; it
appears that the mother has changed her last name in these subsequent
proceedings to reflect that change.
2
CL-2023-0776 and CL-2023-0777

had been assigned case number JU-21-54.03, for a hearing on the

mother's motion to proceed in compliance with the November 4, 2022,

opinion of this court. Proceedings, including a hearing on June 14, 2023,

continued in both actions, resulting in four orders that awarded pendente

lite custody either solely to the custodian or jointly to the custodian and

the child's father, J.A.H. ("the father").

On October 20, 2023, after the final trial concluded on October 18,

2023, the juvenile court entered in both actions a single order

determining that the child remained dependent, awarding custody of the

child to the custodian, and setting out specified visitation for the mother,

the father, and the maternal grandmother, as well as naming the

maternal grandmother as a visitation supervisor. In that order, the

juvenile court ordered the mother and the father to each submit a child-

support-obligation income statement/affidavit, see Rule 32(E), Ala. R.

Jud. Admin., within 10 days and stated that a separate child-support

order would be entered once those income affidavits were submitted to,

and considered by, the court. The order also stated that, once the child-

support order was entered, the juvenile court intended to close the cases

to further review.

3
CL-2023-0776 and CL-2023-0777

On November 1, 2023, the mother, through her trial counsel, filed

in both actions in the juvenile court what she labeled as a postjudgment

motion. On November 2, 2023, the juvenile court entered an order in

both actions directing the parents to comply with the directive to submit

income affidavits. On that same date, the mother, acting pro se, filed a

notice of appeal to this court in both the custodian's dependency action

and the maternal grandmother's dependency action; those appeals were

assigned appeal numbers CL-2023-0776 and CL-2023-0777, respectively.

The mother also filed her income affidavit with the juvenile court. On

November 3, 2023, the maternal grandmother filed in the juvenile court

what she labeled as a postjudgment motion. On that same date, the

father filed his income affidavit in the juvenile court. The custodian then

filed a motion in the juvenile court seeking to have the maternal

grandmother removed as a named visitation supervisor.

On November 13, 2023, the juvenile court rendered two separate

orders, both of which it entered in both actions. The first was an order

on child support, requiring the mother and the father to pay child support

to the custodian in case number JU-21-54.01 and "clos[ing] [both actions]

to further review." The second order denied the "postjudgment motions"

4
CL-2023-0776 and CL-2023-0777

filed by the mother and the maternal grandmother and the custodian's

motion to remove the maternal grandmother as a named visitation

supervisor. On November 17, 2023, the mother, through newly appointed

appellate counsel, filed a second notice of appeal in each action; those

appeals were assigned appeal numbers CL-2023-0821 and CL-2023-0822,

respectively.

Because the November 13, 2023, order on child support was entered

after the mother had filed her initial notices of appeal, the juvenile court

lacked jurisdiction to enter that order. See Ex parte State ex rel. O.E.G.,

770 So. 2d 1087, 1089 (Ala. 2000) (quoting Foster v. Greer & Sons, Inc.,

446 So. 2d 605, 608 (Ala. 1984)) (explaining that, " 'when an appeal is

taken[,] the trial court may proceed only in matters entirely collateral to

that part of the case which has been taken up by the appeal, but can do

nothing in respect to any matter or question which is involved in the

appeal' "). As a result, appeal numbers CL-2023-0821 and CL-2023-0822

were taken from a void order, see M.G. v. J.T., 105 So. 3d 1232, 1233 (Ala.

Civ. App. 2012), and those appeals were dismissed by separate order on

December 19, 2024.

5
CL-2023-0776 and CL-2023-0777

Moreover, because the failure to address the child-support issue in

the October 20, 2023, order rendered that order nonfinal, appeal numbers

CL-2023-0776 and CL-2023-0777 arose from a nonfinal order and were

also subject to dismissal. See T.H. v. Jefferson Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res.,

100 So. 3d 583, 585 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012) (dismissing an appeal from an

order finding a child to be dependent because the Jefferson Juvenile

Court had postponed ruling on a pending child-support claim). However,

in light of the policy of the Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure that

we construe the rules to "assure the just, speedy, and inexpensive

determination of every appellate proceeding on its merits," Rule 1, Ala.

