Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 6, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

T.H. and R.H. v. D.C.C. and Re.H.

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: CL-2025-0803

• Judges: Moore, P.J.

• Opinion

• Authorities (28)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (13.7K)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

                        by [Terry A. Moore](https://www.courtlistener.com/person/6123/terry-a-moore/)

Rel: March 6, 2026

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, 2025-2026

---

CL-2025-0784

---

Re.H.

v.

D.C.C., T.H., and R.H.

---

CL-2025-0803

---

T.H. and R.H.

v.

D.C.C. and Re.H.

Appeals from Walker Juvenile Court
(JU-22-203.01)
CL-2025-0784 and CL-2025-0803

MOORE, Presiding Judge.

On August 4, 2025, the Walker Juvenile Court ("the juvenile court")

entered a final judgment in a juvenile proceeding relating to W.H. ("the

child"). Re.H. ("the mother") and T.H. and R.H. ("the maternal

grandparents") appealed that judgment, and this court consolidated their

appeals. D.C.C. ("the father") has been designated as an appellee in both

appeals. We reverse the judgment and remand the case with

instructions.

Procedural Background

The underlying case was commenced when, on July 1, 2022, the

maternal grandparents filed in the juvenile court a petition seeking

custody of the child based on his alleged dependency. After filing an

answer to the petition, the father moved the juvenile court to consolidate

the dependency proceeding with an earlier case bearing case number CS-

20-900027; the maternal grandparents indicated that they had no

objection to the consolidation of the cases. The record does not contain

the pleadings from that case, but the parties and the trial court described

the case as a paternity action that had been commenced by the father on

July 14, 2020, and had been dismissed in 2022 before the maternal

2
CL-2025-0784 and CL-2025-0803

grandparents' dependency petition was filed.1 In the paternity action,

the father requested, among other things, that the juvenile court change

the surname of the child. The juvenile court did not formally rule on the

motion to consolidate before the trial. On June 9, 2025, the juvenile court

conducted a bench trial, at which it heard oral testimony from the parties

and interviewed the child in chambers. During the trial, the juvenile

court indicated that it might adjudicate all the claims relating to the

child, including those raised earlier in the dismissed paternity action. No

party objected.

In the final judgment entered on August 4, 2025, the juvenile court

adjudicated the father to be the legal and biological father of the child.

The juvenile court changed the surname of the child to the father's

surname. The judgment then provides, in pertinent part:

"3. Based upon the stipulation to dependency by [the
mother] as well as the evidence presented, the [c]ourt finds
that the mother is currently unable or unwilling to discharge
her duties as a parent in accordance with the laws of the State
of Alabama.

"4. In regards to [the father], the [c]ourt finds that the
father is able and willing to discharge his duties as parent;

1Although the paternity action had been dismissed, the father
requested that the juvenile court "reopen" it and consolidate it with the
dependency proceeding.
3
CL-2025-0784 and CL-2025-0803

therefore, [the child] is not dependent as defined by the laws
of the State of Alabama.

"5. The care, custody and control of [the child] is
awarded to [the father]."

The juvenile court awarded the mother supervised visitation with the

child and ordered the maternal grandparents to be present during that

visitation.

On August 18, 2025, the maternal grandparents filed a

postjudgment motion to alter, amend, or vacate the judgment. On the

same day, the mother also filed a similar postjudgment motion. In her

postjudgment motion, the mother requested a hearing. The juvenile

court did not conduct a hearing or rule on those postjudgment motions,

and they were denied by operation of law on September 2, 2025. See Rule

1(B), Ala. R. Juv. P.2 The mother and the maternal grandparents timely

appealed.

