A.M. v. Houston County Department of Human Resources

Rel: September 25, 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 SPECIAL TERM, 2026 _________________________ CL-2026-0351 _________________________ A.M. v. Houston County Department of Human Resources Appeal from Houston Juvenile Court (JU-25-172.01) EDWARDS, Judge. In October 2024, the Houston County Department of Human Resources ("DHR") received a report relating to A.M. ("the mother"). During DHR's investigation, E.M. ("the child") reported that the mother had slapped her. Although DHR did not find the mother indicated for child abuse based on that allegation, the mother and DHR entered into a safety plan under which the child was placed in the care of C.L. ("the CL-2026-0351 maternal grandmother") and R.L. ("the maternal stepgrandfather"). In May 2025, DHR filed in the Houston Juvenile Court ("the juvenile court") a dependency petition regarding the child, in which DHR alleged that the mother suffered from mental-health issues that impacted her ability to care for the child. The maternal grandmother and the maternal stepgrandfather moved to intervene in the dependency action; the juvenile court granted their motion. In June 2025, based on an agreement between all parties, the juvenile court awarded pendente lite custody of the child to the maternal grandmother and the maternal stepgrandfather. In April 2026, after an adjudicatory trial, the juvenile court entered a judgment declaring the child to be dependent and awarding her custody to the maternal grandmother and the maternal stepgrandfather. After her postjudgment motion was denied, the mother appealed that judgment to this court. In her notice of appeal, the mother named only DHR as an appellee. See Rule 3(c), Ala. R. App. P. (providing that "[t]he notice of appeal shall specify all parties taking the appeal and each adverse party against whom the appeal is taken"). She did not name as appellees the maternal 2 CL-2026-0351 grandmother and the maternal stepgrandfather, who were made plaintiffs through the granting of their motion to intervene and were awarded custody of the child. She also failed to list the maternal grandmother and the maternal stepgrandfather as persons to be served with the notice of appeal, and the maternal grandmother and the maternal stepgrandfather have not participated in the appeal in any manner. The mother's failure to perfect an appeal from the judgment, insofar as it relates to declaring the child dependent and awarding the maternal grandmother and the maternal stepgrandfather custody, is fatal to the mother's appeal. The maternal grandmother and maternal stepgrandfather, through intervention, became parties to the action. Ex parte Howell, 447 So. 2d 661, 664 (Ala. 1984) (quoting 7A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1901 (1st ed. 1972)) ("Intervention is a method by which 'an outsider with an interest in a lawsuit may come in as a party' on his own application."). Insofar as the judgment declared the child dependent and awarded the maternal grandmother and the maternal stepgrandfather custody of the child, the judgment cannot be affected by the outcome of the mother's 3 CL-2026-0351 appeal relating to DHR's dependency petition. See Alabama Plating Tech., LLC v. Georgia Plating Tech., LLC, 411 So. 3d 335, 347 n.5 (Ala. 2024) (declining to consider an argument relating to a judgment entered in favor of a defendant that had not been named by the appellant in the notice of appeal or by another party in its notice of cross-appeal); Parrish v. Ratliff, 426 So. 3d 450, 451 n.1 (Ala. Civ. App. 2024) (stating that, because the appellant had not named certain defendants in the notice of appeal, this court would "not decide any issue with respect" to the judgment insofar as it related to those defendants). Moreover, under the circumstances of this appeal, a reversal of the judgment, insofar as it relates to the granting of DHR's dependency petition, would not provide the mother any effective relief, which renders the mother's appeal moot. See B.P. ex rel. E.B.P. v. Oneonta City Bd. of Educ., 375 So. 3d 1255, 1259 (Ala. Civ. App. 2022) (dismissing an appeal as moot and stating that, "even if we were to reverse the judgment … as the [appellant] requests, the reversal would not afford the [appellant] any effective relief"). " ' " ' " 'The test for mootness is commonly stated as whether the court's action on the merits would affect the rights of the parties.' Crawford v. State, 153 S.W.3d 497, 501 (Tex. App. 2004) (citing VE Corp. v. 4 CL-2026-0351 Ernst & Young, 860 S.W.2d 83, 84 (Tex. 1993)). 'A case becomes moot if at any stage there ceases to be an actual controversy between the parties.' Id. (emphasis added) (citing National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Jones, 1 S.W.3d 83, 86 (Tex. 1999))." " ' " 'Chapman v. Gooden, 974 So. 2d 972, 983 (Ala. 2007) (first emphasis added). See also Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 459 n.10, 94 S. Ct. 1209, 39 L. Ed. 2d 505 (1974) (" [A]n actual controversy must be extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed.").' " ' "South Alabama Gas Dist. v. Knight, 138 So. 3d 971, 974-75 (Ala. 2013). " ' " ' "[A]n appeal will be dismissed as moot 'if an event happening after hearing and decree in circuit court, but before appeal is taken, or pending appeal, makes determination of the appeal unnecessary or renders it clearly impossible for the appellate court to grant effectual relief.' " Masonry Arts, [Inc. v. Mobile Cnty. Comm'n,] 628 So. 2d [334] at 335 [(Ala. 1993)], quoting Morrison v. Mullins, 275 Ala. 258, 259, 154 So. 2d 16, 18 (1963).' " ' "Estate of Mollett v. M & B Builders, L.L.C., 749 So. 2d 466, 469 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999)." ' " C.F.D. v. J.P., 359 So. 3d 1134, 1137 (Ala. Civ. App. 2022) (quoting C.J. v. T.J., 225 So. 3d 115, 117 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016), quoting in turn Davis 5 CL-2026-0351 v. Davis, 221 So. 3d 474, 480 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016)) (third and fourth emphasis added). Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the mother's appeal is moot and must be dismissed. APPEAL DISMISSED. Moore, P.J., and Hanson, Fridy, and Bowden, JJ., concur. 6