R. App. P., we reinvested the juvenile court with jurisdiction for 21 days

for that court to reenter the child-support order in case numbers JU-21-

54.01 and JU-21-54.03. In compliance with our limited remand order,

the juvenile court, on December 20, 2024, reentered the child-support

order, and, therefore, the October 20, 2023, order and the December 20,

2024, order amount to a final judgment capable of supporting the

mother's appeals in appeal numbers CL-2023-0776 and CL-2023-0777.

The parties were given the opportunity to file supplemental briefs with

this court pursuant to Rule 28A, Ala. R. App. P., but they declined to do

6
CL-2023-0776 and CL-2023-0777

so. Thus, we turn now to the merits of appeal numbers CL-2023-0776

and CL-2023-0777, which challenge the October 20, 2023, order.

A juvenile court's factual findings in a dependency case when the

evidence has been presented ore tenus are presumed correct. T.D.P. v.

D.D.P., 950 So. 2d 311 (Ala. Civ. App. 2006). A finding of dependency

must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. Ala. Code 1975, §

12-15-310(b). The term "dependent child" is defined in Ala. Code 1975, §

12-15-102(8)a., in pertinent part, as follows:

"A child who has been adjudicated dependent by a juvenile
court and is in need of care or supervision and meets any of
the following circumstances:

"1. Whose parent, legal guardian, legal
custodian, or other custodian subjects the child or
any other child in the household to abuse, as
defined in [Ala. Code 1975, §] 12-15-301[,] or
neglect as defined in [§] 12-15-301, or allows the
child to be so subjected.

"2. Who is without a parent, legal guardian,
or legal custodian willing and able to provide for
the care, support, or education of the child.

"….

"6. Whose parent, legal guardian, legal
custodian, or other custodian is unable or
unwilling to discharge his or her responsibilities to
and for the child.

7
CL-2023-0776 and CL-2023-0777

"….

"8. Who, for any other cause, is in need of the
care and protection of the state."

The following facts were adduced at the June 14, 2023, hearing and

the October 18, 2023, trial. The custodian testified that the child had

lived with her for three to four years. She said that the child had first

begun living with her when the Autauga County Department of Human

Resources ("DHR") had initiated a safety plan after DHR had received a

report that both the mother and the father were using drugs. According

to the custodian, the mother had not provided for the child financially

during the time that the child had lived with her. The custodian

explained that the mother did not have a stable living arrangement and

had recently been residing with the maternal grandmother; she also

testified that the mother and the maternal grandmother had a history of

domestic violence.

The custodian admitted that she did not know if the mother was

employed. She further admitted that she had no proof that the mother

was continuing to abuse drugs, but the mother tested positive for

methamphetamine and amphetamine on court-ordered drug tests that

were administered on June 21, 2023, and October 18, 2023. The

8
CL-2023-0776 and CL-2023-0777

custodian reported that the mother's boyfriend, T.C., had been in jail at

the time of the June 14, 2023, hearing. She also reported that several

criminal charges were pending against the mother and stated that the

mother had been in 10 different jails since April 2023.

When asked why she believed that the child remained dependent,

the custodian said that she did not believe that the mother could parent

the child because, she said, the mother continued to test positive for

drugs, was not financially stable, and lacked stable housing of her own.

She commented: "I just don't think she's ready." The custodian further

observed that the mother appeared to "want[] to be [the child's] best

friend and not be her mother right now."

At the June 14, 2023, hearing, K.A.M., the daughter of the

custodian and the niece of the mother, testified about the family's

relationships. She described the relationship between the maternal

grandmother and the mother as "toxic." She explained that the mother

and the maternal grandmother would fight and that the mother would

then leave the house. She also explained that the maternal grandmother

was "always right" in arguments between her and the mother but that if

a dispute arose between the mother and another person in the family, the

9
CL-2023-0776 and CL-2023-0777

maternal grandmother would side with the mother. The child, who

testified briefly, also testified that the mother and the maternal

grandmother argued "sometimes" and that it was "bad" when the two are

together.

At the October 18, 2023, trial, the maternal grandmother testified

that the mother had been living with her for approximately three months.