2Rule 1(B), Ala. R. Juv. P., provides that a postjudgment motion

that is not ruled on by the juvenile court within 14 days is deemed denied
at the expiration of the 14-day period. The 14th day following the filing
of the postjudgment motions on August 18, 2025, was Monday,
September 1, 2025, which was Labor Day. See Rule 6, Ala. R. Civ. P.
Therefore, the postjudgment motions were deemed denied on Tuesday,
September 2, 2025. See First Alabama Bank v. McGowan, 758 So. 2d
1116 (Ala. Civ. App. 2000), and Richburg v. Cromwell, 428 So. 2d 621
4
CL-2025-0784 and CL-2025-0803

Issues

The mother argues (1) that the juvenile court did not acquire

subject-matter jurisdiction over the dependency proceeding, (2) that the

juvenile court erred in adjudicating the child to be a dependent child, and

(3) that the juvenile court erred in failing to hold a hearing on her

postjudgment motion. The maternal grandparents argue (1) that the

juvenile court erred in determining that the child was not dependent, (2)

that the juvenile court erred in awarding the father custody of the child,

and (3) that the juvenile court erred in changing the surname of the child.

Analysis

A. Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

The mother first argues that the petition filed by the maternal

grandparents did not invoke the dependency jurisdiction of the juvenile

court. In the petition, the maternal grandparents alleged, among other

things, that the child had resided with them his entire life and that

"[t]he presumption in favor of parental custody is and will be
in this case rebutted by the evidence of the [mother's and the
father]'s unwillingness and/or inability to provide for the
needs of the child, including financially, as well as from a
nurturing/childrearing perspective, and the utter lack of

(Ala. 1983); see also Williamson v. Fourth Ave. Supermarket, Inc., 12 So.
3d 1200, 1203-04 (Ala. 2009).
5
CL-2025-0784 and CL-2025-0803

interest in the activities and wellbeing of the child for the
years preceding the filing of the similar Petition in the Circuit
Court of Walker County."

The juvenile court construed the petition as a dependency petition and

assumed jurisdiction pursuant to Ala. Code 1975, § 12-15-114(a)

(providing, in pertinent part, that "[a] juvenile court shall exercise

exclusive original jurisdiction of juvenile court proceedings in which a

child is alleged ... to be dependent").

The mother argues that the petition should have been dismissed

because it did not contain an allegation that the child was a dependent

child. The petition does not contain the word "dependency" or refer to the

child as a "dependent child," but such exacting language is not required.

"Under § 12-15-121(c)(1), Ala. Code 1975, and Rule
12(A), Ala. R. Juv. P., a party alleges the dependency of a child
when the party sets forth facts in a complaint or a petition
that indicate that the child is in need of care or supervision
based on the existence of one or more of the circumstances set
forth in § 12-15-102(8), Ala. Code 1975. In Ex parte L.E.O.,
61 So. 3d 1042 (Ala. 2010), our supreme court determined that
an allegation that a child is 'in need of care or supervision' is
implied in a complaint or a petition that asserts facts
suggesting the dependency of a child. 61 So. 3d at 1047 n.4
(citing J.W. v. N.K.M., 999 So. 2d 526 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008)).
This court has consistently held that a complaint or a petition
alleges the dependency of a child, so as to fall within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the juvenile courts, when it avers
facts that, if proven to be true, would establish the
dependency of the child under § 12-15-102(8), regardless of

6
CL-2025-0784 and CL-2025-0803

the particular language pleaded. See, e.g., C.E. v. M.G., 169
So. 3d 1061, 1064 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015); T.K. v. M.G., 82 So.
3d 1, 3 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011); P.S.R. v. C.L.P., 67 So. 3d 917,
921 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011); B.R.G. v. G.L.M., 57 So. 3d 137 (Ala.
Civ. App. 2010); M.B. v. R.P., 3 So. 3d 237 (Ala. Civ. App.
2008); W.T.H. v. M.M.M., 915 So. 2d 64 (Ala. Civ. App. 2005);
and L.L.M. v. S.F., 919 So. 2d 307 (Ala. Civ. App. 2005). This
court recently summarized the law on this point as follows: 'In
deciding whether a pleading alleges the dependency of a child,
so as to invoke the exclusive jurisdiction of a juvenile court,
the court shall look to the substance of the pleading and not
to the nomenclature employed by the pleader.' A.M. v. A.K.,
321 So. 3d 1278, 1281 (Ala. Civ. App. 2020)."

R.J. v. J.N.M.W., 339 So. 3d 935, 937-38 (Ala. Civ. App. 2021) (footnote

omitted).

