In a significant ruling that clarifies jurisdictional limits in dependency cases, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals has determined that juvenile courts lack authority to declare a person dependent once they reach 18 years of age.
The case of In re: M.R.R.-M. highlights critical timing issues that can affect immigrant minors seeking Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS) through Alabama’s dependency courts.
The Case Background
M.I.R.-M., an adult sister, filed a petition on October 29, 2024, seeking to have her younger sister, M.R.R.-M. (born in 2007), declared dependent.
The case presented compelling circumstances: M.R.R.-M.’s mother had died in 2013 and her father in 2018, leaving the Guatemalan-born minor without parents.
After living with siblings in Guatemala who could no longer care for her, M.R.R.-M. traveled to the United States in 2023, where she was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement before being released to a relative and eventually coming into her sister’s care in October 2023.
The Montgomery Juvenile Court ordered an investigation by the Department of Human Resources, and a hearing was held on December 19, 2024, before a referee.
At that hearing, the sister’s attorney specifically requested findings necessary for M.R.R.-M. to qualify for a juvenile visa under federal law.
The Referee’s Findings
On December 27, 2024, while M.R.R.-M. was still 17, the referee made extensive findings and recommendations, including that:
- M.R.R.-M. was dependent under Alabama law due to having no parent, legal guardian, or custodian able to discharge responsibilities for her.
- Her parents’ deaths constituted “parental incapacity” under Alabama law.
- Reunification with parents was impossible due to their deaths.
- It was not in M.R.R.-M.’s best interest to return to Guatemala due to dangerous and impoverished conditions.
- Legal and physical custody should be vested with the sister.
These comprehensive findings addressed every element necessary for both the dependency determination and SIJS eligibility, but would ultimately prove meaningless without timely judicial ratification.
The Critical Timing Issue
The referee’s findings explicitly noted that they did not constitute an order until ratified by a judge within fourteen days.
Recognizing the urgency, the sister filed an “Emergency Motion for Entry of Order” on January 31, 2025, warning that M.R.R.-M. would soon turn 18, after which the juvenile court would lose jurisdiction to make dependency findings.
Despite this warning, M.R.R.-M. turned 18 before the juvenile court acted. When the court finally entered its judgment on February 7, 2025, it ratified most of the referee’s findings but notably excluded the finding that it was not in M.R.R.-M.’s best interest to return to Guatemala – a crucial element for SIJS eligibility.
The Legal Analysis
The Court of Civil Appeals was clear in its analysis. Judge Hanson, writing for the unanimous court, emphasized that Alabama law defines a “dependent child” as someone under 18 years of age.
The court firmly rejected the sister’s creative argument that the juvenile court judge’s ratification could relate back to make the referee’s findings effective as of their original date.
“A person who is 18 years old or older cannot be declared a dependent child,” the court stated, citing clear precedent. The judgment was void from the moment of its entry because M.R.R.-M. was no longer a “child” under Alabama law when the juvenile court acted.
Implications for Immigration Cases
This case has significant implications for immigrant minors seeking SIJS through Alabama’s dependency courts. Federal law requires specific findings from state juvenile courts for SIJS eligibility:
- The minor must be declared dependent due to abuse, abandonment, neglect, or a similar basis.
- Reunification with parents must be unviable.
- Return to the country of origin must not be in the minor’s best interest.
The sister’s postjudgment motion highlighted Alabama precedent requiring juvenile courts to make these specific findings when requested in dependency proceedings involving unmarried resident alien children. However, all of this becomes moot if the minor ages out before the court acts.
Lessons for Practitioners
This case offers several critical lessons for attorneys handling dependency cases with immigration implications:
- Act Early: Given the jurisdictional age limit, dependency petitions for older minors must be filed with sufficient time for all proceedings to conclude before the minor’s 18th birthday.
- Understand the Process: A referee’s recommendations are not self-executing. They require ratification by a judge to become effective, and this additional step takes time.
- Emergency Motions May Not Be Enough: Despite filing an emergency motion highlighting the jurisdictional deadline, the court did not act in time. Practitioners should build in substantial buffer time.
Once a minor turns 18, dependency is no longer an option. Other legal avenues may need to be explored for immigration relief.
The Human Impact
Beyond the legal technicalities, this case represents a missed opportunity for a young woman who had already endured the loss of both parents and separation from her home country.
The narrow window between the referee’s favorable findings and M.R.R.-M.’s 18th birthday illustrates how procedural requirements can have profound real-world consequences.
The case also highlights the intersection between state dependency law and federal immigration law, where timing requirements in one system can effectively bar relief in another.
Moving Forward
The Court of Civil Appeals dismissed the appeal and instructed the juvenile court to vacate its void judgment. For M.R.R.-M., this means exploring other potential paths to legal status that don’t require a dependency finding.
For the Alabama legal community, this case serves as a stark reminder that jurisdictional age limits are absolute. No amount of compelling circumstances or procedural creativity can overcome the fundamental requirement that a person must be under 18 to be declared dependent.
Let Justice Roll, With Baxley Maniscalco
When legal deadlines and age restrictions threaten to derail your case, you need attorneys who understand the urgency and complexity of time-sensitive proceedings. Our experienced family law attorneys here at Baxley Maniscalco recognize that in cases involving minors, every day counts.
Our team has extensive experience navigating the intersection of family law and immigration matters, understanding both the procedural requirements and the human stakes involved.
We work diligently to ensure that critical deadlines are met and that our clients’ rights are protected throughout the legal process.
Whether you’re dealing with dependency proceedings, custody matters with immigration implications, or other time-sensitive family law issues, we provide the focused, urgent attention your case demands.Don’t let procedural deadlines cost you or your loved ones critical legal protections.
Contact Baxley Maniscalco today for immediate consultation about your time-sensitive matter.
Can't find what you're looking for? Search our site below.