She said that the mother did not pay her rent but that the mother

contributed $200 or $300 when she had money to do so. She testified that

the mother had been "doing better" and that they had not had any

disagreements similar to a previous disagreement between them that

had resulted in her having the mother arrested. According to the

maternal grandmother, the mother was employed working on

automobiles with T.C. in a business that they had started; she said that

they both performed mechanical and interior work on automobiles. She

said that neither the mother nor T.C. were licensed mechanics, that they

had not yet obtained a business license, and that their business had no

insurance but did not need it because "it's people that's calling her and

asking her to do the work for them." She explained that the changes in

the mother had been prompted by the mother's criminal charges, her

10
CL-2023-0776 and CL-2023-0777

being on probation, and the threat of prison if she violated the terms of

her probation, all of which, the maternal grandmother said, had "scared

the hell out of her." The maternal grandmother opined that the mother

had "got[ten] her act together" and indicated that the mother could

properly parent the child.

Suzelle Josey, the special advocate appointed by the juvenile court,

testified that she had met with the mother and had spoken with the

custodian by telephone. She said that the mother had told her that she

and T.C. had just started a business, but, she said, the mother had not

provided any details about her income; Josey indicated that, based on

that information, she did not believe that the mother could financially

support the child. Josey also reported that the mother had told her that,

although she had been residing with the maternal grandmother, she and

T.C. had been trying to locate a house to rent; Josey said that the mother

had told her that they had just located a potential rental home but had

not yet secured a lease. According to Josey, those facts indicated to her

that the mother was not yet stable enough to assume her role as the

child's parent and that she needed more time to become "stabilized."

Josey further testified that she had concerns about the mother's potential

11
CL-2023-0776 and CL-2023-0777

for relapse because the mother had not sought professional help the last

time that she had relapsed into drug use. Finally, Josey explained that,

although the mother had indicated that she was unable to pass her drug

tests due to a medical condition or prescribed medication, the mother had

not provided proof of a prescription or any information from her physician

relating to any medical condition that might have impacted her drug-test

results.

The mother admitted that she previously had had a long-term

addiction to Oxycontin. She said that it had taken her 17 years to

overcome that addiction. She testified that, during the period of her

addiction to Oxycontin, she had been a functioning addict. She said that

she had held down a job, had paid her bills, and had provided for her

older children. The mother further testified that she had been drug-free

for two years despite the fact that she admittedly had failed her court-

ordered drug tests.

According to the mother, she had never tested positive on any drug

tests administered by her physician; she said that the drug tests that had

been administered by her physician had produced negative results for

illegal drugs "like always." Although the mother attempted to introduce

12
CL-2023-0776 and CL-2023-0777

as evidence medical records to demonstrate that she suffered from a

medical condition and took medication that would prevent her from

testing negative on urine drug screens, those medical records were not

admitted. The mother testified that she was "on the verge of cirrhosis of

the liver" and that she suffered from kidney dysfunction. She did not

provide the names of the medications that she had been prescribed or

was currently taking.

The mother testified that she and T.C. had started a business and

that they also "do" work for a roofing business owned by T.C. and his

father. She reported that her monthly income was $3,200. She admitted

that she had not paid child support to the custodian because, she said,

when she had asked about the child's needs, the custodian had told her

that she "had it covered." She said, however, that she had provided the

child with some clothing and items related to the child's cheerleading

activities. She also said that, until she had let her lease go, she had been

paying $1,500 per month for rent on an apartment; she testified that she

also had required money to hire an attorney to represent her on her

various criminal charges and to pay restitution in some of those criminal

cases.

13
CL-2023-0776 and CL-2023-0777

The mother admitted that T.C. had been in jail. She testified that

she had secured a business license for their business and that insurance

on that business was "in the works." The mother indicated that the

business had customers, stating: "I have five businesses that I have, you

know, routed [sic] to work with me. I have a truck company next week

that I have to paint. ... I've got contracts coming in now. ... I have quotes

I have to send out to people tonight."

Regarding her criminal charges, the mother acknowledged that she

had charges pending in at least six counties and that she had recently

resolved charges that had been pending in Elmore County and in

Autauga County. The mother testified that most of the charges stemmed

from her having issued fraudulent checks; she stated that she had issued

the fraudulent checks as a result of a "scam that I fell for." She testified

that she had received probation in Autauga County, and the record

contains a copy of the mother's sentencing documents from her Elmore

County case. Those documents reflect that the mother was adjudged to

be guilty of two counts of possession of a forged instrument, that she was

sentenced to serve 24 months in the state penitentiary, that her sentence

14
CL-2023-0776 and CL-2023-0777

was suspended, and that she was required to complete 18 months of

probation.