Section 12-15-102(8)a., Ala. Code 1975, in pertinent part, defines

"dependent child" to include a child who

"is in need of care or supervision and meets any of the
following circumstances:

"….

"5. Whose parent, legal guardian, legal
custodian, or other custodian has abandoned 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-2025-0784 and CL-2025-0803

In their petition, the maternal grandparents alleged, in substance, that

the child needed their care or supervision because the mother and the

father were not willing and able to discharge their responsibilities to and

for the child and because the mother and the father had abandoned the

child. Thus, the petition properly invoked the dependency jurisdiction of

the juvenile court.

B. The Dependency Determination

The mother next argues that the juvenile court erred in finding the

child to be a dependent child because, she says, he was not "in need of

care or supervision," within the meaning of § 12-15-102(8)(a). We do not

address this argument, however, because the juvenile court did not find

the child to be dependent. The juvenile court did find that the mother

was not able or willing to discharge her parental responsibilities to and

for the child, but, in the very next sentence, the juvenile court determined

that, because the father was able and willing to discharge his parental

responsibilities to and for the child, "[the child] is not dependent as

defined by the laws of the State of Alabama."

"In interpreting the substance of the [judgment], we
must examine the language used in that [judgment].
'Judgments and decrees are to be construed like other written
instruments. Schwab v. Schwab, 255 Ala. 218, 50 So. 2d 435

8
CL-2025-0784 and CL-2025-0803

[(1951)]; Johnson v. Harrison, 272 Ala. 210, 130 So. 2d 35
[(1961)]. The legal effect must be declared in the light of the
literal meaning of the language used.' Wise v. Watson, 286
Ala. 22, 27, 236 So. 2d 681, 686 (1970)."

Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co. v. Karr, 306 So. 3d 882, 888 (Ala. 2020). The

judgment literally states that the child is not a dependent child under

Alabama law.

We recognize that the juvenile court disposed of the custody of the

child, which appears inconsistent with a determination that a child is not

dependent. See C.C. v. B.L., 142 So. 3d 1126, 1129 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013)

(holding that, upon a finding that a child is not dependent, the

dependency jurisdiction of the juvenile court terminates and the juvenile

court may not dispose of the custody of the child). However, during the

trial, the father stated that he wanted the juvenile court to determine his

paternity of the child and to award him full custody of the child. The

juvenile court indicated that it was considering adjudicating the claims

from the father's 2020 paternity action along with the claims in the

dependency petition. The mother and the maternal grandparents did not

object to the juvenile court's including the claims from the paternity

action in the dependency proceeding. Pursuant to Rule 15(b), Ala. R. Civ.

P., the pleadings in the dependency proceeding were amended to

9
CL-2025-0784 and CL-2025-0803

encompass the father's paternity and custody claims; those claims fell

within the juvenile court's parentage jurisdiction. See Ala. Code 1975, §

12-15-115(a)(6) (granting juvenile courts original jurisdiction over

"[p]roceedings to establish parentage of a child pursuant to the Alabama

Uniform Parentage Act, Chapter 17 of Title 26") and § 26-17-636(g)

(granting courts deciding the parentage of a child the power to determine

custody matters relating to the child). When the juvenile court

adjudicated the paternity of the child and awarded the father custody of

the child, it was acting pursuant to its parentage jurisdiction, not its

dependency jurisdiction. Thus, the judgment is not internally

inconsistent.

We do conclude, however, that the juvenile court erred in failing to

find that the child was dependent. In the judgment, the juvenile court

reasoned that the child was not dependent because the father was able

and willing to assume proper care and custody of the child. However,

"[a]s a matter of Alabama law, a child can be deemed dependent even

when one parent is fit, willing, and able to care for the child." J.L. v.

D.G.H., 402 So. 3d 261, 264 (Ala. Civ. App. 2024); see also M.C.A. v.

Etowah Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 397 So. 3d 962, 968 (Ala. Civ. App.

