construing the continuing jurisdiction of juvenile courts as being limited to those situations involving delinquent children, dependent children, or children in need of supervision
How later courts described this case
- construing the continuing jurisdiction of juvenile courts as being limited to those situations involving delinquent children, dependent children, or children in need of supervision
- “The changes in the retention law affect cases like paternity cases, in which issues of custody, visitation, and child support are routinely decided.” (Thompson, P.J., concurring in part and concurring in the result)
- “ ‘[A] juvenile court’s retained jurisdiction [is limited] to cases in which “a child has been adjudicated dependent, delin[q]uent, or in need of supervision.” ’ ”
- Thompson, P.J., concurring in part and concurring in the result
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Superseded by statute, as recognized in F.T.G. v. T.T.R.
63 So. 3d 627, 630 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010), superseded on other grounds by statute, as recognized in Ex parte F.T.G., 199 So. 3d 82, 86
Distinguished
Distinguished by Jw v. Cb, 68 So. 3d 878 (2011)
The paternal grandparents argue that the juvenile court erred by relying on Ex parte T.C., supra, because, they allege, the present case is distinguishable from Ex parte T.C. because there is no indication that the children in Ex parte T.C. had ever been previously adjudicated dependent by the Baldwin Juvenile Court.
The opinion
THOMPSON, P.J.,
concurs in part and concurs in the result, with writing.