The mother testified that she had been living with the maternal

grandmother but that she and T.C. had found a house to rent. She

indicated that she was prepared to move into the house the day following

the trial. She further testified that she had recently had her driver's

license reinstated and that she could provide for the child. She also said

that she did not want to disrupt the child's life and that, even if the child's

custody were returned to her, she intended to allow the child to continue

to attend her current school, despite the fact that the mother's intended

home was not in the same county, much less the same school district, as

the child's current school.

The mother argues on appeal that the evidence does not support the

juvenile court's conclusion that the child is dependent. Specifically, she

contends that the custodian failed to establish that the mother's drug use

impacted her ability to parent the child. After a review of the record, we

affirm the judgment of the juvenile court.

The mother is correct that this court requires that a party

petitioning to have a child declared dependent based on the drug use of a

15
CL-2023-0776 and CL-2023-0777

parent present clear and convincing evidence that the parent's drug use

impacted his or her ability to parent. See A.V. v. Houston Cnty. Dep't of

Hum. Res., 353 So. 3d 1140, 1145 (Ala. Civ. App. 2021) (reversing a

judgment declaring a child to be dependent because the record contained

"no evidence indicating that drug use by the father had adversely affected

the father's ability to care for the child"); H.A.S. v. S.F., 298 So. 3d 1092,

1103 (Ala. Civ. App. 2019) (concluding that evidence indicating that a

mother had used marijuana was not clear and convincing evidence

sufficient to support the conclusion that her child was dependent in her

custody based on the mother's drug use when "no evidence in the record

indicated that the mother's drug use had actually impacted her ability to

rear [her] child"). The record in the present cases demonstrates that the

mother's continued drug use, coupled with her instability, the history of

volatility between her and the maternal grandmother, and her felony

convictions and numerous unresolved criminal charges, have impacted

her ability to parent the child. The mother and the maternal

grandmother, with whom the mother had frequently resided and was

residing at the time of the October 18, 2023, trial, have what was

described by K.A.M. as a toxic relationship. Although she testified that

16
CL-2023-0776 and CL-2023-0777

the mother's behavior had improved once she realized that she might be

at risk of incarceration, the maternal grandmother herself admitted that

she and the mother had a history of volatility, even to the point of the

mother's being arrested after an altercation between them. The mother

has incurred numerous criminal charges in multiple counties and has

been convicted of at least two felonies. Although the mother was on

probation, she had continued to test positive for drugs when tested by the

juvenile court, which could result in a revocation of her probation. As of

October 18, 2023, the mother had not secured her own housing, having

instead resided with the maternal grandmother without paying rent,

despite having testified that her income exceeded $3,000 per month. In

light of her failure to provide monetary support to the custodian or to pay

the maternal grandmother rent or other regular amounts for her lodging,

the juvenile court was not required to believe the mother's testimony that

she earned ample income to support the child.

A juvenile court may consider the totality of the circumstances

when making a determination regarding the dependency of a child. T.D.

v. S.R., 293 So. 3d 434, 436 (Ala. Civ. App. 2019); G.C. v. G.D., 712 So. 2d

1091, 1094 (Ala. Civ. App. 1997). The totality of the mother's

17
CL-2023-0776 and CL-2023-0777

circumstances indicate that she is still using drugs, has an unstable

lifestyle, does not have stable income, is a convicted felon, and faces

several additional criminal charges. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment

of the juvenile court determining that the child is a dependent child. 2

CL-2023-0776 -- AFFIRMED.

CL-2023-0777 -- AFFIRMED.

All the judges concur.

2The mother has not made any argument in her appellate brief
relating to the award of custody of the child to the custodian and has
therefore waived any argument that the child's best interest is not
promoted by an award of her custody to the custodian. See A.B. v.
Montgomery Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 370 So. 3d 822, 829 (Ala. Civ. App.
2022); see also L.C. v. Jefferson Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 330 So. 3d 849,
857 (Ala. Civ. App. 2021) ("It is well settled that arguments not raised in
an appellate brief are deemed waived."). The mother also does not make
any argument relating to the child-support award, and, therefore, any
such issue is deemed to have been waived. See A.B., 370 So. 3d at 829;
see also L.C., 330 So. 3d at 857.
18