10
CL-2025-0784 and CL-2025-0803

2024). When the sole custodial parent is not providing adequate care or

supervision of his or her child because he or she is unable or unwilling to

do so, the child is a dependent child even if the noncustodial parent can

properly parent the child. See G.H. v. Cleburne Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res.,

62 So. 3d 540, 545 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010).3

At the time of the trial, the mother was the sole custodial parent of

the child, who had been born out of wedlock. See Ex parte D.J., 645 So.

2d 303, 307 (Ala. 1994). The juvenile court found that the mother was

not able or willing to properly care for the child; that finding was fully

supported by the evidence. After the child was born, the mother briefly

resided with the child in the maternal grandparents' home before she

developed a drug and alcohol addiction. The mother left the child with

the maternal grandparents in 2020, and she visited the child over the

ensuing five or more years only when she was not intoxicated. During

3The mother argues that the line of cases applying the one-parent

doctrine, see J.L. v. D.G.H., 402 So. 3d at 267 (Moore, J., concurring
specially), is unconstitutional and that they should be overruled;
however, the mother did not preserve that issue for appellate review
because she did not raise it in the juvenile court. See J.M.L. v. Tuscaloosa
Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 402 So. 3d 832, 834 (Ala. Civ. App. 2024).
Nevertheless, nothing in our opinion should be construed as preventing
the mother from raising the issue on remand.
11
CL-2025-0784 and CL-2025-0803

that period, the mother, who suffers from various mental-health

problems, was arrested numerous times for violent and drug-related

crimes. At the time of the trial, the mother was on conditional release

from a local jail and was undergoing drug rehabilitation, attending

parenting classes, and receiving mental-health treatment while residing

in a halfway house. The mother testified that she was employed, that

she was contributing to the support of the child, and that she had not

used any illegal substances in 15 months, but, she said, she did not expect

to complete her parenting classes until 12 weeks after the trial. The

mother admitted that she was not seeking custody of the child, and she

conceded that, despite her progress, she was not at that time physically

able to meet the needs of the child.

The record contains no evidence indicating that the mother had

been providing the child with adequate care and supervision or that she

was currently able and willing to do so. In Ex parte L.E.O., 61 So. 3d

1042 (Ala. 2010), the supreme court held that a judgment finding that a

child is not dependent may be reversed if it is plainly and palpably wrong.

In this case, the juvenile court clearly misapplied the law to the

undisputed facts to reach an incorrect legal conclusion. Thus, the

12
CL-2025-0784 and CL-2025-0803

judgment must be reversed and the case remanded to the juvenile court

for correction of that legal error.4 On remand, the juvenile court should

amend the judgment to find that the child is dependent.

C. The Custody Determination

We also reverse the judgment insofar as it awards custody of the

child to the father instead of to the maternal grandparents. When a child

is dependent, the juvenile court must dispose of the custody of the child

pursuant to Ala. Code 1975, § 12-15-314. See Marshall Cnty. Dep't of

Hum. Res. v. J.V., 203 So. 3d 1243, 1248 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016). As noted

above, the juvenile court found that the child was not dependent, so it did

not rely on its dependency jurisdiction when it determined the custody of

the child; it decided custody solely under its parentage jurisdiction.

When deciding the custody of a child in a parentage case, the trial court

applies the best-interests-of-the-child standard, see D.D. v. E.E.B., 707

So. 2d 247 (Ala. Civ. App. 1997), in which "[a] natural parent has a prima

facie right to the custody of his or her child." Ex parte McLendon, 455

So. 2d 863, 865 (Ala. 1984). However, "[i]n the dispositional phase of a

4Based on this disposition, we pretermit discussion of any other
argument for reversal of the dependency determination.
13
CL-2025-0784 and CL-2025-0803

dependency proceeding, ... the father of a child does not have any

presumptive right to custody of his child as against more distant

relatives." D.W. v. M.M., 272 So. 3d 1107, 1112 (Ala. Civ. App. 2018). On

remand, the juvenile court should reconsider its custody award based on

the proper standard.5

D. The Name Change

Section 26-17-636(e), Ala. Code 1975, provides: "On request of a

party and for good cause shown, the court may order that the name of the

child be changed." "Alabama, as a common-law state, recognizes the rule

that a child born out of wedlock shall bear the surname of the mother.

