In a case involving child custody and court jurisdiction, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals recently heard an appeal arising from Baldwin County. This case, Ronald Jay Cieutat v. Angela Cates Cieutat, highlights the proper protocol and necessary requirements to raise a valid appeal, providing further clarity on civil procedure through the lens of a child custody dispute.
The father and the mother were divorced in November 2016, in a settlement that provided for joint custody of the couple’s autistic child. In April of 2021, the mother petitioned to modify the visitation schedule. The mother alleged that, due to the child’s severe autism, the child required constant care, and was sensitive to disruptions in routine. The mother testified that the child came home from his father’s visits upset and injured. The father admitted that his home did not have the special accommodations, as the mother accused, but insisted that the home was still safe for visitation. Instead, the father asserted that the child would benefit from more visitation time, rather than less.
Litigation dragged on for 22 months, ending with a ruling granting the mother primary custody. The father was not entirely cut off from his child, however, being granted “parenting time.” The father no longer received overnight visits, and instead was able to visit the child for one day of each weekend. The Court also ordered an evaluation of the father’s home in order to ensure the environment was safe and met the needs of the disabled child. The father challenged the trial court’s modifications to his visitation schedule, leading to this appeal.
In order to reach the heart of the father’s argument, however, the Court had to first review their jurisdiction over the matter. Citing established precedent, the Court clarified that appeals must be rooted in a final judgment. When a judgment is not final, and there is still more for the trial court to do, an appeal cannot be raised. Applying this principle to the case at hand, the Court found that no final judgment had been entered. Instead, the modified visitation was a pendente lite order, and was merely temporary. Pendente lite translates to “waiting for litigation,” indicating the short-lived nature of the order. Until the father’s home had been properly evaluated, his visitation was limited, but the trial court did not intend this as a long-term or final solution. Because additional proceedings were anticipated, the prerequisites to raise an appeal were not met, and the father’s appeal was dismissed.
Ronald Jay Cieutat v. Angela Cates Cieutat illustrates the importance of finality in the law. Although an appeal can be tempting in the face of an unsatisfactory judgment, a case cannot progress to the next step when prior steps remain unsettled. While appealing an unfavorable judgment is tempting, an appeal only becomes viable when the previous judgment is final.
If you have a Federal Criminal case, a State Criminal case, a Municipal Case or a Family Law case, contact Joe Ingram or Ingram Law LLC at 205-335-2640. Get Relief * Get Results.