Thus, the mother had an interest in preserving the surname of the child,

which interest was entitled to protection." C.M.Ca. ex rel. L.Ca and C.Ca.

v. J.L.Cr. ex rel. M.Cr. and B.Cr., 245 So. 3d 622, 625 (Ala. Civ. App.

2017).

"[U]nder Alabama law a court adjudicating paternity may
change the name of the child only if it is in the best interests
of the child.

"….

5Nothing in this opinion should be construed as requiring the
juvenile court to award custody of the child to the maternal grandparents
or to deny the father custody of the child.
14
CL-2025-0784 and CL-2025-0803

"... [A]s we read [Ala. Code 1975,] § 26-17-636(e), a
parent petitioning to change the name of the child must
present evidence showing that the change would benefit the
child in some positive manner. ... A court may not change the
name of a child on the ground that the change would not cause
the child any particular detriment. That standard would
essentially place the burden on the nonmoving parent to prove
that the requested name change would harm the child instead
of placing the burden on the petitioning parent to prove that
the name change will benefit the child, as § 26-17-636(e)
contemplates."

J.M.V. v. J.K.H., 149 So. 3d 1100, 1105 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014). It is

reversible error for a trial court to change the surname of a child without

proof that the change will promote the best interests of the child. See

J.L.W. v. C.J.P., 403 So. 3d 194, 203 (Ala. Civ. App. 2024); K.G. v. M.E.,

355 So. 3d 344, 348 (Ala. Civ. App. 2021).

In this case, the father testified that he wanted to change the name

of the child because he believed that the child should have his last name.

However, the father did not explain how the name change would

positively benefit the child, who had been known as W.H. since his birth

in 2019. The record does not contain sufficient evidence to support the

decision to change the child's surname. We conclude that the maternal

grandparents do not have standing to appeal that part of the judgment

changing the name of the child, see Patrick v. Boyd, 198 So. 3d 436, 438

15
CL-2025-0784 and CL-2025-0803

(Miss. Ct. App. 2016), but the mother does. See C.M.Ca., supra. In her

postjudgment motion, the mother argued that the provision changing the

surname of the child should be vacated due to the absence of a showing

that it served the best interests of the child. The mother requested a

hearing on her motion, which was denied by operation of law. The

juvenile court committed reversible error in denying the postjudgment

without a hearing because it was probably meritorious. See A.J. v. E.W.,

167 So. 3d 362, 368 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014). Thus, we reverse the judgment

and remand the case for the juvenile court to hold a hearing on that

aspect of the mother's postjudgment motion.6

6The mother also argues that the juvenile court should conduct a

hearing on the remainder of her postjudgment motion; however, we have
determined that the evidence supports the finding that the mother was
unable and unwilling to discharge her parental responsibilities to and for
the child, which finding she challenged in her postjudgment motion.
Thus, the denial of a hearing on that aspect of her motion is harmless
error. See Greene v. Thompson, 554 So. 2d 376, 381 (Ala. 1989). The
other points raised by the mother in her postjudgment motion have been
obviated by our reversal of the judgment. However, nothing in our
opinion should be construed as precluding the mother from filing another
postjudgment motion upon the amendment of the judgment. See Ex
parte Dowling, 477 So. 2d 400, 404 (Ala. 1985).
16
CL-2025-0784 and CL-2025-0803

Conclusion

We conclude that the juvenile court properly assumed jurisdiction

over the underlying case and that it entered a valid judgment; however,

the juvenile court erred in failing to adjudicate the child to be a

dependent child, in failing to dispose of the custody of the child pursuant

to § 12-15-314, and in failing to conduct a hearing on the mother's

postjudgment motion asserting that it erred in changing the surname of

the child. We, therefore, reverse the judgment and instruct the juvenile

court to conduct such further proceedings as are necessary to comply with

this opinion.

CL-2025-0784 -- REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH

INSTRUCTIONS.

CL-2025-0803 -- REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH

INSTRUCTIONS.

Edwards, Hanson, Fridy, and Bowden, JJ., concur.

17